I'd have to say that if your supply lines are efficient enough that it doesn't cost you anything to maintain them, then you shouldn't be getting money for them once the pact is researched...

Real world application, however, there is always a cost because you need resupply ships, and you have the cost of the crews of those ships, the maintenance costs of those ships, as well as the cost of the supplies themselves...  I assume this is the cost of the upkeep for fleet supply.  The more ships you want in service, the more resuppliers, ports, and distribution depots you're going to need, and the more supplies you're going to go through.  In which case, optimization of these supply lines would, and should save you money.  If you were breaking even on your costs before the pact, you should make a profit for not needing to maintain all of the resupply ships you had before.

So to rationalize the new income, I'd have to say you're spending less on ships and crew in your resupply fleet since you can take advantage of your allies supply fleet, or if not that, then loaning out your extras to your ally to help cut their cost down, but the end result is you making money.

1.  For exsample  vasari tree  resource pact ->  pricing pact -> phase drive pact ...  , not like hul upgeade research.

4.  I wish to conclude pacts with several factions at the same time. For Exsample 3v3 multiplayer game, i wish to offer pacts to 2 team mate. 

5.  New capitalship is only exsample, I want more exciting and interesting pacts.

6. STATSTICS means game result stats. (oops miss typo, STATISTICS is right)

NumWeapons 2
Weapon
 WeaponType "Beam"
 damageEnums
  AttackType "CAPITALSHIP"
  DamageAffectType "AFFECTS_SHIELDS_AND_HULL"
  DamageApplyType "OVERTIME"
  DamageType "ENERGY"
  WeaponClassType "BEAM"
 DamagePerBank:FRONT 70.000000
 DamagePerBank:BACK 35.000000
 DamagePerBank:LEFT 0.000000
 DamagePerBank:RIGHT 0.000000
 Range 5000.000000
 PreBuffCooldownTime 7.000000
 CanFireAtFighter FALSE
 SynchronizedTargeting FALSE
 PointStaggerDelay 1.000000
 TravelSpeed 0.000000
 Duration 2.500000
 fireConstraintType "CanAlwaysFire"
 WeaponEffects
  weaponType "Beam"
  burstCount 1
  burstDelay 0.000000
  muzzleEffectName "Weapon_PsiCapitalBeamMedium_Muzzle"
  muzzleSoundMinRespawnTime 0.100000
  muzzleSounds
   soundCount 1
   sound ""
  hitEffectName "Weapon_PsiCapitalBeamMedium_Hit"
  hitHullEffectSounds
   soundCount 1
   sound ""
  hitShieldsEffectSounds
   soundCount 1
   sound ""
  beamEffectSounds
   soundCount 1
   sound "WEAPON_PSICAPITALBEAMMEDIUM_TRAVEL"
  beamGlowTextureName "PsiCapitalBeam_Glow"
  beamCoreTextureName "PsiCapitalBeam_Core"
  beamWidth 20.000000
  beamGlowColor ffffffff
  beamCoreColor ffffffff
  beamTilingRate 3.000000
Weapon
 WeaponType "Projectile"
 damageEnums
  AttackType "CAPITALSHIP"
  DamageAffectType "AFFECTS_SHIELDS_AND_HULL"
  DamageApplyType "BACKLOADED"
  DamageType "ENERGY"
  WeaponClassType "PLASMA"
 DamagePerBank:FRONT 152.000000
 DamagePerBank:BACK 0.000000
 DamagePerBank:LEFT 52.000000
 DamagePerBank:RIGHT 52.000000
 Range 5000.000000
 PreBuffCooldownTime 6.000000
 CanFireAtFighter FALSE
 SynchronizedTargeting FALSE
 PointStaggerDelay 0.200000
 TravelSpeed 4000.000000
 Duration 0.000000
 fireConstraintType "CanAlwaysFire"
 WeaponEffects
  weaponType "Projectile"
  burstCount 3
  burstDelay 0.300000
  muzzleEffectName "Weapon_PsiCapitalPlasmaHeavy_Muzzle"
  muzzleSoundMinRespawnTime 0.100000
  muzzleSounds
   soundCount 3
   sound "WEAPON_PSICAPITALPLASMAHEAVY_MUZZLE"
   sound "WEAPON_PSICAPITALPLASMAHEAVY_MUZZLE_ALT1"
   sound "WEAPON_PSICAPITALPLASMAHEAVY_MUZZLE_ALT2"
  hitEffectName "Weapon_PsiCapitalPlasmaHeavy_Hit"
  hitHullEffectSounds
   soundCount 1
   sound "WEAPONIMPACT_ENERGYHEAVY_HITHULL"
  hitShieldsEffectSounds
   soundCount 1
   sound "WEAPONIMPACT_GENERICHEAVY_HITSHIELDS"
  projectileTravelEffectName "Weapon_PsiCapitalPlasmaHeavy_Travel"

Apologies for double post, this worked perfectly in my test mod and actually I feel made the ship feel more believeable.

If you paste that into the entity file, it shoots beam weapons (similar to the Advent Carrier) from the bottom front 2 and the back 2 turrets (which just feel right, as they look like beam turrets and are different looking to the rest of the turrets). The 2 middle turrets fire the purple plasma weapons along with the now working top two turrets.

Hope this helps, I think it makes the Revelation Class that little bit better looking and slightly more beleivable.

Any news on the next hotfix?

Did Yarlen even post that he saw what was wrong with the black market pact? Maybe someone should PM him.

I don't think he has...to be honest, I'm not sure with of these threads the devs even look at...for example, people have mentioned from the beginning of time that the text for LCs still indicates they field only one squadron...small issue, but it's been brought up sooooo many times and it would be so easy to fix...this string issue doesn't matter, but "small" issues like the black market pact do, and it'd be a shame if they got overlooked...

I think Yarlen simply was on his weekend and didn't check the thread yet

Can I no longer give 'Give Resources' missions to allies/enemies?

Playing as TEC, I got the tech that allows me to receive those mission types. But I can't give them, not to a 20/20 ally and not to a enemy with who I have 4.3/-0.3 relationship.

The AI player must also research that tech in order for you to offer such a mission. It's a limitation from the original game that we aren't able to workaround.

We'll be addressing the Supply and Trade Pact issues that were reported - thanks for that. I wasn't able to reproduce the claim that constructors will attempt to deconstruct turrets.  Mine made no such attempt though if they go within range of an enemy turret they will be fired upon - as has always been the case.

I've been experiencing two strange bugs since the hotfix :

- A minor but funny one : I was playing an open teams AI game, and at one point I took one vasari enemy planet that had mines, and then the infocard for structures on the planet said the minefields had like 261% health (and the color was one we never see on infocards, light blue/green...). I tried to take a screenshot but I can't find it (I think it didn't work). It did not affect the rest of the game as far as I know...

- One that is annoying : I live in Europe so have an azerty keyboard (with which the game normally works fine), and yesterday while on ICO it switched to qwerty ! I alt-tabbed the game to check in other apps and my keyboard was fine everywhere but in Sins. Restarting Sins switches it back to normal, but it seems rather frequent as it happened to me again in MP today (non-ICO) twice in a row...

I hope to find a solution to the second problem (well I can learn qwerty but I'd rather not if possible :D), I am not sure if it's patch-related but it certainly never happened to me before the hotfix.

The AI may have had a higher research level in structure (HP) then you and it can show like that. Though the number is a bit high almost as if it was modded.

I guarantee you it can happen...I have had it happen in SP and have been able to reproduce it quite easily using the dev .exe...

I have a replay of a SP game on Point Blank where I did not use the dev .exe...I tried to cut the game in half so you'll only have to watch 16 minutes...put it on 8x till about the last 2 minutes, that's the important part...

I started the AI on unfair for 10 minutes, then reloaded with the AI on easy...I bombed their HW and destroyed all but one civilian structure...I also left one of their beam defense platforms intact...upon colonizing the planet, my first constructor immediately heads toward the nearby beam defense platform and begins to deconstruct it...it doesn't do very much since the turret takes it out fairly quickly, but there is a good 15-20 seconds where the constructor is clearly using its ability and the turret is clearly taking damage (and its not from my fleet)...

If you need the save file or want a different replay let me know, but here is the replay link...

Also just a minor bug with the new formatting. While its nice to see research/artifacts will now turn red with negative bonuses as they should be, this only happens after you click to research them. If you are hovering your mouse over the description to see what it does before you click to research it, the negative effects still show up as green.

Also a couple of positive bonuses now show up as red, including the data archive's cost decrease (shows up as a red -25%) and the "Phase Jump Antimatter Cost" on the Advent high efficiency Jumps tech and the Jump Field Generator artifact. Any other modifiers where a negative value is actually a good thing might also be effected.

I was offered a 'Give resources' mission by an AI player, but couldn't offer that kind of mission in return. I have the required tech (was playing as TEC), and so did the AI obviously, who was Vasari. I am quite certain of this happening, but will try to reproduce it and create a replay file, or some screenshots that show the situation.

Maybe armor pact.

What about the suspected issue with the destruction of ships not yielding negative/positive diplomacy points that Goa reported?  Is it meant to be like that?  Lack of sensitivity to combat and related actions was the main problem I had with the update, rather than the extent of the AI bonus, though the reduction might have been advisable.  The AI bonus should be capped at whatever the max rate the player can get for fulfilling missions is, as that is what it is supposed to balance?  Anyone know what that rate is?  Points for fulfilling missions decay over time, yes? 

We should get together and have a few AI games online sometime, anyone interested?  Something like 3-4 players and the rest AI up to 8, with a joint win for two players, might be a good test?

Finally I didn't check whether the diplomatic stuff shows up in replays now, has that been fixed?  It would make playtesting easier!

To be clear I haven't actually tested this much, but I ran across this in the diplomacy section of the gameplay.constants file. Even if you're not a modder you can open it up in notepad and scroll to the bottom to see all the mins and max of most modifiers, as well as the decay rate. The following seems to be everything on the military actions.

        militaryActionsMin -10.0
        militaryActionsMax 5.0
        militaryActionsDecayRate -0.0009
        KilledShip
            AllyKilled 0.0
            EnemyKilled 0.0
        KilledCivilianStructure
            AllyKilled -0.05
            EnemyKilled 0.05
        KilledTacticalStructure
            AllyKilled -0.1
            EnemyKilled 0.1
        KilledPlanet
            AllyKilled -1.0
            EnemyKilled 1.0
        KilledStarbase
            AllyKilled -0.5
            EnemyKilled 0.5

Since I observed planets do give the stated -1.0 penalty, I assume ships work the same way, which at the moment seems to do nothing. While they should probably count the least of all of these catagories, maybe only -0.01/-0.02, if you blow up a fleet of frigates I would think the owner should have a negative reaction.

Realistically yes...problem is, since the default diplomatic status is war, you invariably must kill some enemy ships simply to stay alive...structures, SBs, and planets are one thing because in order to destroy those you have to go on the offensive (usually)...but with ships, you could be destroying entire enemy fleets in defense of your planets or simply to stay alive...

That becomes a problem if defensive actions have diplomatic repercussions....while maybe realistic, such modifiers would leave the military actions bonus/penalty more to chance than decision making...I can choose who I attack, but I can't necessarily choose who attacks me...

Not really sure if this should be one way or the other, but I certainly can understand why the devs would want killing ships to have no diplomatic effect...if they intended for killing ships to change diplomatic statuses, I'm sure v1.32 will fix this...

I don't think it's just the owner, its other factions too...it'd be like America getting ticked at Syria because it attacked Israel...now, that is logical, but with these game mechanics, if Israel attacked Syria but suffered losses, America would hate Syria more despite the fact that Syria did nothing wrong (it merely defended itself)...while that may happen in reality, in terms of game balance it's just not a really good idea...

Please send the save game where this happens to sinssupport@stardock.com.  Thanks!

No, Military Actions should be getting calculated immediately...

The code Goa is pointing to in the Gameplay.Constaints file is no longer used. Military Actions values for ships are now handled via a formula in-code.

I was going to grab a screenshot or save showing the constructor issue, but it looks like Seleuceia has that covered. If it helps at all, I've definitely seen it happen while playing Advent on TEC weapon platforms.

Also, just a suggestion, but it seems like the deconstruction rate is a little too low to be useful. When I first read it in the change log I was hoping it'd be rather quick, since that would go a long ways towards speeding up the gameplay a bit and getting rid of some of the tedium involved in (slowly) mopping up every structure on an enemy planet after you've taken it.

It seemed like they were draining somewhere around 30 hull per tick when I watched them, which is honestly too slow to be useful when you could have them building something instead. As it is, I'd rather just destroy the structures the old way than wait for that.

Thanks for looking in to the bug Yarlen!

This is very bad, Now in my mods, the new player generates many errors "Failed to convert '[PlayerName]AcceptMetalPact' to an enum value."

Does anyone encountered this, and is there any implication/solutions?

In other ways, i found no other errors... but if some modding possiblity like this are removed, it sucks !

A few of the pacts were changed/removed and replaced by others, your mod is referencing the old ones. 

I first thought so, and i started to re-create a new one, and even with just adding a new player file, with only a name modification, it does the same errors

so sad!