Yarlen Yarlen

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion 1.50 BETA Change Log

▼

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion 1.50 BETA Change Log

from Sins Forums

Ironclad Games and Stardock Entertainment are very pleased to announce the release of version 1.5 BETA for Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion.  This new update will be available as an opt-in Beta via the Steam client ahead of its final release so that we can get feedback from users on the changes.

NOTE: THE V1.50 UPDATE WILL BREAK SAVE GAMES!

 

[ Graphics ]

  • New high-res planet textures for Terran, Ice, Volcanic, Desert and Dwarf planet types.

[ Gameplay ]

  • Corvettes are now affected by Unstable Gas Pockets around Gas Giants.
  • The base relationship value for Pacts has been changed to 0.0 (fixes a possible crash bug).
  • All planet exploration costs have been reduced from 450/150/75 to 300/75/35 at level 1 and from 550/175/125 to 400/100/85 at level 2.
  • Changed Helium Atmosphere and Ionic Storms planet bonuses to no longer require planet exploration to detect. (Ship sensors can detect this from orbit.)
  • Increased change to find something via planet exploration from 40% to 60%, except on Competitive map types.
  • Titan research now grants certain bonuses on a per faction basis. See below for details.
  • All players now start with 2 frigate factories on game start. (This helps the AI tremendously.)
  • Fleet supply for all Envoy cruisers has been decreased from 8 to 4.
  • Artifacts Overhaul:  Most Artifacts have been buffed to be of greater strategic value (i.e., game changing). The following are in addition/changed to/from current values:
    • Jump Drive Relic - Now makes all ships immune to phase jump inhibitors.
    • Data Archive - +15% Research Rate
    • Resilient Metaloids - +150% Passive HP Regen; +3.0 Base Armor; -10% Planet Bombing Damage Taken
    • Relativistic Factories - +4 Civilian Slots
    • Phase Accelerator - +33% Phase Jump Charge Rate; +25% Phase Gate Speed
    • Manifest Dominion - +4.00 Relationship Bonus; +0.10 Quest Reward Relationship Bonus; -0.05 Quest Failure Penalty to Relationship
    • Jump Field Generator - -75% Antimatter Lost from Phase Travel; -3% Phase Jump Exit Distance
    • Planetary Organic AI - +60% Population Growth Rate; +25% Maximum Planet Population
    • Matter Compressor - +25% Refinery Ship Capacity; +50% Cargo Ship Capacity
    • Power Core Relic - +20% Maximum Antimatter; +0.10 Passive Antimatter Regeneration in Culture
    • Ion Field Generator - +45% Planet Bombing Range
  • TEC
    • Ion Blast (Akkan Capitalship) will no longer affect enemy Flagships.
    • Garda Flak Frigate range increased from 3900 to 4400.
    • Long-Range Jumps research moved from Tier 3 to Tier 4; cost adjusted.
    • Advanced Arctic Colonies research moved from Tier 4 to Tier 3; cost adjusted.
    • Advanced Civic Design research moved from Tier 3 to Tier 2; cost adjusted.
    • TEC Loyalists
      • Tier 1 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to maximum Shields.
      • Tier 2 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to maximum Starbase HP.
      • Tier 3 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Rate of Fire for all Lasers.
      • Disruption Matrix (Ankylon Titan) now disables enemy passive regeneration.
      • Group Shield (Ankylon Titan) duration increased from 30/35/40/45 to 40/50/60/70.
      • Inspire and Impair (Ankylon Titan) duration increased from 30/45 to 60/75; now affects Titans.
      • Battlefield Promotions research moved from Tier 5 to Tier 1; bonus increased from 5% to 10%; number of research levels decreased from 2 to 1; cost adjusted.
      • Updated map 'The Void' with correction for TEC Loyalists in Quick Start mode.
    • TEC Rebels
      • Tier 1 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Rate of Fire for all Autocannons.
      • Tier 2 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Population killed from planetary bombardment.
      • Tier 3 Titan research now grants a -10% penalty to enemy empire's Culture build rate.
  • Advent
    • Defense Vessel range increased from 3900 to 4400.
    • Meteor Swarm (Starbase) will now deal AoE damage to Corvettes.
    • Deliverance Engine will no longer affect friendly planets with an allegiance penalty.
    • Distant Visualization research moved from Tier 3 to Tier 4; cost adjusted.
    • Psionic Scream (Discord Battleship) now properly affects Corvettes.
    • Advent Loyalists
      • Tier 1 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Beam weapon damage.
      • Tier 2 Titan research now grants a +0.50 global bonus to Base Armor.
      • Tier 3 Titan research now grants a +10% global bonus to Culture Resistance.
      • Repossession (Coronata Titan) planet upgrade cost bonus increased from 0%/-33% to -33%/-66%.
      • Planet for a Planet research moved from Tier 4 to Tier 3; cost adjusted.
    • Advent Rebels
      • Tier 1 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Plasma weapon damage.
      • Tier 2 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to maximum Antimatter.
      • Tier 3 Titan research now grants +1 strikecraft from Hangar Bays (tactical structure).
      • Wail of the Sacrificed will no longer function if enough labs aren't maintained.
      • Wail of the Sacrificed damage decreased from 20.0 per population point to 4.5/9.5; research levels increased from 1 to 2.
      • Increased damage particle duration on Wail of the Sacrificed from 10 seconds to 60.
      • Unyielding Will (Eradica Titan) duration reduced from 240 to 120.
      • Mass Communion research reduced from Tier 4 to Tier 3; cost adjusted.
      • Fixed null pointer crash with Wail of the Sacrificed.
  • Vasari
    • Gravity Warhead (Jarrasul Evacuator) will no longer target Titans or affect enemy Flagships.
    • Phase Out Hull (Antorak Marauder) will no longer affect Flagships.
    • Sentinel range increased from 3900 to 4400.
    • Long Range Jumps research moved from Tier 2 to Tier 3; cost adjusted.
    • Increased Vasari Starbase weapon upgrade time from 25 to 45 seconds.
    • Vasari Loyalists
      • Tier 1 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to planetary bombardment damage.
      • Tier 2 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Wave Cannon weapon damage.
      • Tier 3 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to capital ship acceleration.
      • Desperation (Vorastra Titan) no longer affects Corvettes; duration decreased from 45 to 15.
      • The Maw (Vorastra Titan) no longer affects Corvettes; max target count reduced from unlimited to 15/30.
    • Vasari Rebels
      • Tier 1 Titan research now grants a +5% global bonus to Pulse Beam weapon damage.
      • Tier 2 Titan research now grants a +10% bonus to mission deadline times.
      • Tier 3 Titan research now grants a +0.10 bonus to your faction's relationship with other empires.
      • Dissever (Kultorask Titan) no longer damages Corvettes.
      • Starbase Mobilization now only allows Starbases to phase jump between active phase nodes.

 

[ AI ]

  • The AI has been significantly modified to allow it to put aside resources towards expensive projects (i.e., Titans and superweapons). This should prevent the AI from 'starving' from lack of resources when attempting to build expensive projects, appearing to do nothing.
  • Normal AI difficulty no longer gets any bonus resource income.
  • Increased resource bonus for Hard and Unfair AI types.
  • All AI types will now spend at least 50% of income on ships.

 

[ Misc ]

  • Fixed bug that prevented players with Cloud saves from joining a local save hosted game in multiplayer.
  • Fixed incorrect planet picture placement for one of the Asteroid planet meshes.
  • Optimized particle system file pathing.
  • Fixed crash bug in Flagship Victory system.
  • Fixed null pointer crash with Wail of the Sacrificed.
  • Converted some TGA texture files to DDS where it didn't adversely impact visuals, freeing up more memory.
  • Removed unused textures to free up memory.
  • Various string updates / changes.
  • Removed data files for the old Metal Pact - was causing some crashes.
  • Moved around various research techs (no Tier changes).
  • Removed unused DLL files.
  • Removed reference to MagneticCloudFair in GalaxyScenarioDef - entity never existed.
  • Fixed bug with some planet bonus Infocards not displaying values.
  • Added null checks to superweapons and titans to prevent possible crashes.
  • Made dwarf planet mesh with the huge crater more prevalent.
  • Improved Starbase Mobilization description.

 

1,005,178 views 473 replies
Reply #26 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting sulley1, reply 24

I have to wonder though, where's SINS 2?

I think the decision to do Sins 2 will be decided by Ironclad games, not Stardock, since they were the ones that first made it.

Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top

Perhaps with the new optimizations, and memory room they made they will look over all effects, and fix, and/or create new effects.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top

It sounds pretty good.  But what does this mean?  What is an "active phase node"?  Do you mean phase gate?

"Starbase Mobilization now only allows Starbases to phase jump between active phase node"

 

 

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

Phase gates and and the Antorak's Stabilize Phase Space ability, most likely.

Reply #30 from Sins Forums Top

Phase nodes are created by buffs...doesn't matter what the source of the buff is (phase stabilizer ability, kostura cannon buff, orky ability buff, marauder ultimate buff), it's still a phase node...

Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 26

I think the decision to do Sins 2 will be decided by Ironclad games, not Stardock, since they were the ones that first made it.

According to the "State of Stardock" report, they financed and helped co-develop Rebellion.  So, yes, they do have a stake on the decision.  If Stardock wanted it, Ironclad would make it.

Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting XATHOS, reply 31
If Stardock wanted it, Ironclad would make it.

Not quite that simple, IC is not SD's 'employee'. While collaboration on a big project is beneficial for capital, the game is made with the IRON ENGINE and the boys at IC will need to put a big load of time and effort in a new engine.

Reply #33 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting XATHOS, reply 31

According to the "State of Stardock" report, they financed and helped co-develop Rebellion.  So, yes, they do have a stake on the decision.  If Stardock wanted it, Ironclad would make it.

But Stardock does not own the Sins of a Solar Empire IP. They cannot make a new game without Ironclad's permission, and Ironclad is already busy with Sins of a Dark Age. I'm pretty certain there will be no Sins 2 until Dark Age is released.

Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top

Yarlen, could we possibly get something regarding this thread? It has been seemingly ignored for nearly one full year now.

Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Yarlen, reply 18

Quoting Makon86, reply 15Hoping to hell it is a new modifier! I'll certainly be making use of it, if it is

Sorry, it's not - I typo'd. It's fixed above now.

Quoting Seleuceia, reply 9I suppose it is possible you could grant immunity to PJIs through the same modifier as phasic strike, though that would be a crude method of doing that and would have a loophole for ships currently in wells with PJIs....

This is a new modifier.

 

Noo! LOL, but thank you for the clarification!

Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top

 Just an addendum to my post on previous page regarding visual representation of Desperation in effect...

i actually found a video displaying what i meant, how it used to look pre-final release, but was dropped for some reason... it can be seen 3 minutes into the video...

I would love to see those weapon hardpoints to glow again that way in addition to the current glowing of circular shapes.

Thanks

 

Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting myfist0, reply 32

Not quite that simple, IC is not SD's 'employee'. While collaboration on a big project is beneficial for capital, the game is made with the IRON ENGINE and the boys at IC will need to put a big load of time and effort in a new engine.


Quoting GoaFan77, reply 33

But Stardock does not own the Sins of a Solar Empire IP. They cannot make a new game without Ironclad's permission, and Ironclad is already busy with Sins of a Dark Age. I'm pretty certain there will be no Sins 2 until Dark Age is released.


Gentlemen, I am aware of who develops the game, but you need to keep in mind who/what pays the bills. 

IC is hoping to hop into the MOBA market (despite what I say, good luck to them with that), and I know Stardock isn't publishing it (IGP is), but it's saturated with DOTA clones right now.  I don't see it bringing about the same level of success that Sins did (hence the attempt to capitalize with the namesake) nor do I see it as a productive use of time.  That's my opinion, but that won't sway the Canucks from that path.

I believe this to be the simple case of "the publisher has the money and manpower to aid in the development of another iteration of a successful product".  It's a common sense route nobody would say "no" to.  Sins was very good for both companies.  Another iteration would only be a positive thing.  They'd be incredibly stupid to not to try. 

Honestly, I think they're already in the dev. cycle of a Sins 2 (or likewise iteration), and have been for years (methinks 2010).  I think Rebellion was used to keep interest in the IP alive in the mean time (that, and the fans wanted MOAR).  I think we're still a good few years out from a release (methinks 2015), but that's my speculation.

Bottomline: wheels are in motion, we just can't hear them yet.

Reply #38 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting XATHOS, reply 37


Quoting myfist0, reply 32
Not quite that simple, IC is not SD's 'employee'. While collaboration on a big project is beneficial for capital, the game is made with the IRON ENGINE and the boys at IC will need to put a big load of time and effort in a new engine.

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 33
But Stardock does not own the Sins of a Solar Empire IP. They cannot make a new game without Ironclad's permission, and Ironclad is already busy with Sins of a Dark Age. I'm pretty certain there will be no Sins 2 until Dark Age is released.

Gentlemen, I am aware of who develops the game, but you need to keep in mind who/what pays the bills. 

IC is hoping to hop into the MOBA market (despite what I say, good luck to them with that), and I know Stardock isn't publishing it (IGP is), but it's saturated with DOTA clones right now.  I don't see it bringing about the same level of success that Sins did (hence the attempt to capitalize with the namesake) nor do I see it as a productive use of time.  That's my opinion, but that won't sway the Canucks from that path.

I believe this to be the simple case of "the publisher has the money and manpower to aid in the development of another iteration of a successful product".  It's a common sense route nobody would say "no" to.  Sins was very good for both companies.  Another iteration would only be a positive thing.  They'd be incredibly stupid to not to try. 

Honestly, I think they're already in the dev. cycle of a Sins 2 (or likewise iteration), and have been for years (methinks 2010).  I think Rebellion was used to keep interest in the IP alive in the mean time (that, and the fans wanted MOAR).  I think we're still a good few years out from a release (methinks 2015), but that's my speculation.

Bottomline: wheels are in motion, we just can't hear them yet.

I am not sold on Sins of a Dark Age either. Then again, i am not a fan of MOBA games, so that is probably the main reason. Still, i dont think its going to have the success Sins had, as unlike Sins, it has quite a competition. But maybe i am wrong and it will be a game of its own kind, not really directly comparable to likes of DotA and LoL, the way Sins is not directly comparable to other RTS/4X games currently on the market and will find its niche...we shall see...

Anyway, while i understand that perhaps people at Ironclad wanted to try something new and different instead of doing Sins 2 right away, i would prefer if that new game was in a Sins mould, just in a different setting. You know, like historical/fantasy Sins on solid ground instead of sci-fi one in outer space. Castles instead of planets, mines instead of asteroids, armies instead of fleets, big strategic map...you get the point... as a fan of Sins i would be way more interested in such game than MOBA clone.

Reply #39 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Timmaigh, reply 38

Anyway, while i understand that perhaps people at Ironclad wanted to try something new and different instead of doing Sins 2 right away, i would prefer if that new game was in a Sins mould, just in a different setting. You know, like historical/fantasy Sins on solid ground instead of sci-fi one in outer space. Castles instead of planets, mines instead of asteroids, armies instead of fleets, big strategic map...you get the point... as a fan of Sins i would be way more interested in such game than MOBA clone.

That sounds like Dark Age's setting.  The only thing you're missing is the MOBA part.

Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting XATHOS, reply 37
I believe this to be the simple case of "the publisher has the money and manpower to aid in the development of another iteration of a successful product".  It's a common sense route nobody would say "no" to.  Sins was very good for both companies.  Another iteration would only be a positive thing.  They'd be incredibly stupid to not to try. 

We are not saying there will not be a Sins II. We're saying Stardock cannot make it unilaterally, for the very reason that it was so successful for IC that I doubt they would just license it for another studio to make. And Ironclad is probably to small to handle two games at once. My bet is that it will be released 2 or 3 years after Sins of a Dark Age.

Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 40

We are not saying there will not be a Sins II. We're saying Stardock cannot make it unilaterally,

And I never said they would.  That's a given.  What were you guys trying to counterpoint over to begin with?

Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting XATHOS, reply 41


Quoting GoaFan77, reply 40
We are not saying there will not be a Sins II. We're saying Stardock cannot make it unilaterally,
And I never said they would.  That's a given.  What were you guys trying to counterpoint over to begin with?

I said I thought Sins II would be decided by Ironclad, you said Stardock had a role in that decision. I still think Stardock is just going to have to wait until Ironclad is ready.

Reply #43 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 42

I said I thought Sins II would be decided by Ironclad, you said Stardock had a role in that decision. I still think Stardock is just going to have to wait until Ironclad is ready.

Ah, gotcha.  I'm not sure how much you are aware of the publisher/developer dynamic, but publishers usually provide the financing needed for the development.  In this case, they help with both.  As said before, they probable are working on both, but I don't see a case of them saying "no" when asked to work on it (despite the workload).  Hell, check the IC website.  Many of the links lead off to Stardock sites.  It's very doubtful they'd shop it to another company (plus Stardock might even own part of IC.  Who knows?).

I hate the role the majority of publishers are in.  MANY of them are dicks to small developers, and jiff on royalties and other payments.  The only noteworthy bad press I've seen from Stardock is Brad Wardell's personnel issues.  That's it.  I don't think they'd be in the AAA category of asshole publisher to them.

Reply #44 from Sins Forums Top

"Deliverance Engine will no longer target Friendly planets"  8C  

Um....what?! On that note, I strongly recommend against any Advent advocates getting this update. 

This removes its tactical defensive capacity.

It does no direct damage unlike the Novalith which can be built more than once by the TEC, that pretty much obliterates planets. 

I'd say ok to this on only one condition, making it able to limit other superweapons ability to be built or to target. 

If the Advents Deliverance Engine were able to make a planet imprinted when fired upon such that it was untargetable by any of the superweapons or made it so they could not be built at the targeted planet, I'd be ok with removing the "targets friendly" status.

Since it does not cause adverse affects on the scale of Novalithing or a Kostua Warhead on a planet which are overwhelmingly powerful in comparison, that makes this a pretty unbalancing move from my view.

I may be new here, but as an avid Advent player, and noticing lack of concern on this issue, I felt I had to speak up. 

Sorry if I come off a bit mean, but this nerf seems like a BB-gun to the Eye of the Advent.

Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top

We will have to look at this when the update is released. I am a big advocate for buffing the advent since they were the weakest link in Rebellions early days (especially the loyalist). The advent DE got huge buffs in past updates. So this may be to prevent them from being OP.

Reply #46 from Sins Forums Top

Woah...was wondering what happened with you people...lol. Anyways is BETA out yet? I checked the BETAs tab and didn't see anything. :/ (I have "Internal -" and "MVP" or something...)

Reply #47 from Sins Forums Top

Advent need better protection against PMs....otherwise, they are fine, they do just great against TEC and against early game Vasari....

Reply #48 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting XATHOS, reply 43
Ah, gotcha.  I'm not sure how much you are aware of the publisher/developer dynamic, but publishers usually provide the financing needed for the development.  In this case, they help with both.  As said before, they probable are working on both, but I don't see a case of them saying "no" when asked to work on it (despite the workload).  Hell, check the IC website.  Many of the links lead off to Stardock sites.  It's very doubtful they'd shop it to another company (plus Stardock might even own part of IC.  Who knows?).

I am very much aware of it. But in Sins' case I do not see a studio besides Ironclad making Sins 2. Stardock will provide the funding sure but if Ironclad is mainly working on the other game then at best they are just messing with some internal prototypes. I think it will very much be Ironclad that says to Stardock they are ready to focus on Sins 2. And I don't see Stardock as the type to order IC to do something even if they could.

 

Quoting BellGoRiiing, reply 46
Woah...was wondering what happened with you people...lol. Anyways is BETA out yet? I checked the BETAs tab and didn't see anything. :/ (I have "Internal -" and "MVP" or something...)

tentative on afternoon of 5/9

I do not believe it is the 9th yet.  ;)

Reply #49 from Sins Forums Top

Didn't see the date until now....xD

Reply #50 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 48

I am very much aware of it. But in Sins' case I do not see a studio besides Ironclad making Sins 2.

Another studio already has with Rebellion. 

https://www.stardock.com/press/CustomerReports/Stardock2012.pdf
Page 8
 
"Last year, we released Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (82 Metacritic) which was co-developed by one of Stardock’s internal game teams while Ironclad has focused on its much anticipated Sins of a Dark Age MOBA style game. Sins: Rebellion was immensely successful – far more successful than either Stardock or Ironclad had projected. I suspect there will be more news on this front as we go forward."

Why wouldn't they do the same thing with Sins 2?  I also base my predictions, in part, on that last statement by Stardock's CEO.