Lavo

Update: May 17, 2013 | Revision: 1043 Buffed trade port's income from 1 to 4, increased logistic slot usage from 4 to 8. This effectively doubles the income flow of trade ports. Added in two new maps, two Star Wars ones, made by husker98 of Moddb, created from Snowba11's large galaxy map. They are reduced in scale, and represent planets that were active during the Clone Wars and Yuuzhan Vong War, respectfully. Upscaled Procurator and slightly tweaked it's weapons, added a hanger point to the Venator/hangar defenses and starbase of CIS/Republic, and added more hangar points, for a grand total of 6, to the Executor and Viscount. Decreased likelihood of AI retreating from combat, reduced Endurance's cost as with the Venator. Added a new series of random maps, the "No Forts" maps, where are no planets with Very or Extremely Strong militias (ex. Industrial, Ecumen). Renamed "RandomColonizable" GSD entry to "WeightedColonizable" to bring it in line with vanilla Sins and increase map cross-compatibility for map makers. Slowed down "Slowest" ship speed setting even further, debuffed Volley Fire and All Out Attack, half the number of targets that the anti-fighter frigate's Flak Burst kills. This post will be edited with more additions over time, until this is added to the SVN.

I flat out refuse to weaken it's health. The Venator had hull and shielding equal to the VSD-I, and that ship was by no means a glass cannon. Further, this would mean the capital Venators would not be able to go into battle and use their support abilities on the fleet, which would make them utterly useless. Additionally, the AI would not understand this and keep sending in Venators to their deaths. Also, the Venator's 8 main cannons were said to have equal or superior firepower to the ISD-I's 8 large cannons (4 on each side of the bridge), but not the ship itself. I'd say the Venator, which has a total of 160 DPS versus the VSD-I's 200, has more firepower than it truly had, and reducing that in favor of more fighters would be a very apt and canonly correct thing to do, though I could be wrong in this regard. Didn't even realize it was scaled incorrectly. Yes, I will certainly look at increasing it's size.

The random generator has a lot of blame with regards to how well people in general, not just the AI, can expand. To this end, I do plan to make "competitive" random maps which do not contain any planets that have Very Strong or Extremely Strong militia (ex. Ecumen, High Terran Eco). This would ensure that people aren't "boxed in" which has occurred even on the Expanded random maps.

Perhaps in the future, after all the rigging that still needs work is done. For now, I'm not entirely in a rush to add in more ships as I'd say most rosters are in fairly good shape as it is; though I'm certainly not adverse to giving the Republic more variety, a characteristic that they were fairly known for. I will say however that they will not get the Tector, as even though it saw limited Republic service like the ISD-I did, it was not a mainstay or large part of the GAR, versus other ships that could be easily added in to fill a similar role.

Glad you like them, but we haven't done anything new for 'em. That's the AI for you, nothing we can do. I play on Unfair, AI is better.

The VSD/Gladiator currently have a single squadron for balance reasons; I'm taking another look at those two, and the Vindicator in particular, after exams as the Escort Carrier revelation made me realize how much I overvalued fighters. The Venator is an odd case. To be entirely honest, it's listed fighter capacity is higher than the Viscount's (as per those Wizards stats), making me unsure of how to balance it out properly. Currently the current stats are made such that it's a warship that can actually harm other ships in a fight and has a large fighter compliment (bested only by the Lucrehulk and supercaps). Though once supercaps (excluding the Executor/Viscount/World Ship, which will possibly get their fighter counts boosted and supply cost adjusted) get revised, which is my big post-exam project, I will take a second look at the Venator as a whole; there's a chance I will greatly weaken it's weapons, but highly boost it's fighter count and supply cost. Another issue is that, unlike EaW, you cannot restrict ships to have specific fighter counts; this is a particular problem on the Jedi Venator which has Jedi Eta-2 squadrons, having greater fighter counts on that ship would make it extremely OP, some would argue that it's OP as it is. Further, a big point, completely unrelated to balance, is game lag. Fighters and trade ships are the worst offenders for late game lag in Sins, making me wish to limit their numbers to reasonable amounts, even if this isn't entirely canonical. In short, you bring up very legitimate questions, but I'm fully booked until May comes around, and can't give time to look at them until then.

The server's HDD died; this forum only came back up today. Everything is likely not back up to speed yet. I do not know, Evaders would be the guy to ask.

Update: April 15, 2013 | Revision: 1042 Fixed Moon artifact search costs, decreased Venator SD and Venator SD-C costs.

Fairly sure that's intentional. Explanation being that it's a backwater planet that has virtually nobody there, by doing the first level you are in effect setting up some sort of recon/scouting mission that previously was nowhere near that system, and by doing the second you are simply building off of the already existing resources, rather than starting anew. Though, in reality, I'm speaking out of my rear end as I have no idea how Nova set up the planets, but this is a plausible explanation if it is intentional. I will increase the costs however.

I'd need specific names... Some planets are supposed to have odd upgrade costs. Remember, most of the planets that require Urban research cost much less to upgrade (save for population), and those that require the Type II (volcanic icon) research have expensive planet upgrade costs. You may very well be right, but I can't comb through all of these.

Sounds like one of you might not have the same mod order; if your mods are not in the same order, even if you load the same folders, sync errors can occur. Though, I don't really know how this can happen if you just load CORE. This is going to sound odd, but I suggest using the public version for MP. It's more reliable due to lower RAM usage. As, in all truth, I really do not know why you guys would be getting tons of sync errors, unless it's something with the beta itself.

That's really weird... A proper, clean, install of R1021 followed by R1041 should not be MDing on start up. In fact, yesterday night I played a game of R1041 (was yet to be approved on Moddb; gave them the MF link) with two other guys who had it running no problem. A third person, who was supposed to play with us, was running into similar issues as yourself. He had R1021 previously, and it seemed to work (whenever he played with us there were crashes at some point without fail), though R1041 seemed to break it. Honestly I have no idea what could be causing it outside of a corrupted install; as I've had multiple people with different rigs (and both with ATI and nVidia cards) use it successfully. I would strongly suggest, if you have not done so, trying a non-Moddb mirror (provided in the Sins forum topic) then applying the R1041 patch (which works with both R1020 and R1021, FYI). If that does not work, I'm simply stumped unless it's related to your drivers or that your archive extracting program simply sucks.

Sounds like you might have a bad R1040 download. Try re-downloading the patch, from a non-Gamefront mirror. There's a chance you have a bad R1021 download as well; you aren't the first one to report weird MDs after getting the patch, and you should not be getting runtime errors with R1021, while others have it running just fine with a clean install.

Update: March 17, 2013 | Revision: 1041 Fixed bugs pointed out by 01lude, made unshielded fighters/bombers cost 0 AM, fixed AI issue with starbase deployment, plus other minor things.

Oh dear! You're right. Fixed on my working copy; will be included in an update later today.

Assault Frigate Mk.I research requirements were removed; when I killed the Intercept (speed boost) ability they were no longer needed. I didn't mention it in the log, admittedly. Totally missed the Mandator bug; thank you for pointing it out! I haven't been able to do play testing, and I would have never found it myself. There aren't that many active testers nowadays I guess. Most people just sign up for the beta and then never post again.

Update: March 12, 2013 | Revision: 1040 Slight AM/cooldown cost adjustment to WMD and Raze Planet.

Update: March 7, 2013 | Revision: 1039 Re-hauled planet bombing stats. They certainly aren't perfect, but it's definitely a vast improvement.

Well, that is what the wiki is for, but I personally just have no time to add to it. As it is, I'm struggling to get this patch out, and that's with the mod still lacking tons of UI stuff.

In the case of bombers, yes. In the case of fighters, not always. There are two exceptions. The A-Wing is faster and more maneuverable than the X-Wing, but the latter has more health and is more durable. The CIS' Nantex is better in every way than the Vulture Droid, except that it lacks missiles, making it lack the "first strike" volleys missiles and pull off and making it useless for Buzz Droid equipped ships.

Update: February 26, 2013 | Revision: 1036 Fixed start up crash caused by R1035 (kudos to 01lude), buffed Munifiscent's health to match Acclamator's, Broadside's antimatter cache increased to 250, Refitted Dreadnaught supply cost/build time increased.

Update: February 26, 2013 | Revision: 1035 This is an absolutely massive patch for the Alliance. Backup Shields' cooldown has been greatly increased, antimatter cost set to 0, and many cruisers/capital ships have had their firepower buffed. Fighter health regen, for shielded fighters, has been slashed, while non-shielded have only gained a slight debuff (this all benefits the latter). Alpha Strike's antimatter cost has been decreased heavily, Escort Carrier now has 4 squads and heavy armor, Viscount's shield regen has been reduced to Executor's and armor increased, MC90 health/regen adjusted, fixed Shift Power to Siege Guns ability.

Sadly, Large Address Aware simply does not work all the time. Without a paging file, LAA doesn't work 99% of the time, as for one reason or another, a paging file lets Windows allocate more RAM, LAA or not. If you have Sins on an SSD, I would suggest moving it to another partition with a paging file enabled and leaving a symlink in place. I personally did that not too long ago and have not had any issues thus far. Having all the races enabled isn't a huge help as well to be truthful.

Sounds like the common running out of RAM issue. Are you able to reload these saves after rebooting Sins, and then play for another 30+ mins without issue? If not, can you send me some of these saves (.savereb and .statsreb) along with the mod order that you had for each save?

It should work. You have to let the ships bomb a planet, then the ability fires on the ship, not the planet. Edit: Never mind, found/fixed the issue. Will be in next patch, which hopefully will be the real release patch.