Ogrovos are overpowered.

Tec is very spammable race, and generaly game developed in spamm direction, when devs listened to the mob and nerfed all high-macro , high resources , high skill croud control tactiks.

It was a stupid move sice engine cant handle 8x lv 5+ fleets.

Tec is also best race, so its time to  return the balance.

The solution for ogrovos is simple. increse their tactical cost x2.

While I agree with Qu4r that TEC is overpowered currently, I don't think the Ogrov is near the top of the list, and doubling its command point cost would toss it into the "useless" category.  At very most I'd be looking at something like a speed decrease or a 15% cost increase.

If you want to deal with TEC supremacy, look at nerfing their fast trade openers and their supreme LRM.  Beyond that, TEC isn't unreasonable at all.  I'd go so far as to say they're actually still weak in the late-game, even with the Novalith buff.  Remember that much of TEC's current late-game strength is that they get an early economic boost that lets them get ahead and stay ahead economically.  Nerf their early-game, and their mid-late game will get weaker by extension. 

Or, you could reduce advent starfish requirements, perhaps make them be able to fire behind them so that they can kite and kill a vasari SB so they could actually be useful...

The game implimented building destruction units, yet for the longest time no one used theirs except for vasari.  The advent don't use them because they suck!  Any wonder as to why advent vs. vasari is an uphill battle for the advent?

Vasari get a SB to kill buildings, which doesn't take up ANY supply and doesn't cost that much considering what you get for you buck.  Ogrovs truly allow the TEC to be everywhere at once, and proper use of them actually allow for some very fun strategy.  Considering the late game vasari defensive strength, its a fair trade off. 

Vasari SB's need to have actual counters, and if you think they are dying fast then maybe you will have to build more than just health upgrades to keep your star base alive, like the rest of the races already do.  More neutrals would be nice, for all races.

I find that having more neutrals placed in between players allows for more intense games since you will always have satellite battles that are very important, while at the same time preventing the vasari from becoming too overpowered.  Having more advantageous capture points on random maps would be a great boon to the game, as it would make the random universe seem more alive.

Although I have little MP experience, wouldn't it be easy enough to have a small scout fleet to counter Ogrovs? Scouts are cheap, fast, build quickly, and do significant amounts of damage to light armor. By the time the Ogrovs have had enough time to destroy a structure (usually takes 11+ salvos - 450 damage every 20 seconds), you'll probably have destroyed or almost killed at least one Ogrov (assuming they start at full health, which shouldn't be all that likely) - and the structure kills : Ogrov deaths ratio only increases after that. A single hangar defense with fighters could also help out a great deal.

If you're against TEC and think they might use this strategy, if you're aware of the possibility and take appropriate precautions, it shouldn't be much of a danger at all. And if they build enough Ogrovs (4+?) such that a small scout fleet is insufficient to counter, they're sacrificing a significant chunk of their command points, and their fleet suffers significantly.

Everything is better than hangars.

I was thinking to use a hangar (only one, supplemented by scouts) because it's equivalent to 8 scouts in terms of firepower and doesn't take up precious supply points. It also costs significantly more resources and significantly less credits, though, and can't follow if the Ogrovs phase jump.

Of course, this assumes that you can get it up early enough for it to regenerate antimatter and fill out its strikecraft capacity.

Only if you're actively micromanaging them.  If left to default behavior, strike craft usually net about half their potential DPS.

Beyond the point that scouts can respond to trouble in multiple gravity wells, there is the issue that hangers cannot retreat from battle.  If the enemy arrives in force, your hangers become casualties.  Scouts, on the other hand, can fleet and survive to fight another day.  A well-managed scout mob can last you the entire game.

Seriously? Well, that's pretty horrible. There goes that strategy.

Completely agree that statics need a boost. I get that the overall focus of the game combat in SINS is on the Fleet but static defenses could really use a boost and from a realism standpoint, the current static defenses are sorely out of alignment with historic standards.

First off, weapons platforms should have a basic low damage short range anti fighter/bomber attack. At no point in history since the invention of air warfare has a static defense installation been completely without the ability to put up some kind of fight against aerial attack. Yes, bomber spam should still chew through a gauss/beam/missile platform but it is just stupid and asinine that a single squadron could eventually destroy a series of platforms if left long enough. If I have gone to the trouble and paid the expense of putting 6-8-10 platforms in a strong grouping to help protect a planet, it is ridiculous that 2 carriers could come in and take them out if I don't have the ability to bring anti fighter frigates or SC of my own.

Secondly, Hangars need to either field larger squadrons or additional squadrons. As it is, they are essentially a completely useless structure in the realm of SINS. I would personally favor having greater #'s of SC in a squadron if for no other reason to differentiate hangar squadrons from ship squadrons. When you think about it though it makes sense that a fixed airfield/hangar could put up greater #s of SC vs a fixed size ship. This could be an upgrade to hangars whereby if they are fully upgraded it would be equal to having maybe 4 squadrons for TEC/VAS and 5 for Advent instead of the current 2 or 3 respectively.

Changing hangar AM should only come with a sizeable nerf to phasic trap.  Phasic trap is too strong as is and does not need to be made stronger with buffing AM on that hangar.  Most vasari will not even build SC at all on their hangars so it will all be used for phasic trap.

[_]-Greyfox

Grey you're judging Phase Traps purely from Advent perspective. For TEC they're not a problem, for another Vasari who knows what he is doing neither. Everyone knows Advent is borked and needs adjusting, but that's no reason to start  crusade to kill yet another cool vasari gadget.

I don't know...TK push is a pretty damn good ability, not sure it really needs to be buffed...Advent need help but I'd rather reduce their weaknesses than accentuate their strengths...

Advent need a better LRF (and it would follow then a weaker scout ship) and need some protection from PM's, ideally an AoE like shield projection on the guardian...

Those two things alone would help advent immensely...I really don't think we want to buff excellent things like TK push...

All caps die really fast against vasari bomber spam. But I think advent is really weak here and if you micro your bombers telekinetic push becomes completely useless even to around 30 - 40 bombers. Cap will die or have to retreat very fast.