v1.0.7.2->v1.0.7.4 Changelog (Releasing)

[GGLucas]

Live Patch Notes for version 1.0.7.4.
You may update by clicking "Check For Updates" in game. Note: The patcher incorrectly states what version you've updated to, but it will patch correctly.
Download 1.0.7.2 → 1.0.7.4
Previous Patch: 1.0.7.0 → 1.0.7.2

Changes: Final
[Fixed] "Invalid Common String reference" error caused by loading savegames with supply orders. Saves displaying the error will be loadable again with this fix.
[Fixed] A deadlock caused by two blueprints updating at the same time.
[Fixed] The governor selection for planets in the system window opening and closing randomly.
[Fixed] Selecting a ship in a fleet not selecting the entire fleet.
[Fixed] Automation orders did not update when adding new components to the design or changing the docking settings.
[Fixed] Treaties sent from the host to a client player when there was already an active treaty between those two would be instantly accepted.
[Added] Clicking "Add Pin" while having an entire fleet selected now pins the fleet.
[Added] "Ships Turn to Decelerate" option that can be toggled off. When off, ships will always face their target instead of turning around to slow down.
[Added] "Flag: FakeRotation" for model definitions to mark specific models as not needing to turn around to decelerate.
[Added] Planets in the system window can now also be sorted by used and free slots.
[Added] "Send Resources Once" treaty clause to... send resources once... rather than trade them every second.

[XTRMNTR2K]

[Fixed] "Invalid Common String reference" error caused by loading savegames with supply orders. Saves displaying the error will be loadable again with this fix.
[Fixed] A deadlock caused by two blueprints updating at the same time.
[Fixed] The governor selection for planets in the system window opening and closing randomly.
[Fixed] Selecting a ship in a fleet not selecting the entire fleet.
[Fixed] Automation orders did not update when adding new components to the design or changing the docking settings.
[Added] Clicking "Add Pin" while having an entire fleet selected now pins the fleet.
[Added] "Ships Turn to Decelerate" option that can be toggled off. When off, ships will always face their target instead of turning around to slow down.
[Added] "Flag: FakeRotation" for model definitions to mark specific models as not needing to turn around to decelerate.

This list is still short, yet so amazing. It has "major improvement" written all over it.

Then again, getting a bit philosophical... Was there ever a patch that had not?

[Totallyunderpowered]

Wow, already?  You guys are great.

[Added] "Ships Turn to Decelerate" option that can be toggled off. When off, ships will always face their target instead of turning around to slow down.
[Added] "Flag: FakeRotation" for model definitions to mark specific models as not needing to turn around to decelerate.

Except for this.  I feel this is bowing to the handful who think it is "ridiculous" that physics doesn't actually look like Star Trek.  I  at such people and move along.  It's akin to a newcomer to a realistic Cold War submarine simulator thinking it's "lame" that an enemy vessel can hide in their baffles: they may think it's unlikely that things would work that way, but they do.  If some think that this makes the game less glamorous, I strongly feel that such players should simply move along to a game whose movement rules are more suited to their simple tastes.   

All that being said, I feel this is a bad change because it will remove a layer of strategy from ship design.  If a player can guarantee that their vessel will only show one face to an enemy, it makes the design process that much simpler.  Similarly any player who doesn't use these new movement rules will automatically be at a disadvantage.  That seems like a poor trade-off, and in favor of those whose complaints demonstrably have no merit.

[eRe4s3r]

I don't think the damage system cares what direction the model faces... 

[Totallyunderpowered]

I don't think the damage system cares what direction the model faces... 

Damage isn't directional?

[GGLucas]

Except for this.

Don't worry, this is an option that affects the entire game. Players cannot toggle it for individual ships or anything, so it will not affect designs unless you decide to start the game with it on.

We all at those people, but it can't hurt anyone to have it as an option. Note that it doesn't actually change the physics, just the facing of the ship. Imagine that for whatever reason the ship has thrusters that can thrust in any direction.

Obviously, this is also a necessity for mods. Even though Star Ruler's system works the way it does, someone making a Star Trek mod might want to toggle on the model flag so the Enterprise arrives the same way it would in the series. I don't think this is something that needs further explanation

I don't think the damage system cares what direction the model faces... 

It does. It's not a 1:1 match while rotating, but when the ship is not rotating the rotation of the model and the rotation to the damage system are equal.

[Totallyunderpowered]

Don't worry, this is an option that affects the entire game. Players cannot toggle it for individual ships or anything, so it will not affect designs unless you decide to start the game with it on.

Oh, that's much less problematic.  I'm more concerned with a level playing field than with ruining Star Trek fan mods. 

What of the "Flag:Fake Rotation" option?  Is this just aesthetic? 

And apologies if I came across as Grumpy Grognard #2751.  The caffeine had not hit my brain yet!

[eRe4s3r]

But if you uncouple the model from the damage system, so that both can face different directions but are still on the same pivot....  Ehm, then it wouldn't care (the damage system, what direction the model faces).

I thought you were doing it that way  But it would add a clear visual disconnect and probably more confusion that way. So making it a global option sounds like a better idea.

[Amethyst]

I feel this is bowing to the handful who think it is "ridiculous" that physics doesn't actually look like Star Trek.  I  at such people and move along.  It's akin to a newcomer to a realistic Cold War submarine simulator thinking it's "lame" that an enemy vessel can hide in their baffles: they may think it's unlikely that things would work that way, but they do.  If some think that this makes the game less glamorous, I strongly feel that such players should simply move along to a game whose movement rules are more suited to their simple tastes.   

All that being said, I feel this is a bad change because it will remove a layer of strategy from ship design.  If a player can guarantee that their vessel will only show one face to an enemy, it makes the design process that much simpler.  Similarly any player who doesn't use these new movement rules will automatically be at a disadvantage.  That seems like a poor trade-off, and in favor of those whose complaints demonstrably have no merit.

Though if there *is* an advantage to building a ship that does not turn to deccelerate, then it would be done if possible. And there is one know way to do it: put reverse thrusters on it. Possibly it should have to be xpecified which direction a thruster is facing (or if it matters for a time of movement device, so that mods can add more exotic movement systems), but that would be harder to add.

As a note, in a real space battle being able to slow down without turning would be an even larger advantage than it is in the game. It would allow you to not lose your firing slolution while slowing.

[GGLucas]

What of the "Flag:Fake Rotation" option?  Is this just aesthetic?

It is not, but it is something modders will need to add to their models for it to work. If they do add it, then yes, ships with that model will behave differently from others that way. None of the ships in vanilla will have it on, though.

[Totallyunderpowered]

It is not, but it is something modders will need to add to their models for it to work. If they do add it, then yes, ships with that model will behave differently from others that way. None of the ships in vanilla will have it on, though.

I think I see how this will work.  Okay then, let's just leave it at "you guys are great". 

[Mephisto]

I feel this is bowing to the handful who think it is "ridiculous" that physics doesn't actually look like Star Trek.  I  at such people and move along.

I haven't seen anyone use the world ridiculous. I can only at people that consider tastes different than their own to be wrong.

[echo66]

seriously, you speak in the strategy of turn and face the enemy ship. What's the strategy behind all this if all the ships rotate at an incredible speed? It doesn't make sense. If it was to add any tactical value, the turn should have speed constraints.

In b4 negative karma. *sad panda*

[BSR]

AWESOME!!!

The continued speed at wich you guys pump out the patches deserves an all capital praise

[Thy Reaper]

The patch is out. Check OP for link, or click "Check For Updates" in game. Note that the patcher will tell you the wrong version it updated to due to a bug, but it should update correctly.

[Skeletor6669]

I get an error when trying to load a save, it says Subsystem error mismatch, data files have likely changed. I hate having to start a new game everytime a patch comes out, though I'm getting pretty good at setting up my empire :p

[XTRMNTR2K]

The patch is out. Check OP for link, or click "Check For Updates" in game. Note that the patcher will tell you the wrong version it updated to due to a bug, but it should update correctly.

lol, just when we released our mod for 1.0.7.2.

Oh well, it's better to have a fix for those broken savegames sooner than later.

EDIT: Wow. Unchecking "Ships turn to decelerate" looks surprisingly good. Or at least not as stupid as it does in other games, since they still accelerate and decelerate like they should. Besides adding the useful option for modders to enforce this behavior on a per-model-basis, I can really see this pleasing both crowds. Very well done!

EDIT2: I have a question:

"Flag: FakeRotation" for model definitions to mark specific models as not needing to turn around to decelerate.

Where would I need to add this? In the corresponding model definition of models.txt, I presume?

[Skeletor6669]

where is the option for the new deceleration? I just tried to start a new game but couldn't find it.

EDIT: never mind, found it. I thought it was on the start new game screen. new question, I've been trying to load my old saves in legacy mode but I get this error and a CTD:

Runtime Error!

Program: C:\program Files\Star Ruler\StarRuler.eve


This application has requested the Runtime to terminate in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's support team for more information.

I would really like to be able to use my ship designs from that save, I had a few good ones that I dont wanna spend hours tinkering with again.

[Exa]

[Added] "Ships Turn to Decelerate" option that can be toggled off. When off, ships will always face their target instead of turning around to slow down.

After reading the whole thread I'm still confused (yeah, I'm thick lately): does this option affect damage calculations or not?

BTW, you guys are amazing 

[GGLucas]

After reading the whole thread I'm still confused: does this option affect damage calculations or not?

Technically it does. It won't be significant in the big picture, though.

Runtime Error!

Could you post that save? Then I could check it out.

[vinc3nt]

Technically it does. It won't be significant in the big picture, though.

So, before when a ship turned around to slow down- If it was hit by a projectile from the direction it was travelling to (when the ship is already turned around to slow down) it would hit the engines (the rear of the ship’s design).

But with the ships slowing down without turning, it hits the front of the ship’s design?

Is this correct?

[GGLucas]

If you turn off the turning option, which it is not by default, correct. Although shots that early in the engagement would usually hit the armor anyway.

[XTRMNTR2K]

So, before when a ship turned around to slow down- If it was hit by a projectile from the direction it was travelling to (when the ship is already turned around to slow down) it would hit the engines (the rear of the ship’s design).

But with the ships slowing down without turning, it hits the front of the ship’s design?

Is this correct?

Yes, that should be correct. Regardless, armor will still need to be destroyed completely before the subsystems can be damaged. By the time the armor is gone, the ship is as good as dead anyway.
The only exceptions from this are the Muon Cannon and Phased Energy Beam, which can bypass armor and hit the subsystems directly.

[SwiftBlizz]

Hmm, does anyone know if jumpdrives still jumps to the middle of the system instead of the edge?

[dstar]

If you turn off the turning option, which it is not by default, correct. Although shots that early in the engagement would usually hit the armor anyway.

You know, engines should really be an exception to the 'must hit armor first' rule *if* the shot is coming from the rear, since they have to be exposed -- there should be a chance (modified by the size of the engine) to hit the engine instead of the armor (and once an engine has taken more than 50% of its hitpoints, or so, the thrust it produces should probably start dropping, down to 50% thrust at 100%-epsilon; once your engine is down to 50% thrust because of damage, you probably need to shut it down... you _really_ don't want to have your exhaust venting into the ship). (The same might go for weapons, actually. They also have to be exposed.)

That adds another degree of strategy, too, if you haven't disabled turn-to-decelerate; you want to do most of your deceleration outside of enemy weapon range, then turn to face them while exchanging shots -- and you want to turn as you're passing them, so they don't get a shot at your engines. And you want to do what you can to get a shot at _their_ engines. (Now, whether the AI can actually _do_ that, well, that's a different matter. But it could at least try.) If ships became less maneuverable as they got larger, this would be a big reason to keep large ships accompanied by smaller, more maneuverable ones to try to protect its rear.

[echo66]

After all, bad karma for me. *sad panda*

Seems my opinion isn't desired in here. 

Oh the humanity..

[Malorn]

At risk of appearing stupid, where is the checkbox to remove turning exactly?

edit: never mind, found it in options, sorry about that.

[DeathMist]

Holy shit  I could of sworn 1.0.7.2 was released a few days ago...

You guys are bloody awesome. This latest patch is small and yet does so much THANK YOU!

[BBR91]

[Fixed] "Invalid Common String reference" error caused by loading savegames with supply orders. Saves displaying the error will be loadable again with this fix.
[Fixed] Selecting a ship in a fleet not selecting the entire fleet.
[Added] Clicking "Add Pin" while having an entire fleet selected now pins the fleet.

From my first game, which was a continuation of the Tutorial, I noticed these annoyances. I'm glad to see this game growing by the day, totally worth the money, I have big hopes for it Keep it up!

[Wvage]

Excellent job guys.