Yarlen Yarlen

OPT-IN: Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion v1.87

▼

OPT-IN: Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion v1.87

from Sins Forums

Ironclad Games and Stardock are happy to announce the opt-in for version 1.87 of Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion. This new build includes built-in Large Address Aware support which should improve memory use for the game. Please be aware that ICO multiplayer is not available during this opt-in.

Change Log:

  • Large Address Aware (LAA) is now enabled. Warning: if you are using a mod that requires you to apply LAA manually you should no longer need to do this. Doing so will cause multiplayer desyncs and crashes.
  • Fixed FPS stuttering in big battles with certain hardware combinations. Warning: if you previously tried to solve this by converting ogg files to waves you will need to revert back to ogg files.
  • Fixed bug where militia ships were showing up in the supply cost tool tip.
  • Fixed bug where you could utilize the starbase max count bonus of a planet you didn't own.
  • Starbases hyperspacing now correctly account for the max starbase count at the target planet.
  • Truce Amongst Rogues no longer has any research prerequisites.
  • Fixed crash when enabling/disabling mods in-game. You should no longer need to edit the mod text file to enable/disable mods.
  • Increased the max texture and particle simulation type counts for mods. This will improve performance and memory usage as mods that exceeded the limit were engaging dynamic memory allocation which is slow and fragments memory.
  • Fixed bug where starbase upgrades with values at level zero were not being applied properly (a common problem with mods that placed starbases during the galaxy creation process).
  • Fixed bug where exiting a mod that setup starbases as tradeports as part of the galaxy creation process would crash the game on exit.
  • (1/23) Minor improvements to Ai selection of unit counters.
  • (1/23) Fixed bug where Ai could stall on launching an attack.
  • (1/23) Fixed bug where Ai could stall on colonizing a planet.
  • (1/23) Fixed bug where Ai could build endless Scouts, Anti-Mine or Anti-Structure units. 
  • (1/23) Fixed modding crash that is caused by defining a roleType (e.g. StarbaseConstructor, Colonizer) but not providing the expected ability. While the crash is prevented the abilities should match the roleType or the Ai will not work correctly.
 

To obtain the opt-in update:
  • Select Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion in your Steam Library list
  • Right-click and select Properties
  • Select the BETAS tab
  • From the dropdown, select opt-in and click Close (if you don't see this option, restart Steam)
  • Steam should pull down the changed files; if you ever want to go back, do the same as above but select default


303,056 views 47 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock.net Forums Top

Quoting Blair, reply 25

I've looked into negative trade values and its relatively easy. However, what isn't easy is how to deal with all the trade modifiers. As it currently stands, the modifiers will all make a negative trade income worse which precludes the idea that a value may start negative and work its way positive through modifiers. What behavior is desired?

Well if easily implemented I'm fine with negative trade values remaining negative values, upgraded bases cost more to maintain, right? It would also be a boon if SB could consume either or both logistic points. It would be better still if there were some way to prioritize SB construction if more than one type were available to the AI. Left to its own devices the AI makes really poor choices if offered one.

My own pet rock to polish would be an option for multiple factions of planetary militia units. Heck even pirate raids can be made race specific, why not militia? Five "slots" would be ideal but anything above the current vanilla would be awesome.

Reply #27 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Blair, reply 24

Ok, I've fixed the ANTIMODULE issue. It was an obvious and simple bug to fix.

Always the best kind! Thank you so much Blair! :thumbsup:

Quoting Darvroth, reply 26

My own pet rock to polish would be an option for multiple factions of planetary militia units. Heck even pirate raids can be made race specific, why not militia? Five "slots" would be ideal but anything above the current vanilla would be awesome.

Are you talking about the standard militias that defend worlds or the roaming militias added as part of the outlaw sector DLC?

If the former, you already can do that in the GalaxyScenarioDef file, as many mods do. If the latter, yes, I'm sure basically all total conversion mods would like that.

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top

Hello "Team Stardock / Iron Clad"

First: A 1 0 0 0 thankx for Your "Sins of a Solar Empire". I bought the GOG version of Your game where My brother has the Steam Version of Your game.

Until now Your "Sins of a Solar Empire" is the best availableRTS-game in this world. Especially with all the available MODs from moddb.

 

Some wishes to The Future (i.e.: to a Future version of Your "Sins of a Solar Empire"):

1.: Please also incorporate / build in some of the available MODs from moddb into Youur game like

i.e.:

http://www.moddb.com/mods/titanic-titans

and

http://www.nexusmods.com/sinsofasolarempire/mods/9/?

So these MODs / Functions / Features is available to ALL playable races / factions.

 

2.: please also make it possible for The Pirates to takes Worlds instead of “just” destroying Worlds.

 

Yes: My Brother & I wants Your "Sins of a Solar Empire" to be as W I L D as possible. Also for Modders.

Reply #29 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Blair, reply 25

I've looked into negative trade values and its relatively easy. However, what isn't easy is how to deal with all the trade modifiers. As it currently stands, the modifiers will all make a negative trade income worse which precludes the idea that a value may start negative and work its way positive through modifiers. What behavior is desired?

Hello, please do not make it possible for trade modifier to go below zero in reality (not just in numbers). So if a planet have -110% trade modifier, let it make 0 trade income (or some positive number depending on a scale) but not below zero please.

cheers

Reply #30 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Aplos, reply 29


Quoting Blair Fraser,
reply 25

I've looked into negative trade values and its relatively easy. However, what isn't easy is how to deal with all the trade modifiers. As it currently stands, the modifiers will all make a negative trade income worse which precludes the idea that a value may start negative and work its way positive through modifiers. What behavior is desired?



Hello, please do not make it possible for trade modifier to go below zero in reality (not just in numbers). So if a planet have -110% trade modifier, let it make 0 trade income (or some positive number depending on a scale) but not below zero please.

cheers

I believe that they are talking strictly modding behavior. It may involve a modifier that allows for negative trade in certain instances if the modder so desires.

Reply #31 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Ryat, reply 30

Quoting Blair Fraser,

reply 25

I've looked into negative trade values and its relatively easy. However, what isn't easy is how to deal with all the trade modifiers. As it currently stands, the modifiers will all make a negative trade income worse which precludes the idea that a value may start negative and work its way positive through modifiers. What behavior is desired?

Hello, please do not make it possible for trade modifier to go below zero in reality (not just in numbers). So if a planet have -110% trade modifier, let it make 0 trade income (or some positive number depending on a scale) but not below zero please.

cheers

I believe that they are talking strictly modding behavior. It may involve a modifier that allows for negative trade in certain instances if the modder so desires.

Actually if you read his original example, he's talking about the base trade value, not the modifier. Negative base trade values could be used to give starbases an upkeep cost in this case. As far as I know the trade income modifier on planets works fine, as the Novalith cannon uses it.

On the other hand, this would definitely be modding only behavior as no-starbases have negative trade values now.

Quoting Wintercross, reply 20

Tried using a negative trade value on starbases to make them cost 'upkeep', if the behaviour could be changed to make negative trade values actually drain credits that would be awesome. 

+1 Loading…
Reply #32 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Blair, reply 25

I've looked into negative trade values and its relatively easy. However, what isn't easy is how to deal with all the trade modifiers. As it currently stands, the modifiers will all make a negative trade income worse which precludes the idea that a value may start negative and work its way positive through modifiers. What behavior is desired?


My desired behaviour, take for example 

upgradeProperty
propertyType "BaseTradeIncomeRate"
value 1.250000

Gives a Starbase a trade value of 1.25 credits per tick (however it is calculated)
What I would like is if that value said "-1.25" for example, that it would take away 1.25 credits per tick, similar to how an undeveloped planet drains credits with it's negative tax when undeveloped.

Since each level of the  "BaseTradeIncomeRate" upgrade property seems to overwrite the previous, the number could be reduced each level after paying the upgrade cost as an efficiency boost reducing income.


Basically all I'd need, is for a negative number in the "BaseTradeIncomeRate" upgradeproperty to actually subtract it's value from credits (and preferably if possible show up as a negative source in the credit summary.

 

If the research trade modifiers affect this negatively, well I am ok with that, as boosting your trade would then increase the penalty rates for upkeep thus balancing it >=P

Reply #33 from Stardock.net Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 27

If the latter, yes, I'm sure basically all total conversion mods would like that.

Yes, the latter. The last DLC unintentionally introduced several modding complications. Hard coding vanilla Sins ships being IMO the worst offender.

Reply #34 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Blair, reply 25

I've looked into negative trade values and its relatively easy. However, what isn't easy is how to deal with all the trade modifiers. As it currently stands, the modifiers will all make a negative trade income worse which precludes the idea that a value may start negative and work its way positive through modifiers. What behavior is desired?

 

if I understand correctly there is a problem with mixing fixed and percentage modifiers.

how about 

1: summ all positive fixed modifiers

2: apply percentage modifiers >1

3: add all negative fixed modifiers

4: apply percentage modifiers <1

 

would that work?

 

edit: or switch 3 and 4?

Reply #35 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting TobiWahn_Kenobi, reply 34


if I understand correctly there is a problem with mixing fixed and percentage modifiers.

how about 

1: summ all positive fixed modifiers

2: apply percentage modifiers >1

3: add all negative fixed modifiers

4: apply percentage modifiers <1

 

would that work?

 

edit: or switch 3 and 4?



Well, the main thing I wanted was the Base Trade value to take negative numbers...
Though I realise research trade modifiers might affect it negatively, it honestly wouldn't bother me and work fine for my purposes; being that as you increase trade effectiveness, the negative trade 'upkeep' would rise as well (consider it a higher demand or whatever =P )

Basically, it comes down to me wanting to make upgradable capital ships using Starbase code, so they are technically starbases, but utilise the ability to jump between grav wells. 
The issue though, is starbases don't use fleet supply, so the next best thing to limit their use is to make them drain the economy via 'negative trade values', thus if you field more than you can support, your economy tanks =P

Reply #36 from Sins Forums Top

One of the recent patches, it might have been 1.87, made the AI impossibly hard and cheating ridiculously. Their titans are born at level 10 instantaneously (even the first time they were created) and their capital ships seemingly effortlessly level up with a very small number of kills. 

There's also many severe balance issues. The Coronata Titan is overpowered. Advent fleets and capships are vastly underpowered and melt like cotton candy.

The game used to be fun, my gaming crew used to be able to easily take on more than our number in insane AIs, but now an even number of hard AIs are virtually impossible because of their punishing cheats.

Please stop making the AI cheat on difficulty levels under insane, and when the AI does cheat, don't make it cheat this badly!

Reply #37 from Sins Forums Top

The cheating of the harder Ais should not have changed. Do you have a save game where the Titans were born at level 10?

Reply #38 from Stardock.net Forums Top

Slightly off topic but I love the new UI interface for game start. Thanks team.

Reply #39 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I have version 1.86 on Steam, played a game on insane one week ago. I always thought I was on 1.87, but 1.87 is taking too long.

I can confirmed enemies spawn high level Titans. After I kill the faction's Titan, I see another Titan at level 8 but not level 10.

Not sure if it happens to capital ships also. I was thinking it was normal or should be normal for enemies to spawn higher level Titans and capital ships on higher difficulty.

Reply #40 from Sins Forums Top

Not meaning to pressure you guys ... as I appreciate the hard and continuing work ... but have you guys got a time frame for the release of the full 1.87 patch?

Reply #41 from Sins Forums Top

Back when 1.85 dropped I realized that RuinPlanet could only be applied via Ability file, and not Buff files, which hampers how useful it is for modding.

As a result I request the RuinPlanet buffInstantActionType to be changed to one similar to ClearRecordedDamage and ChangePlayerIndexToNeutral. Here is an example of the existing AbilityRuinPlanet modified for such a change.

Reply #42 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting soase-maelstrom, reply 40

Not meaning to pressure you guys ... as I appreciate the hard and continuing work ... but have you guys got a time frame for the release of the full 1.87 patch?

Should be next week.

Reply #44 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Seabrook, reply 39

Not sure if it happens to capital ships also. I was thinking it was normal or should be normal for enemies to spawn higher level Titans and capital ships on higher difficulty.

Keep in mind that at higher difficulties, the AI is able to purchase more levels for capital ships...at the highest difficulty, they can buy all the way up to level 7.

Reply #45 from Sins Forums Top

Will this patch be released to the GOG version as well? I've been hearing that GOG is still on v1.83, much to the chagrin of multiple would-be mod players.

Reply #46 from Stardock.net Forums Top

Quoting Yarlen, reply 42

Should be next week.

So much for free time...start updating mod...