Yarlen Yarlen

Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment v1.03 Change Log

▼

Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment v1.03 Change Log

from Sins Forums

Next week we're planning to release the v1.03 update for Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment.  In keeping with all the Entrenchment goodness, v1.03 will only be available via Impulse (http://www.impulsedriven.com) to registered customers.

WARNING:  THIS UPDATE MAY INVALIDATE EXISTING SAVE GAMES.

  • Gameplay / Balance -
    • All race's carrier cruiser's max speed reduced from 500 to 450.
    • Carrier's squadron buildrate penalty with enemy units in the gravity well reduced from 25% to 15%.
    • Fixed a bug in the pathfinder that caused it to favor sub-optimal paths for between system travel.
    • Fixed incorrect start conditions on Double Cross map.
    • Tweaked the equation for damage reduction so that it is more stable for large negative armor values.
    • Magnetic Cloud orbit bodies now disable all abilities, not just those requiring antimatter.
    • Marza Dreadnought:
      • Missile Barrage number of waves increased from 20 to 25.
      • Missile Barrage damage per wave reduced from 150 to 120.
      • Missile Barrage missile travel effect made unique from its normal missile weapon's effect.
    • Transcencia Starbase:
      • Final Judgement rebalanced so that it applies its damage more evenly between activations so that planets have less opportunity to rebuild infrastructure while this ability is cooling down.
      • Final Judgement antimatter cost reduced from 200 to 150
      • Final Judgement cooldown reduced from 120 to 60
      • Final Judgement meteor strikes increased from 3/6 to 4/8
      • Final Judgement meteor strikes frequency reduced from every 3 secs to every 5 secs
      • Final Judgement bombing damage reduced from 300 to 120
      • Final Judgement population killed reduced from 40 to 15
      • Fixed incorrect range values for Final Judgement level 2.
      • Meteor Storm target area of effect reduced from 4000/6000 to 4000/5000
    • Fixed a bug in the AI that caused too few anti-structure ships to be built when preparing to attack enemy starbases.
  • Graphics and Effects -
    • Marza Missile Barrage missile travel effect made unique from its normal missile weapon's effect.
  • Networking / Multiplayer -
    • Fixed a bug where extra gaps could be added between lines of text in multiplayer chat.
    • Fixed missing multiplayer chat characters with some non-English languages.
    • Fixed not being able to create ICO account and player names with certain non-English characters.
    • Fixed a bug that could cause the ICO lobby to disappear.
  • User Interface / HUD -
    • Income summaries no longer overflow in such a way that per planet elements are mis-rendered.
    • Fixed some bad zooming behavior when you try and get too close (especially on small entities like fighters).
    • Fixed a bug where you couldn't zoom in past a certain distance despite changes to the zoom scalar for the given entity. The minimum distance is still restricted to the entity's radius or 20m for objects will spatial extents (e.g. debris).
    • Starbase upgrades can now be queued from starbases that are under construction.
  • Modding -
    • Fixed zoom scaling bug (see above).
    • Option to disable shield rendering per entity.
  • Misc. -
    • Fixed a rare crash bug caused by Jump Degradation ability of Overseer cruisers.
    • Fixed a rare sync error caused by loading differences between FAT32 and NTFS file systems.
394,879 views 128 replies
Reply #76 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Cephelo, reply 23

.OK, now try setting up a fight that isn't rigged to make your point.
Take the same 19 LRF and 6 flak up against 7 carriers with 14 squads of bombers - let's see how that turns out eh?

Nah. How about you do it then let us all know.

The "rig" is this, fighters are the hard counter to LRFs. Knowing that then what do I need to do to protect them? They need flak. The point being I was not trying to prove anything when I did my testing. All I wanted to know was how to counter fighters and protect my LRF from them. I found that it is very easy and inexpensive to do.

Someone commented in another thread that they did not care about the balance because they play single player. However  the AI tends to build many light frigates and currently it is easy to counter the AI because LRF rip LF to shreads.

Reply #77 from Sins Forums Top

DC hosts cost is equal to the amount of squads and fleet points compared to the others.The only balance problems right now are fighters to kill lrf.At least the main prob.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #79 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting ice27828, reply 3
It is interesting people say the the LRF needs more of a fix than anything else

I certainly agree with you ice.

Reply #80 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting EadTaes, reply 22
Ebitad I can't tell you for sure all fo the reasons why the mines stop. But I belive one of them is if the advent player has mines in the gravwell of a planet he owns and he loses control of that planet the mines shut down. How ever I can not comfirm it to be 100% accurate since I still ahve to run proper test on the issue as ofve yet.

Trying combining flak and scouts.

Build 10 scouts and 10 flaks. Place them in their own fleet alone. And make 1 of the scouts fleet leader. Let scout auto clear fine feilds the flak should help out alot. How ever sometimes the flak don't fire at the incoming mines.

I wonder if it is when the Advent no longers has culture to the gravwell because I sweep most of the mines after the planet has been wiped, even after i have colonized it.  When I send more than one scout, say 3 or 4 with flak, all the ships take damage from the mine if they are in the blast zone.  However maybe if I had 10 flak they could shoot the mine prior to it hitting the scout?  I don't think this should happen though.  I think the Scout should have a detection range greater than the mine's. 

Any confirmation you discover woudl be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

Reply #81 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting mbaron888, reply 1

Quoting Cephelo, reply 23
.OK, now try setting up a fight that isn't rigged to make your point.
Take the same 19 LRF and 6 flak up against 7 carriers with 14 squads of bombers - let's see how that turns out eh?
Nah. How about you do it then let us all know.

The "rig" is this, fighters are the hard counter to LRFs. Knowing that then what do I need to do to protect them? They need flak.
And the point was if the formation you're attacking is covered by flak it is absolutely no surprise that the fighters got mauled.

You "rigged" it by taking a balanced formation up against an unbalanced one.

Either remove the flak frigs, or swap the fighters for bombers. Until then you're drawing play balance conclusions based upon a player imposed imbalance.  The bombers would be much more resistant to the flak frigs, allowing them to survive longer and do more damage and give an overall better showing - despite the fact that they are the "wrong" counter to LRFs. (Those parroting that particular bit of silliness are also in the camp of

"Hey! I know! Let's ignore the flak frigs in that formation and instead cry about how badly fighters do against LRFs!"

Reply #82 from Sins Forums Top

Well the problem is that that they ignore the flak frigs and say Fighetrs vs LRFs sucks. It that a small amout of flak will comepeltyl shut down the carriers rendergin them useless.

Flak is only mean to be a tool of control of enemy SC not total suppresion. To fully supresse the SCs you need to do it at the source to maintain balance. And the source is the carriers them selves and the counter to those are LFs. So you have a Rock Paper Scisors. Carriers beat LRFs who their beat LFs who beats Carriers. Now if flak come in and 100% suppreses carriers then that breaks the chain.

It like saying if you Scisors and you openent rock you get to play Tinfoil paper as well. So you always win by playing scisors.

You break the chain and all fot he balance goes out the window. You can eitehr retore the chain by removing the carrier nerf or rework all fo the balance againt from new and eventuly end up with something very similer to what you had before if you would have simply removed the building penalty nerf.

The only thing broken int he counter chain is carriers inabilaty to rebuild their SC. Everythign else if prety much fine as in NOT BROKEN.

IF IT AIN'T BROKEN DON'T FIX IT!.

 

But the build penalty onc arrier is broken and it needs fixing. Everythign else is fine so leave it alone.

Reply #83 from Sins Forums Top

Either remove the flak frigs, or swap the fighters for bombers. Until then you're drawing play balance conclusions based upon a player imposed imbalance. The bombers would be much more resistant to the flak frigs, allowing them to survive longer and do more damage and give an overall better showing - despite the fact that they are the "wrong" counter to LRFs.

When fighters are replaced with bombers they do last longer and will destroy over half the LRMs but the LRM fleet still wins the battle.

Reply #84 from Sins Forums Top

Awesome.  Looks like I'll never be playing this game online then.  LRM spam every time, all the time!  I'm really curious as to why Ironclad thinks the counter to the most overused unit in the game needed more nerfs.  Might as well just triple LRM health and damage so new players know what to go for every game.

 

So...any balance mods out there?  Because it looks like Ironclad can't be trusted to do so.

Reply #85 from Sins Forums Top

O, just create the mod yourself, get an unoffical files and then mod it, and then release it to the gneeral community then

Reply #86 from Sins Forums Top

:P I'd have to agree with EadTaes here.  The only REAL problem is that, with current carriers, they are both unable to outrun LRF's AND they have no defensive/offensive power once flak is brought into the equation, AND they can't (at least, TEC and Vasari can't) compile the antimatter to re-build their strikecraft, or build them fast enough.  BUT, I have to disagree on one crucial point... not very many players will send ONLY carriers into a system.  Most of the time, LRF's with carriers could be used to disable flak, leaving enemy LRF's wide open... heavy cruisers could also take out enemy LRM's, removing the immediate threat to your carriers.  Basically, what I'm saying is, if a specific unit is being nerfed, remember that other units are still there to support it.

 

Koda0 (^)

 

P.S. I think the developers know what they're doing (at least, until MB gets nerfed) after all, they made the game in the first place.:grin: :P :grin:

Reply #87 from Sins Forums Top

P.S. I think the developers know what they're doing (at least, until MB gets nerfed) after all, they made the game in the first place.

we are not sayiing the devs dont know what they are doing. they just dont play online and see the balance issues against skilled players.

Carriers need to regain their original build rates to counter lrms more effectively.

Reply #88 from Sins Forums Top

Carriers need to regain their original build rates to counter lrms more effectively.

Agreed. However, I think that the carrier speed reduction was a very bad idea. Now any combat unit can counter carriers and so LF are even more pointless.

Boosting LF speed would define their role more and actually give them a chance to be seen on the battlefield.

 

Reply #89 from Sins Forums Top

Well along witht eh carrier speed nerf they should nerf LRFs vs carriers. Cut anti-medium damage vs heavy armor by 25%. To give that incentive.

Reply #90 from Sins Forums Top

Flak is only mean to be a tool of control of enemy SC not total suppresion. To fully supresse the SCs you need to do it at the source to maintain balance.

If flak cant have some supression factor then they become useless because you waste a bunch of resources and fleet points on a ship that does nothing for you while carriers damage for free.I would say total suppression should be in combo flak+fighters.

Reply #91 from Sins Forums Top

Most of the time, LRF's with carriers could be used to disable flak, leaving enemy LRF's wide open... heavy cruisers could also take out enemy LRM's, removing the immediate threat to your carriers.  Basically, what I'm saying is, if a specific unit is being nerfed, remember that other units are still there to support it.

If you need LRMs to counter LRMs...do you not see the problem here?  It leads to people not building anything else because there is no point to do so.  And heavy cruisers require 5 labs.  A 5 lab unit is not a realistic counter to something the Visari can start spamming at 1 lab.  There's nothing wrong with flak doing their job, the problem is LRMs + flak beats everything early on except LRM spamming back.  This leads to spamfasts and stale gameplay, which is generally the death of any RTS.

Reply #93 from Sins Forums Top

See, but here's what I'm saying:

Each unit has it's own unique strengths and weaknesses.

However, the units that are buffed up or nerfed are, more often than not, the ones most commonly used as the backbone of your fleet.

Not that I'm saying that LRF's vs. Carriers is currently fair (with the new changes Blair posted above, the tables will be more even, though) it's just that other "flaws" in the , as I like to call it, "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Dynamite", scenario will often go unchecked in the games lifetime, and the slight "flaws" in these units might be blamed on others... know what I mean?

 

Koda0 (^)

Reply #94 from Sins Forums Top

is the AI vs attacking starbases getting a tweek?

Especially when u have 2 or more in a sun I have seen the AI throw lv 7 cap ships in small numbers agaist the starbases. - they die

Reply #95 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GrimFear, reply 19
is the AI vs attacking starbases getting a tweek?

Especially when u have 2 or more in a sun I have seen the AI throw lv 7 cap ships in small numbers agaist the starbases. - they die

Looking to the OP:

Fixed a bug in the AI that caused too few anti-structure ships to be built when preparing to attack enemy starbases.

I'm guessing that'll help.  Maybe not enough, but it's a start.

Reply #96 from Sins Forums Top

Again about the SC build penalties...

Why do we need them to build faster? Because they die too fast before they can do their job.

Why shouldn't the Fighters just be tougher to kill for the exact same effect?

The source of the problem needs to be addressed, not the result.

Reply #97 from Stardock Forums Top

Fixed a bug in the AI that caused too few anti-structure ships to be built when preparing to attack enemy starbases.

 

I'm guessing that'll help.  Maybe not enough, but it's a start.

Poor Vasari AI :(

Reply #98 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Hound, reply 21
Again about the SC build penalties...


Why do we need them to build faster? Because they die too fast before they can do their job.


Why shouldn't the Fighters just be tougher to kill for the exact same effect?

The source of the problem needs to be addressed, not the result.

create a mod that will increase the health points or the armor of the fighters then.

Reply #99 from Sins Forums Top

I agree with ice, if you don't like the updates, fix it your self when the new data for update is updated, create a counter-mod with all the "required" values to be fixed and then release it as "What they should have done"

Reply #100 from Sins Forums Top

Creating a mod is no good noone will play a mod in mp and you know it.They said they tested and Im curious why adding hp to fighters didnt work myself.I would try it out myself but my comp that runs sins is down right now so I cant.I doubt I would come to the same conclusion as them anyway so it be nice to know what they came up with.