That isn't enough for a current operating system.

I am waiting for the devs to use the communities hard work and add TSOP into a patch ! Its not like I can't play the game, just had some virtual memory limit problems for the first time ever after having played a long match at Agamemnon's Bounty. This is just one of the laundry list of reasons why I need my own computer instead of this older one. Well, I don't want one of the new operating systems quite yet, I will take XP over them any day, because it is a lot easier to do things on XP.

I find Win7 to be very good. Even if it does eat up about a Gig of mem.

Please do not buff siege frigs.I think they are fine.The more cap ships you try to get the better they get because caps cost alot more with numbers.Do we want to see large fleets of siege frigs mid game sniping planets?This happens occasionally now.

Buffing fighters will fix bombers and lrf.Think back to carrier days and it was mostly fighters.Even fighters could kill caps in large numbers.One of the better things that could be done for caps late game is to increase their hp gains as they level.

I also think pm are fine.So is the kostura.You can only keep nerfing vasari so much.If subs have been nerfed so that tec can survive mine attacks then tec vs vas is probably pretty good.My main problem as tec vs vas is their insta fleet destroying abilities.

Make the advent sub healing ability actually work good and advent vs vas will be alot better.Especially with the addition to fighters being more dominant.These 2 fix are critical imo.Less cap killing ships in the field means a better vas vs advent match.

IMO the small tweak to fighters will fix a ton of our imba woes.

With flak getting nerfed to fighters they need some other damage buffed or get a hp buff to make them more tankish.Otherwise it will be the end of them.

Just played 10 player multi star ME v 3 unfair v 3 unfair v 3 unfair

I was tec and must say no problems detected. Once i got attacked by 3 unfair with full fleet at the same time lag became intolealble and i had to quit. That was after 2 h of game or so..... Fleets were maxed up and i had to spamm carriers to survive. At least in this game AI was quite smart. Those 3 that were attacking me they were allies and they were coordinating their attacks so they attacked me always 2 or 3 at the same time.

Just one  question was vasari SB HP boosted a bit??? Becouse they were all vasari and orkul had just over 27000 HP. Damage was higher than I remember as well 320 on first weapon.... Perhaps its just me ..... that ai had 2 artifacts that i know of ....

Are you talking about AI spamming siege frigates? or multiplayer? I think the idea is to get siege frigates more useful in multiplayer. yes they are cheaper than capitals, but they also dont add to your fleets' offense. its more cost effective to just get a capital. At least to me, siege frigates aren't pulling their weight.

That's something we want to avoid. bombers should be useful, just not overpowered like they are now. fighters should be useful as well, just not overpowered like they were back then (yes, fighters weren't overpowered against as many things as bombers are now). I agree with the capital hp, but doubt it will happen.

okay, so when vasari researches pm tech, what do you think TEC and Advent should do to even the score?

I guess I can see this perspective, but the domina doesnt come out until pretty late. I think we wouldnt know how it might play out until we get a fixed domina in the patch.

Actually, I think flak merely need to swap a bit of effectiveness vs fighters to vs bombers. Then, i think effectively, flak+fighters+capital abilities would combine to create a perimeter free of bombers. If your missing any of these, they will get through. And then, that becomes the goal: take one of these down, while keeping your bombers docked.

Only way to make capships viable past midgame is reducing LRF damage against caps, even to 25% (75% atm).

Fighters/Bombers/Flaks triangle need a lot of tweaking (mainly bombers survivability nerf and fighter survivability vs flak buff), but main reason of Capships baing not usable at lategame are LRF - extremely long range, spammable, versatile units should not be capital hardcounters as well, 75% damage to caps is overkill...

I setup a similar game of me with a 3v3v3 unfair ais.

I took out the neighbors on both sides of me and never really got attacked after that... But I don't know if I would call it lag or not, but the game consistently studderd towards 2 hours. It hadn't reached unplayable yet. I may load up the save and engage with the large fleet neerby and see if the studdering continued or became unplayable.

I did check the memory before I shutdown and it was less than 900 megs.

My game wasnt studering so much (just a bit). But once that battle comeced it took a ship to phase jump from 1 well to other one about 5 min or so. In older version Couldn't play past 1 h before lag became unbearable. In my game at least, all fleets were maxed up. CCA 2000 fleet points each.

@ZombiesRus5 and Greg30007

What PC configuration are you using?

I have an i7 860 (not overclocked right now), 8GB (1600) ram, Win7 64. I was also running on High/Medium/Low for effects with trade ships turned off and everything above and including skybox turned off. I don't remember the studdering in the previous version so may need to try recreating there to confirm if it's better or worse.

For the whole flak balance vs fighters/bombers this came up to me as an idea on the bus. Historicaly flak has never been a cleart eh skies of enemy planes solution/weapon. To me it has always been a make the planes job attaking you so difficult that they lose efficiency. Flak never decimated hords of planes, planes decimate planes, has always and always will.

Now for sins fighter survivabilaty VS flak needs to be increased. Bombers survivabilaty need to be decreased. Now what you need to do is simulate ingame what i just mention above of making flak make SC lose efficiency. Best and simple solution to this would be to make bombers recive a damage penalty for 30-60s after reciving damage. That way they still remain usefull but your would be able to WTF pwnd enemy caps and will give a chnace to suport cruisers to keep that cap alive.

Esentialy the flak doesn't need to killt he target to be effective it needs only to tag it. The clearing of the air of SC shoudl be done by your own fighters or by your LFs killing the carriers them selves.

Solution seems so simple baffle me I didn't think of it sonner.

I've played all setting on max quality for the beta with 10 player solo games running over 4 hours in length.  No stuttering at all with the exception of a split second pause now and then when autosaved.

The current beta also loads and shuts down at least 20% faster for me as a rough calculation.

Windows 7, dual core Athlon here with an average  1gig ddr5 single PCIe graphics card.

I got i7 2.7 Mhz 6 GB DDR3 1333 (i think its right num lol) ram 2x GTX285 SLI ...... Win 7 home premium 64 bit

I played on default settings.....

or you could simulate what you meantioned by having the flak be very effective vs a full squadron and ineffective vs a lone strikecraft. then you have the fighters be very effective vs a lone strikecraft and ineffective vs a full squadron. if it ends up making half squadrons the norm, i dont think we're in too bad of shape as bombers would be doing half damage. it actually makes sense too. flak are shooting in all these directions at once and while the chances of them hitting any one ship in a squadron are small, the chances of hitting at least one are pretty good. similar with fighters against a lone ship, its an easy target, but against a full squadron, they've got back up (a star wars squadron tactic was to constantly rotate the lead ship, thereby bringing in fresh shields. I know strikecraft in sins dont have shields, but you can see the idea here)

The question is how to do this? i would try making flak very acurate vs all strikecraft, but then have squadrons grant dodge bonuses that increase as ships are lost. fighters would be tricky and would require something like a damage boost vs empty squadrons, but it'd have to be carefully done so as to only affect squadrons and not ships. it might work with just the dodge bonus, who knows?

The end result is you can park flak in your fleet and take 75%-60% regular damage from bombers(due to having 25%-40% less actual bombers), depending on how many you have. after that, you need fighters. But if theres alot of bombers, you will need alot of fighters to really make a dent in the percentage (because they arent good at full squadrons and wont be able to do much). if you dont have enough fighters or flak, the bombers will simply be replaced at the same rate you kill them, locking the damage percentage (because if there are more, flak does better and brings the number back down. if there are less, the flak does worse and brings the number back up).  if you do have enough, the fighters mop up and wipe out the remaining bombers, letting the flak be retasked to help dps and making your fleet completely immune to strikecraft

this might cause more switching of command points. if your bombers are taking a beating vs fighters, should you divert some points to fighters to help thin them out? it could turn the tide if theres less bombers for them to target, essentially nullifing them. on the other hand, you might say that your bombers arent worth the damage, and swap em all for fighters to augment your flak and defend your ships vs their bombers

That's also a good idea. But from what I know of the games current code it would require creatign new scripts for it to work in it complexity. The idea behind my sinple damage reduction to damage when bombers are hit would not requier any new code. They would simply copy paste the code they place on carrier when they take dmg and replace build penalty with damage penalty. Would take 5 minutes to put in.

Perhaps what's needed is a flak platform.  It could have an ability that gives a de-buff to enemy strikecraft in the gravity well (a greater one to bombers).  Make each flak platfrom's effect cumulative (stackable) and you could still use traditional flak ships and abilities but also reduce the effects of invading strikecraft.

This is similar to my suggestion for siege frigates to have cumulative buffs for one another within a certain distance.

I'm sure their is a pre-slotted alocation for facilities so maybe giving the flak ability to an existing one would be a remedy that could actually be implemented now.  Perhaps adding to the tech tree for guass guns and the like that gives them the flak effect once researched.

I'm thinking more along the lines of how can it be added if the beta doesn't provide it.

Pre-Order check. 

I'd buy the expansion just for the Titan-Class vessels. 

Anybody else have issues with trade ships not moving? I played a game the other day where each trade port would spawn trade ships and they woud just sit there. They stayed like that for about two hours until suddenly I noticed they had started moving. 

Nope--every game mine have--was there only a single trade base?  they park until one they can connect to exists.

@ZombiesRus5 and Greg30007

Me, I have an MacPro 6-Core Westmere xeon CPU, 8 GB of ddr3-1333 and a RadeonHD5870. Everything is fine for me for now, but I haven't played a huge game in a while. I played a (huge) MP game with a friend however (for about 7 hours, not finished), and the only time my computer stutters is when it is waiting for his PC to keep up. This was with Entrenchment though (he does not have Diplomacy yet). I need to verify this with Diplomacy, I don't think my xeon is that much better than your regular high end CPU's

Maybe it has to do something with OS as well. Since microsoft released that boundle update I had a lot of Visual C runtime errors ending my game, Not clasic MD so I cannot submit dump file because it wasn't generated. I know my OS is screaming to be reinstalled. Just need to decide if i wanna buy SSD and put OS on it.

Another thing is that game doesn't use multicore or multithreading (not sure about last) and in this case CPU acts as single core 2.67Mhz at least in my case. That means that game utilizes equvivalent to single core CPU vith 2.67Mhz. As those Mhz become most important it becomes quite weak procesor.

I usualy don't lag and game is quite bearable on single star map. That game was actually run with intention to test lag on multi star maps compared to before and there is a lot of improvement

I am talking mp.Siege can be used effectively in their current state.Are they a staple unit of fleets?No.I am ok with that.I personally dont want my worlds sniped by hard to kill frigs but rather I want them to be sieged which should be a difficult thing for the sieger.

siege-

1.

I agree but if perfect balance was unattainable then I would rather have fighters be more dominant then bombers and lrf.

If vas goes for pm then their econ will likely not be great.Tec will need to go eco and mass ships as is their playstyle.Tec vs vas is not a bad matchup until vas gets subs with mines or a bunch of kosturas killing your fleet in seconds.Tec can pretty much out spam vas and keep ahead of the pm problem with hoshi and ups.A possible tweak to their armor ups could be useful.Maybe uping them to even numbers(1-2-3,ect).Advent will have a late game domina to provide some buffer to getting their hulls ravaged.Vas is geared to soft counter advent like advent can soft counter tec.Advent can deal with mass ships better then vas.Again if fighters are more dominant there will be less lrf and bombers to kill caps.Advent need caps to play well.I could see a small buff to the ilum.This may be enuf for advent to compete.

Its true it needs to be tested.The goal is to make advent playable vs vasari not completely nullify them.Pm are a part of the game to be used most affective against advent.If domina gets fixed and we nerf pm how will vas survive against advent?Advent do not have to worry about losing shields and adding a ship that repairs like a hoshi at 25hp a sec(I suggest 30 which may be to much for tec to handle) would be a good start.Nerfing vas to much will just throw the game into another state of imba where games are all advent and tec(except maybe quar).

I agree the other route is make flak equally good vs both fighters and bombers or just a bit better vs bombers.

a somewhat minor detail that I dont remember being there before:

when mousing over a frigate or cruiser from a distance, it shows 2 health bars. At this same distance, with no mouse over, you cannot see any health bars (which is fine, im just trying to provide more information). You might have to zoom in to see what I'm talking about. theres a second health bar on the inside of the logo

Also, the Printscreen button is disabled somehow. I wasnt able to take screen shots, so I checked the bindings. it looked alright, but it wouldn't work, so i cleared it and tried to set it back to printscreen. It wasn't registering at all. I was able to get it to work off of scroll lock.

Glad I'm not the only one that had the issue. I had to reassign screen shots to another as well. I used Ctrl+P.

This was the state of things when Entrenchment launched  (I think it was 1.10 for Vanilla, but I don't remember exactly).  I actually liked this balance version a lot because strikecraft kept LRM in check and then LF became viable against carrier cruisers (because there wasn't as much LRM to destroy them), and bombers could still do a ton of damage, but they suffered attrition to the strikecraft.  But the majority of the community screamed bloody murder that strikecraft were too powerful.

I would have to agree with Mindseye that you don't want to buff Siege anymore.  The current Siege balance lets you do two things...make one or two ships to mop up worlds your main fleet has pushed past or cut off without pulling one of your Capitals off the frontline, or making a world assassinating fleet to take out moderate to lightly defended worlds before the fleet gets destroyed.  Unless your main fleet is around, it is already pretty hard to stop a fleet of siege frigates from mowing thru your worlds.  Yeah, the siege frigates take losses, but the idea behind this strategy is that the attacker can replace his siege frigates while you are take big losses to your economy. 

I've seen games where the person being attacked is actually winning with his main fleet, but he is losing all his worlds to the siege frigate fleet and he has two choices, 1) stop attacking and try to save his worlds, or 2) keep attacking but be unable to siege the enemies worlds as fast as he is losing his own to a dedicated siege force.  If you make siege more powerful, you are going to see them become one of the prime "all in" gambits for victory.