soul0reaper

That all sounds good to me. I'm not sure how free I will be during this summer, however I think I'll have enough time to work on this. I'm not very good at scripts but I think there might be an easy way to bring planet bonuses to each svn release. I would need it to search for all possible planets and add the range of all possible bonuses. Since I know where the line of code is, I think it should be simple to add. Still with the sheer amount of planets, a lot of typing and copying seems to be in the future.

All I meant was for the original sins planet bonuses to be brought back, maybe with star wars requiem naming. How exactly does the engine handle bonuses? Is it for group of planets or does each type need to be edited separable. Given that its random, its about as balanced as artifacts are (which is probably not saying much since one game my friend had all 3 artifacts that spawn in his area xD) Planet diversity is there by the sheer number of planets, but it still wouldn't hurt to have more differences possible between identical planets. Often whenever I try to make a map for SoaGE I rarely use any of the random planet selections because of the huge range of possible choices. Having bonuses would make maps have some differentiation when repeatedly played without drastically altering balance. I'm willing to help edit files for you to implement the custom planet characteristics if necessary, and bonus if you choose to re-implement them.

That speedyshare site has a really troll method of a download button lol

The random bonuses (or negatives) that planets may feature should be re-implemented. Now I know there are already tons of different planet types, but this way even premade maps have a sort of uniqueness to them each time they are played. After playing rebellion for a while, I gotta say I miss those porous core, high security, and other things. I know there are dedicated planets for probably all of the bonuses, but what harm is there to bring even more variation? Sins is a big game, each plant should have all the more potential to diversify. I'd do it myself if someone would point me in the right direction. Other suggestions I'd like to make regard the planet development upgrades for some planets. I understand the rationale behind the decision for players to pay a cost to "maintain" a planet on a hostile environment. However given some maps like Systems at War/Fire and Ice, it would be nice to let players to be able to pay some amount of money to remove underdevelopment. It really cuts into your credits. In addition logistics slots on some of the planets are low, some planets do have tons of them, but I think the lower end should be given maybe 8 more slots or so. Lastly, some of the normal sins maps don't work every well and I think it has something to do with the planet templates used. Now while I like making maps, sometimes I just want to play a premade map so maybe bring back some of the types of planet vanilla sins has so the vanilla maps work?

Any news on this yet? I'd like to know too

I'm aware of this. Ion cannons will have a chance of disabling the various components of the ship it is firing upon (engines, weapons, etc), but it will be a very, very small chance. Mainly as you will have dozens of cruisers/frigates firing upon a single target, and each one has a shot at disabling things. The ability will also have no stacking limit, so mass enough ships against a single target and it's screwed. The Torpedo Sphere capital ship. i.e. Get rid of the capital ship, turn it into a cruiser. I meant which cruiser, I thought all the cruiser slots for the empire were used? I was thinking more of a reduction component functionality rather than a chance to disable. Different ion cannons had a chance of reducing functionality by x amount with y chance. It sounds a little silly if by random, one of the ion bolts fired just disabled a ship outright. Ion cannons also do structural damage to the ship via the intense heat they generate. In addition, not sure if having shields resist/stop ion cannon effects. My suggestion is to have it do greater damage to shields but with longer reload rates (maybe a research opportunity?)and reduced damage to hull. .

On the ISDs there are redundancies to the weapons. You can probably merge 2 types of turbolasers into 1 weapon slot though it would be nice to see the full complement. I'm not really concerned which way tractors go, most of the time its the limited range that gets to me :/ but thats also canon. Mmh, this is what spurned the idea to put in real ion cannons in the first place over a year ago, though their implementation has been delayed to due the numerous other things that SoGE needed at the time, plus the then 3 weapon slot limitation. Ion cannons also affect the ship, look at what happened at hoth. it has disabling properties xD Doesn't sound like a problem to me, what would it be replacing?

I'm not sure if this is viable since there is a logistical slot limit, but can you move ships to the titan/captial ship structure and make it cost 0 crew? That would give you more options for the lower tiers.

oh, thanks!

link is dead :/ would be great if you reuploaded

Does sins allow for the destruction of missiles and other physical projectiles? point defense is used for more than starfighters. In my experiences during actual gameplay I don't use lancers much. why? because during an actual fleet engagment the enemy bombers crush them regardless. I built 50 of them, but they get raped really hard by bombers. Making lancers use less population enough is a great idea to encourage more as dedicated fighters right now are pretty much the only hard counter to mass bomber swarms that the alliance love. Dedicated anti starfighters ships such as the lancer are pretty rare, most ships have a variety of weapons and that shouldn't be taken away to fit sins rock-paper-scissor mentality, Requiem does that already. The carrack and the lancer both have have anti starfighter capabilities, I think you should expand ship weaponry to with with actual sw canon that try to specialize to force sins logic. People will pick ships based on what mix of weapons they want. Since fleet sizes are so big, I prefer large ships with different weapons that survive rather than smaller dedicated ships. Although even some of these small ships seem very capable... Lancer: (ironically, reading the history behind the lancer, it was regulated to rear guard and backwater planets which is sort of how I use it atm) AG-2G quad laser cannons (20) Carrack: This thing seems really durable too Heavy turbolasers (10) Tractor beam projectors (5) Ion cannons (20) Anti-starfighter version: Heavy turbolasers (10) Tractor beam projectors (5) Laser cannons (20) Regarding how point defense should be implemented, I agree that most if not all captial ships (by SW definition not sins) should have SOME sort of anti air capabilities. Though I feel that the stopping power should be based on ship capabilities/size. Point defense weaponry should stop somewhere between 1-6 squadrons with 6 being reserved for the Star Dreadnought Class.

posted ISDII's weapons list in the link

If based purely off canon: The ISDII Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons ( Heavy turbolaser batteries (5) Turbolaser batteries (5) Additional turbolaser batteries (26+) Heavy ion cannons (20) Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10) Since I doubt you can make tractor beams a weapon, you have 5 weapons there. Lots of turbolasers though xD

Any news on when it will be back up?

yeah I used diplomacy version number by mistake. Any news on a multiplayer match? I'm back home and its winter break

Did something change with pirates? If anything they were underpowered. Sending pirates were like giving the opponent free exp.

I'm up for a game now that thanksgiving break is here I'm using an old (1.32) copy as my friend whose account I used is out of country. -.-

Hey, sorry I've been swamped by school so I didn't have much time to check the forums. Should be able to get back into sins a bit this fall

the tool I posted in the beta tester section is still working. Never gotten a minidump because of memory yet because of it

I'd let the damage stack, reduce them all slightly if the total +dmg is too much. Not really sure about range nerf, didn't see much difference.

Since rebellion will be including diplomacy changes, having it already converted to diplomacy will probably make it easier to covert to rebellion.

easy to take the planet. With a large fleet, the shield is basically not there. Not sure how durable the structure itself is. The ai ignores the shield and goes straight for the planet so afterwards I don't really care to look and see. Imo the shield, if it can't stop bombardment, should give the planet 100% mitigation, or some sort of "max damage it can repel" value so heavier ships can break it. Having a shield that lets bombardment through really doesn't fit in sw :S Since the structure is in space and not ground base, it shouldn't be imbalanced. Edit: Where did the population upgrades go? Now the civilian tree looks empty -.- Also why is volcanic moved to 8th research and super ice requiring volcanic?

If you can make a heavy choke, in normal sins a tec player can go novalith happy late game and decimate players. The same would happen with the death star.

The time scale ingame should allow you to develop plants. True many planets in SW are underdeveloped. It is also true however those backwater planets that are important will see heavy development in both defense and infrastructure. When a planet is of tactical importance, efforts are made to fortify it. Hoth being an example of what little the rebellion can do to a "backwater" planet. Given the time scaling of sins, and the canon of SW it should be perfectly feasible to develop any of your plants at a cost. How much would naturally depend on how the level of difficulty of it, but it presents another viable endgame option. Should you invest for the time where your fleet supply forces -75% to all resources or gain early military advantage. As an early implementation I wouldn't care much if you just put the last few costs for upgrading high terran plants or similar on them, It can pay for itself in the long run. As mentioned in the star bases thread, eventually ALL planets will allow for 4 stations per planet. This will effectively make any planet defensible, as 4 fully upgraded stations is equivalent to 4 mid-high level capital ships. At that point it is the tactical slots that will determine whether a planet has medium/average or heavy-very heavy defenses. Until this is implemented, you're kinda going to have to live with having somewhat indefensible planets. =/ Though I do promise this will be done by early May, as I'll have the program I need to get this written by then regardless of SoGE, as it's for school. :v Even with star bases I feel that defenses in general shouldn't be limited much to planet size. Maybe the speed of construction should be looked at since an isolated asteroid will take some time to reach with materials needed. I still feel that all planets should have the ability to at least 30 tac slots. Yes 4 starbases is nice, but some of the other defenses are still vital. 30 I think was standard before unless my memory is bad. It provided a good early alarm and bought reasonable time for a fleet to respond. Also regarding defenses, any reason why a planetary shield does not prevent bombardment?

Well choice can be good, you can probably make one just maybe 50% cheaper and half its stats or something. IMO the diversity in the mod is great, whether they matter and how its spread out is a different matter