Patch v3255 is out
GPG has just released a new version of SupCom, v3255. This hotfix apparently fixes a possible desync exploit, although I am unsure of any details. There are no official release notes that I can find, just a one line message on GPGnet. Unfortunately, this means that yet again old replays are incompatible with the new version of SupCom, and the replay vault on GPGnet has again been emptied.
As far as I know, there was no mention at all that this patch was coming beforehand. Also, the lack of a decent set of release notes is troubling. Does this patch really change only one thing? Stay tuned for more details as they develop.
Update: There are still no proper release notes, but GPG has released a short list of balance changes included in the patch:
- UEF Destroyer Gauss Cannons given larger range
- UEF T3 SAM Missiles move faster
- UEF T2 Cruiser SAM Missiles move faster
- Gunships can now fire on the Soul Ripper
- Flak no longer deals damage to friendlies
- Damage fixed on Aluminar (3.96 to 4)
Of particular note is the increased movement speed of the UEF T3 SAM site, which pre-patch could not even hit fast moving aircraft. There is no mention of any fix to the still broken UEF Wasp, though.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
You know, I almost miss the long patch cycle that we had leading up to v3251. It isn’t good to have the Replay Vault cleared out so often.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
It kills me that replays become obsolete even with the smallest patches. I’m sure there’s no way around it, short of reinstalling the game from scratch and patching up to the point you want to, but I wish they would make a separate “replay engine” that maintained backwards compatibility.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Supreme Commander HQ seems to have a fairly good change log.
http://www.supremecommanderhq.com/blog/?permalink=1032
June 19th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
err…crap. sorry, that was last patch :( my bad. We really need a way to delete posts we made on here.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I’d rather not have people taking down their comments. That can be used for evil as well as for good.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Is there a downside to playing as UEF now that their Striker, T2 PD, and SAMs have been fixed? I haven’t been playing and I am thus aware of the online situation, but are the top-tier players switching to UEF now? The last two replays I saw of Unconq are of him as UEF…
June 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Since I don’t think it matters anymore the desync exploit was that you could type “forcedebusdesync” in console and it would automatically desync the game cheats on or not…. As you can see a rather big problem.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Wuped, haha, nice. So I guess that could be used in a ranked game when you were losing to force a disconnect? The developers have to be careful with those console commands.
As for the patch changes, I really like them. The fix to UEF anti-air missiles was long overdue, as was the ability for gunships to take down the mother gunship. The CZAR is now the only air unit that can’t efficiently be killed by other air units.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Cyde ways a czar can be very efficiently killed by air units…
1: shoot it with t3 arty(it counts as an air unit right…..)
2: Strat bomb it(fun)
June 20th, 2007 at 3:21 am
UEF isn’t the only race being used right now. I still see a lot of Cybran players. The Cybrans have a strong T2 and can spam cheap experimentals. It seems to me that Aeon has the short end of the stick at the moment, but that’s not necessarily because of an imbalance. After the patch many people switched from Aeon to other races. It may be that some will switch back in time. Though it can be argued that Aeon are weak at the moment if you really want to. It’s hard to tell how much each race is played with the web stats down.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:40 am
Woohoo, UEF still suck at non-air based T1 AA but that I view as a factional difference rather than a bug. The fix for cruisers is also brilliant, no more getting mauled at sea by strat bombers.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:29 am
>>I wish they would make a separate “replay engine” that maintained backwards compatibility.
/signed
June 20th, 2007 at 8:28 am
One interesting thing to note is that it seems only one of the Broadsword guns have gotten the “anti Soul Ripper” upgrade.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Why do they always do that? Back when they nerfed the Broadsword’s DPS the first time, they forgot to nerf the second gun. And then we have the Wasp with it’s broken muzzle velocity on gun #2. And now if only one of the BS main weapons can target an SR, that means this is the third time they’ve screwed up units with multiple weapons.
Once or twice, OK, but three times?
June 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Eukaryote: Wheeee, think this is another bug, or was it just too powerful to have all of a Broadsword’s weapons targeting a Soul Ripper?
June 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Now i just hope they tweak Cybran shields to be more like Aeon and UEF. I hate looking for upgradable shield if i hate 9-14 of them build. You should be able to build t3 shields right away with t3 engies like other factions.
Non related to this post but i just find that frustrating
June 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Aeon right now is definatley underpowered…. Today I saw ktachuck my partner kill 3 auroras with one hunter. It was awesome.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
@Cyde: since anyone with access to a Soul Ripper has access to Renegades, and Renegades pwn Broadswords mass for mass, it seems unlikely to me that the second weapon thing was an intentional balance decision. Although, since Cybrans can’t counter Wasps, I guess they are screwed for different reasons.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Any chance of multiplayer saves yet?
June 21st, 2007 at 5:45 am
Forget it.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Wuped, if the Auroras are poorly microed and that Hunter was microed well, of course it’s possible for the Auroras to lose.
I think Aeon are pretty much perfect now, they aren’t the ultra-range, ultra-cheap, ultra-fast, ultra-accurate, ultra-tough ones anymore, but are much more fragile and require careful handling of their equipment to bring it to the fullest effect.
UEF has sturdy equipment, and Cybrans have damn versatile, but somewhat weak-ish equipment.
It feels like almost every unit has a legitimate use on the battlefield now, and in an average battle, you will be needing a large selection of units to make sure you control all the fronts.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Only one I can think of that isn’t being used much is the amphibious tank. Far as I can tell anyway, but I’m nowhere near the top of the 1v1 rankings.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Thygrrr: No if the hunters are microed well(which they always will be in top play) the auroras lose. There is no way for the auroras to be “microed well” it is impossible. Also flares lose to hunters. So basically at high level play auroras are useless vs a cybran opponent your flares will be beat out to there hunters. Although there t2 is on par(although obs lose to microed rhinos and there mmls(forget the name) lose to vipers it is ok. But since there t1 is worse they are slower to t2 thus lose. No way around it. For casual play balance dosn’t matter.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
You can still kite Hunters with Auroras, you just need to be really dedicated about it, and you need to have more than 10 Auroras at a time. That can be a tall order on some maps, but Hunters certainly do not auto-win against Auroras in every situation.
1 on 1, micro’d Hunters do beat Auroras, and that is advantage enough for Cybrans.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Aman maybe you do not know what I am talking about…. It has nothing to do with kiting by running side to side with hunters the aurs will never ever ever ever ever hit you if you get in the right rhythm Ever.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I know what you’re saying, but there is a practical limit to how many Hunters can be micro’d this way simultaneously. A single Hunter can be used this way indefinitely, maybe even 3 or 4. But I don’t think it can be done with 10-20 or more.
So this strat gives a small advantage in early T1 (where Cybran has an advantage anyway), but I have never seen it work for large engagements or past T1.