/ Register

Hot posts in thread: 1.1.3 Beta Update available on unstable Steam branch

Page 1 of 2
  1. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    1.1.3 unstable 4

    Third update to 1.1.3 unstable is now available in the unstable Beta branch!

    Change log:
    • The AI now builds ships more sensibly trying to not go overboard with respect to the ship support available.
    • Further AI optimizations done to improve research effectiveness.
    • The ship support' high level penalty threshold (slower to build ships and accuracy and defense penalties) now starts with -25 SSP (was -20 before).
    • The ship support 'Ship Attack' and 'Ship Defense' penalties are now -10% and -20% respectively (were -15% and -25% before).
    • The Auto-Fire weapon modification animation now plays a bit faster. Could take a while to fire all those 3 shots in a row.
    • Fixed an issue that was preventing the overall weapons space and cost from displaying in the Ship Design screen with the 2560x1440 resolution.
    • Fixed an issue that was causing the AI to constantly send scout ships to try and explore ruins in a system that was guarded by a space monster.
    • Fixed an issue that was causing the supply range to not update immediately in the galaxy map after researching a logistics tech using the 'Collective Transcendence' unique ability. Was only updating the supply range in the next turn.
    Compatibility note: Saves from 1.1.3 unstable 3 are fully compatible with this new version.

    I remind that the 1.1.3 update is not yet available for everyone. To play the latest '1.1.3 unstable 4' version you need to opt in for Steam's Beta branch. On the Steam client go to Games -> View Games Library -> Right-Click on Interstellar Space: Genesis -> Choose Betas tab -> Select the "unstable" Beta branch. The game shall start updating to 1.1.3 unstable 4.

    Please keep sending us your feedback in our official forums, on the Steam forums, on our Discord server or if you prefer just send an email to contact@praxis-games.com with a save and the Player and Player-prev log files you can find in this folder: C:Users<your_username>AppDataLocalLowPraxis GamesISG

    Thanks a lot for your feedback everyone! Please keep it coming.

    Adam
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 25, 2020
    #34
  2. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I don't, but that means giving up space which I use in a more effective way. As the bulk of my ships tend to be small, this is a very tough call for me.
     
    Konstantine, Jun 24, 2020
    #33
  3. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Hats off to you @KarasLegacy for taking the time to do this. I admit that while I'm good with this sort of thing, I don't like to do it unless absolutely necessary. What you illustrated is basically what I thought, I like to play this game in my mind before sitting down with it and my point is this.

    In the early game, with which my preferred settings is very long, it is better to spend the extra space on two weapons that suffer no base penalty, rather than saving a small amount of space to have the effect of three weapons that will miss on average half the time.
    The space cost being 75% for autofire, gives me 1.5 hits on average due to penalties alone. Two standard weapons have no added penalties. Early on, (which for me and anyone else that plays at reduced tech and production rates is quite a long time), autofire is not viable.

    Apart from the reduced research and production though, I do give the AI a bonus in these areas compared to my race, as well as a maximum start, this will largely ensure that they devote some attention to defensive capabilities. What this means is that attaining the threshold attack value over the AI will be more difficult.

    To make a long story short, why would I bother with this modification? By the time I could get it to an effective state, the contest will already have been decided with different designs that the AI will be hard pressed to counter (based on the changelog).Even worse, if the AI uses this mod extensively against my own designs... they will be at an even greater dis-advantage.
     
    Konstantine, Jun 24, 2020
    #32
  4. KarasLegacy

    KarasLegacy Ensign

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    So we can use a bit of theory to help us see how effective Auto-Fire is. I am doing a bit of math, so if you want the simply summary just look at the bottom of the post.

    If you look at the numbers below, what I did was calculate the AF damage increase depending on the difference between Attack and Defense (so for example if you had an Attack of 200 and the enemy had Defense 125...that's a value of 75 for this chart). The trick is a decrease of 25 attack does not equal 25% drop in miss chance....that drop depends on what your current A vs D difference is (the higher the value, the less the drop hurts you. The closer attack is to defense, the more the drop penalizes your to hit rate)

    I am also assuming shield block does not compound on the extra attacks, which based on the response from the other thread regarding shield blocking appears accurate. So this means that AF gets a slight boost because its extra attacks don't worry about shields. I am ignoring that for this example as the difference isn't too significant and its dependent on base damage and shield block...so I don't want to muddle the example.

    upload_2020-6-24_11-18-58.png

    Since the mod increases my mass by 75%, the damage increase should be at least 75% to give net value (we are ignoring the large cost increase for this example).

    So the breakpoint is 110, aka you need a significant accuracy difference for Auto-Fire to be worth....IF AF is your only mod.

    Now here is the next trick, if your already using a mod, then your requirements change a bit. Here is an quick example, if your base weapon is mass 10, and you add SP to it (so +75% increase), that's mass 17.5. If we now add AF (another +75%), the mass increases to 25. However, technically my new mass is only 43% bigger than what I had with the SP weapon, its not the full 75% anymore. What that means is, for dmg/mass calculations, the more mods you add, the lower the mass cost of each mod for dmg/mass. In complete laymen's terms, adding multiple mods to the same weapon group is more efficient than splitting them up.

    So with a 43% mass increase on AF, you need a 85 difference in accuracy to break even on mass.


    QUICK SUMMARY
    So a lot of math, if you want a quick summary, I wouldn't even think about using AF until my attack values were reliably 120 over the enemies defense, to also account for the big cost increase. If I wanted to add some other big mods to the weapon as well, probably 100 would be my bare minimum threshold.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2020
    KarasLegacy, Jun 24, 2020
    #31
    • ThumbsUp ThumbsUp x 1
  5. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Yes, I believe we can do that. The 3 shot animation could be a bit too long.
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 24, 2020
    #30
    • ThumbsUp ThumbsUp x 1
  6. aReclusiveMind

    aReclusiveMind Developer Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    3,040
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Don't underestimate use of tractor beams while testing. They are very useful for increasing accuracy, especially with kinetics, but also with auto-fire.
     
    aReclusiveMind, Jun 24, 2020
    #29
  7. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Well that's the thing Keith, I don't design with theoretical damage in mind, but practical damage, it's what allows me to consistently devastate AI ships. Examining your statement closer, what I see is that in the early game, your chances of missing are too heavy for my taste, as target enhancing techs are not available to the degree required to offset such drastic penalties. As the game progresses and the techs come into play, they become partially negated by evasion algorithms, so not much of an advantage gained. Of course we must also accept that the possibility of two out of three shots missing is extremely high, at base level, it is more likely to be the case is it not?

    Overall what is being done now is tilting the game more to the offense, something I advocated in the past till I was blue in the face (blue face, funny with my avatar). However this one move seems like overkill. Regardless, after you release the final version of 1.13, I will be happy to present some demonstrations of my altered designs against the AI ships. Perhaps it will be as you say, I'll keep an open mind.
     
    Konstantine, Jun 24, 2020
    #28
  8. KarasLegacy

    KarasLegacy Ensign

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    That makes sense. Hehe, could I request a quality of life change with AF. Is it possible to speed up the attack animation of auto fire? In large battles, having to wait for the 3 attack animation before going to the next ship actually gets a bit annoying.
     
    KarasLegacy, Jun 24, 2020
    #27
  9. aReclusiveMind

    aReclusiveMind Developer Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    3,040
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    If you have ample ship attack it will be viable.

    For less than the space of 2 weapons you will do equivalent damage to 3. Even if the last shot misses, you have done damage equivalent to 2 weapons with less space.
     
    aReclusiveMind, Jun 24, 2020
    #26
  10. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Thank you for the warm reply.
    It's confusing in-game. I know the numbers displayed in past releases were wrong, (even though the correct damage was being applied).Then of course if multiple weapons were in a single bank, one could hit and the other miss... that also distorts the perception of damage output.
    Still, with the base penalty going to 75% on the third shot, combined with a 50% increase in space requirements... I don't know if this is a worthwhile modification .
     
    Konstantine, Jun 24, 2020
    #25
  11. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    The Auto-Fire damage is the same for every shot.

    \Edit: There was a bug that caused the damage floating numbers to show a bigger damage than the following shots, even if the applied damage was correct, but that was fixed in 1.1.3 unstable.
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 24, 2020
    #24
  12. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    It's been a while since I played, but if memory serves, the damage per shot normally diminishes with this modification yes?

    If so, does this then not motivate the player to skip the mod entirely and just add more standard weapons instead? Between the increased space requirements, added cost, and additional penalties to hit, what's the point? Perhaps if the damage output was increased to the same for each consecutive shot it would be the kind of thing to consider, but as it stands right now, in practical terms, better to have two standard weapons than just one with the auto-fire modification.
     
    Konstantine, Jun 24, 2020
    #23
  13. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    This is not the time for me to get into specifics, but I am absolutely thrilled by many of the changes you listed... others I'll have to wait and see as the broad effects in game play are still unclear.
     
    Konstantine, Jun 24, 2020
    #22
  14. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    1.1.3 unstable 3

    Another update to 1.1.3 unstable is now available! This is version 1.1.3 unstable 3.

    The changes in this 1.1.3 unstable 3 update are:
    • New huge negative diplomatic modifier added when a player backstabbes another player (when a player declares war on an ally)
    • New severe negative diplomatic modifier added when a player backstabbes an ally. This modifier is added to all players who are in contact with both and witness the backstabbing.
    • AI now researches Targeting Algorithms and Evasion Algorithms even more aggressively, especially in the higher difficulty levels.
    • The Serenity unique ability now provides +3 diplomatic modifier, was +4 before.
    • The Emphatic Diplomats culture perk now provides +1 diplomatic modifier, was +2 before.
    • Armor costs now scale the better the armor is. Titanium and Tungsten are a bit cheaper than before while the superior armors now cost more. This doesn't change the armor cost much when going with 'light' hull reinforcement but has a significant impact when going with 'medium' and 'heavy' hull reinforcement since those costs 3 and 6 times more than 'light' hull.
    • Advanced Evasion Algorithms effect changed from +50% Ship Defense to +25%.
    • Ultimate Evasion Algorithms effect changed from +100% Ship Defense to +50%.
    • The Interstellar Geology culture perk now provides +50% to the strategic resources amount instead of providing +1 source for all non-empty sources.
    • Stun effect moved from Phasors to Neutron Beam, and the stun effect only works with the shields down now. The stun chance increased from 5% for each shot that hits to 7.5%.
    • Research treaty maximum potential now capped at 15% the partner with the lowest research output, was 25% before.
    • Beam Accelerators now a weapons level 4 tech, was level 3.
    • Polaris Missile now a level 3 tech, was 4.
    • Antimatter-Catalyzed Bombs tech moved from level 5 to level 6.
    • Quantum Missile now at weapons tech level 5, was 6 before.
    • Nightmare Missile now a level 7 tech, was level 8 before.
    • All missiles now require 30 space where before nuclear missiles required 30, polaris 40, quantum 50 and nightmare 60.
    • Auto-Fire weapon modification now has an aggravated accuracy penalty for each subsequent shot. The first shot has a -25% Ship Attack penalty, the second shot has -50% while the third now has -75% Ship Attack.
    • Auto-Fire weapon modification now requires +75% weapon space to install, was +50% before.
    • The ship design weapon modification and several other ship design tooltips are now displayed in lower case.
    • Fixed a bug where the minimum damage could sometimes be superior to the max damage of a weapon in ship design when the Beam Accelerators bonus was being applied.
    • Fixed an issue where the 'Ship Attack' value could show too many decimal cases in the ship design UI and combat UI for some values.
    Compatibility note: Saves from 1.1.3 unstable 2 are not fully compatible with this new version as most of the changes require new games to be played to take effect, namely the new diplomatic modifiers, the revisions to Serenity and Emphatic Diplomats, the armor costs, the evasion algorithms changes, the Interstellar Geology perk changes and the weapon tech changes. So, it's better to start a new game to properly playtest this new version. Also, all the available custom races will not benefit from the new backstabbing diplomatic modifiers. However, for a quick fix you can 'Edit' and 'Modify/Save' your current custom races and they will be up to speed.

    I remind that the 1.1.3 update is not yet available for everyone. To play the latest '1.1.3 unstable 3' version you need to opt in for Steam's Beta branch. On the Steam client go to Games -> View Games Library -> Right-Click on Interstellar Space: Genesis -> Choose Betas tab -> Select the "unstable" Beta branch. The game shall start updating to 1.1.3 unstable 3.

    Please keep sending us your feedback in our official forums, on the Steam forums, on our Discord server or if you prefer just send an email to contact@praxis-games.com with a save and the Player and Player-prev log files you can find in this folder: C:Users<your_username>AppDataLocalLowPraxis GamesISG

    Thanks a lot for the feedback everyone! Please keep it coming.

    Adam
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 23, 2020
    #21
  15. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    1.1.3 unstable 2

    A small update to 1.1.3 unstable was released a couple of days ago on Steam's unstable Beta branch. This was version 1.1.3 unstable 2.

    The changes in this 1.1.3 unstable 2 update were:
    • New 'Continue' button added to the main menu to allow resuming the last saved game. You begin at the point when the game was last saved or autosaved.
    • The AI now more researches shields and armor technology a bit more aggressively, especially in the higher difficulty levels.
    • The AI now researches technologies more efficiently. Sometimes the AI had unfinished technologies in the tech queue for too long.
    • Auto-fire weapon modification moved from Phasor to Plasma Cannon.
    • Spinal Mount weapon modification added to Plasma Cannon.
    • The Research screen font size was increased. Technology names now a bit bigger for better readability.
    • The leader level up and crew level up icons now show the up arrows in green, since it's a good thing (was red before).
    • Small tweak done to the freighters number in the empire info panel, the value could be displayed slightly on top of the freighters' icon.
    • Small tweak done to the population amount value presented in the colonies overview panel, the information could not fit in the designated area sometimes.
    • Fixed a bug that was allowing the Starhammer advanced ship to be found in ruins too early.
    • Fixed an issue in the Ship design left panel showing the ship composition at a glance where the Ship Attack and Ship Defense stats were not aligned. And, the Missile Evasion value is now displayed when the ship has the ECM Jammer installed and shows the correct value now.
    • Fixed an issue in the New Game screen when selecting the galaxy size, the 'Medium' and 'Large' galaxy icons were not being rendered with the same quality level as the rest.
    Compatibility note: Saves from 1.1.3 unstable are compatible with this new version. However, a few changes require new games to be played to take effect, namely the weapon modification changes.

    I remind that the 1.1.3 update is not yet available for everyone. To play the '1.1.3 unstable 2' version you need to opt in for Steam's Beta branch. On the Steam client go to Games -> View Games Library -> Right-Click on Interstellar Space: Genesis -> Choose Betas tab -> Select the "unstable" Beta branch. The game shall start updating to 1.1.3 unstable 2.

    Please send us your feedback in our official forums, on the Steam forums, on our Discord server or if you prefer just send an email to contact@praxis-games.com with a save and the Player and Player-prev log files you can find in this folder: C:Users<your_username>AppDataLocalLowPraxis GamesISG

    Thanks a lot for the feedback everyone! Please keep it coming.

    Adam
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 23, 2020
    #20
  16. KarasLegacy

    KarasLegacy Ensign

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    So one thing I'm noticing in the late game with the new defense technologies:

    upload_2020-6-22_18-11-56.png

    The moltar ship has a 300% defense due to the Star Fortress and likely an Airdefense Nexus. I both like it and hate it at the same time. On the one hand, in theory it makes battle sensors practically mandatory in the late game. But it also may make missiles more palatable again if their survivability is addressed.

    It does make smaller ships more useful as defenders, as they are practically unhittable by normal ships. The destroyer in the screen took 10 rounds for me to kill with the entire fleet after I killed the Star Fortress as most of my ships where at 1-3% hit rates (I think the majority of my damage actually came from my flak cannons).
     
    KarasLegacy, Jun 23, 2020
    #19
  17. KarasLegacy

    KarasLegacy Ensign

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Here is a ship building suggestion:

    upload_2020-6-22_16-35-33.png

    In general I find Shield Piercing is an all or nothing endeavor. Either the whole ship is going to penetrate shields, or I won't use the mod. This ship is still going to hit the shields with its plasma cannons, so the shield piercing isn't working to a good benefit.

    I actually find SP is very good on smaller ships for a few reasons:

    1) Since they do less damage, the shield block and shield regen matters more.
    2) Small ships that fight at close range are the ones that most commonly deal with multiple shield quadrants, just due to the dynamics of the battlefield. As such, they often have to chew through more shields than ships that stay back and blast from range.

    Also, if I am using SP...I want to place it heavily in my fleet. Again, SP doesn't do much if my first ship hits the armor, but my second ship hits the shields anyway. So while SP may not be a fleet wide commitment, I normally ensure my "kill squads" that work to kill a ship together or either all SP or no SP.
     
    KarasLegacy, Jun 22, 2020
    #18
  18. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Certainly. The Moltar had 3 battleships and 7 cruisers. A titan and one more battleship were on the way. They had good tech from what I could tell. You had 2 battleships and 6 cruisers.

    Congratulations on your win. You may also consider going with the highest difficulty level, Emperor. You should find a greater challenge there. Also, adding the Sulak and the Draguul to the game should also provide a more challenging impossible run.
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 22, 2020
    #17
  19. KarasLegacy

    KarasLegacy Ensign

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    I would love the fleet details, mainly so we can be in sync on what constitutes a "good fleet". If there is an easy way to do that myself I'm also fine to do that.

    And as far as how it went....hehe two turns later the election occurred and I won the game, so no major battle:) I'm running another game but I may come back to it just to attack the Moltar and see if they actually could hold their own.
     
    KarasLegacy, Jun 22, 2020
    #16
  20. Adam Solo

    Adam Solo Developer Administrator Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    4,847
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2016
    Well, nothing stops you from backstabbing your opponents. Be prepared to lose a hefty amount from the current research and trade treaties though :)

    I inspected the Moltar. They do have a good fleet. More than 1 battleship. I can share the fleet amount details with you if you want.

    \Edit: I also see you're playing with the Sulak, the 2nd most aggressive race in the game, and you didn't pick the Draguul for that session. So, effectively you played with the more peaceful races this time. The militaristic races would have a considerably bigger fleet, and would give more trouble in the beginning. Also, Gallean, your big source of Antimatter is in the Moltar's heart, so that may fall, and you'll lose your other imported antimatter too. Will be interesting to see how it goes.
     
    Adam Solo, Jun 22, 2020
    #15
Page 1 of 2