"Fly By Boarding" (Video)

[Thomas2052]

Wouldn't call it cheesy when real world militaries do this all the time. Approach faster than the target can retaliate, get as close as possible, drop off your special forces and get out as fast as you can. Ideally without even stopping. Best example: Para-troopers.

If humanity became a spacefaring race in the future, space combat wouldn't be as exciting as you think. Battles like in Star Wars & co., this game included, are just fantasy.

You make good points, but I imagine it rare that a military ship would travel alone to provide that opportunity without support ships piling in to save the crew. Similarly, talking about speed and suprise, I doubt any military vessel would allow other craft in such close proximity or trajectory without a lethal response to allow such suprise attacks

Your second point cited there reminds me of that series, the Expanse, and regretfully I believe you are spot on!

Shield below 10% wouldn't work either. L-class shields and above reload without delay. They would be up in no time. Even then, I think that shields in this game function more like reactive force fields, only blocking high speed or high energy shots. So they don't trigger against pods, that only travel at 100m/s.

I think it would be arduous to have to sit there, keeping it below 10% during the whole process, but I do think the initial contact should rely on dropped / almost dropped shields. Are torpedoes not similarly slow, yet hit shield first.?
Plus, from a gameplay point of view, it creates some risk in the action.

I consider it an exploit and would not do it, especially given that there is no rep cost. If there a substantial permanent rep cost, I would consider it more legitimate.

I think you might have got the key thing here - shield or no shield, there needs to be consequences for the boarding action.

[Randyrandelman]

Wouldn't call it cheesy when real world militaries do this all the time. Approach faster than the target can retaliate, get as close as possible, drop off your special forces and get out as fast as you can. Ideally without even stopping. Best example: Para-troopers.

That's like arguing X4 is immersion breaking because a speed cap exists: arbitrary and irrelevant. At the end of the day, these things are more or less deliberate design choices. And fly by boarding allows you to skip 2 of the 3 key mechanics (approach, weaken) to this while almost completely avoiding most threats and downsides. Which makes me seriously doubt it is an intended use of a game mechanic as egosoft could have just implemented it as such - which they didn't.

For these reasons I think fly by boarding is incredibly cheesy. The community cannot sensibly argue "hurt durr I just board 10 Asgard and kill every XEN cluster at game day 3" when a new player asks sensible questions seeking advice. All the while achieving the same feat conventionally requires literal days.

(iron blooded orphans is definitely a recommended watch though!)

[adeine]

I think boarding should be possible without rep loss if you're clever about it. Same for a lot of other things.

The problem is that right now rep loss is often hardcoded in and happens instantly, regardless of where and under which circumstances it takes place.

If you had to lure ships to neutral/pirate space and hack their comms or something in order to board without anyone knowing about it, that would be a great addition to actual pirate gameplay (maybe you could even have an option to set fake distress beacons or something?). Sitting in the middle of Terran space and boarding their flagship while its fleet idly keeps you company is the problem.

[LameFox]

I think boarding should be possible without rep loss if you're clever about it. Same for a lot of other things.

The problem is that right now rep loss is often hardcoded in and happens instantly, regardless of where and under which circumstances it takes place.

If you had to lure ships to neutral/pirate space and hack their comms or something in order to board without anyone knowing about it, that would be a great addition to actual pirate gameplay (maybe you could even have an option to set fake distress beacons or something?). Sitting in the middle of Terran space and boarding their flagship while its fleet idly keeps you company is the problem.

That's what they should have done with it IMO. Just like you can fight and bail an M ship in neutral space where it can't report an attack, you should be able to board there without the faction finding out (e.g. because you killed an engine or turret or lasertower). Conversely it should not be the case that slaughtering the crew in front of their very eyes will get you nothing but a shrug and 'guess we need a new ship'.

[Omni-Orb]

If you had to lure ships to neutral/pirate space and hack their comms or something in order to board without anyone knowing about it

That got me the idea of a 'signal jammer' equipment software or mode.
Could make ships within its range hostile, and also jam radar and communications.

[X4Starter]

This line of thinking seems to come up very often.
I tend to side with those here that say it is built into the game but you don't have to use it. If some people like to use it, they should be allowed, for those that don't no one is forcing them to. It is a sandbox to be played in as we see fit, and we don't have the right to dictate how others 'enjoy' their game because it goes against our opinion.

Also in that thread I discussed why I think that fly by boarding is what it is and why it happens that way.

From what I gather it is a byproduct of the way that boarding initiation time is calculated, and the main issue is that it takes a long time to initiate boarding process when the target has no damage.

- For example. You board, the ship and its associates turn hostile, because it is an 'attack' with nothing destroyed there is no permanent rep loss as a simple attack with insufficient damage will not cause permanent rep loss.
- However, if the ship has no damage the time to start the actual boarding action of the marines vs crew takes MINUTES. I suspect this is a problem or a byproduct of the way the initiation point is calculated.
- In the meantime with no further attacks, the soon-to-be-boarded vessel ceases hostile posture and becomes friendly again, THIS IS NORMAL FOR ANY SHIP that was attacked and is no longer attacked.
- When the boarding process initiates, this is not considered an attack on the ship (hull damage etc) and thus does not trigger the hostility, and the ship will be boarded and change sides without turning hostile.

Compare this to the exact same procedure but the target already has some hull damage from a prior engagement.
- In this circumstance the boarding process will initiate immediately due to the hull damage.
- The target and enemy ships remain hostile due to the short duration of the process.
- The ship's allies will attack the vessel once captured since there was not enough time that passed for the hostility period to end.

This is by no means a solution but just an explanation of what seems to happen.
And to change that to what people suggest would mean changing the already existing coding to either make exception for boarding or create new unique parameters for boarding/damage ticking/timing.

[Omni-Orb]

This line of thinking seems to come up very often.
I tend to side with those here that say it is built into the game but you don't have to use it. If some people like to use it, they should be allowed, for those that don't no one is forcing them to. It is a sandbox to be played in as we see fit, and we don't have the right to dictate how others 'enjoy' their game because it goes against our opinion.

Also in that thread I discussed why I think that fly by boarding is what it is and why it happens that way.

From what I gather it is a byproduct of the way that boarding initiation time is calculated, and the main issue is that it takes a long time to initiate boarding process when the target has no damage.

- For example. You board, the ship and its associates turn hostile, because it is an 'attack' with nothing destroyed there is no permanent rep loss as a simple attack with insufficient damage will not cause permanent rep loss.
- However, if the ship has no damage the time to start the actual boarding action of the marines vs crew takes MINUTES. I suspect this is a problem or a byproduct of the way the initiation point is calculated.
- In the meantime with no further attacks, the soon-to-be-boarded vessel ceases hostile posture and becomes friendly again, THIS IS NORMAL FOR ANY SHIP that was attacked and is no longer attacked.
- When the boarding process initiates, this is not considered an attack on the ship (hull damage etc) and thus does not trigger the hostility, and the ship will be boarded and change sides without turning hostile.

Compare this to the exact same procedure but the target already has some hull damage from a prior engagement.
- In this circumstance the boarding process will initiate immediately due to the hull damage.
- The target and enemy ships remain hostile due to the short duration of the process.
- The ship's allies will attack the vessel once captured since there was not enough time that passed for the hostility period to end.

This is by no means a solution but just an explanation of what seems to happen.
And to change that to what people suggest would mean changing the already existing coding to either make exception for boarding or create new unique parameters for boarding/damage ticking/timing.

What if we added reputation loss per enemy crew killed and a re-engagement of hostility when a crew member is killed.

I think having a jammer be a mode like scan mode and travel mode would be the way to do this, to improve piracy and combat gameplay.

[grapedog]

Personally I think its cheesy, but its a single player game, so to each their own. I also think SETA is cheesy, but everyone can do what they want.

I'd rather just see a simple flat penalty for capping another factions ship. Not a faction hit on launching pods and not a faction hit on taking out engines or shields or turrets... but just a flat say -2 when you complete the capture of a ship, or -3 when destroy it.

[Omni-Orb]

Personally I think its cheesy, but its a single player game, so to each their own. I also think SETA is cheesy, but everyone can do what they want.

Personally I'd rather just see a flat penalty for capping another factions ship. Not a faction hit on launching pods and not a faction hit on taking out engines or shields or turrets... but just a flat say -2 when you complete the capture of a ship, or -3 when destroy it.

Try to say how you structured think/do play the game, what the playstyle is instead, i want to know.

What i do is to use any and all methods to win as efficiently and with as much power as possible, not limiting what i am allowed to do.
I think of it as a challenge in improving my combat efficiency and domination of the universe as a 'FIGHT' focused player, where the 'THINK' aspect is dense and slow. And the 'FIGHT' aspect is light, fun and intense.
I restart the game after a few hours played to improve efficiency.

I dont use SETA bbecause it is inefficient considering ingame time played.

[Lord Dakier]

The reality is some people want to cheat, but have this weird self-pride of not being labelled as a cheater and then try to justify such an obvious exploit as fair, balanced or whatever. Nothing balanced about it lol. Just load yourself up with money at the start of the game, why waste your own time.

[Omni-Orb]

The reality is some people want to cheat, but have this weird self-pride of not being labelled as a cheater and then try to justify such an obvious exploit as fair, balanced or whatever. Nothing balanced about it lol. Just load yourself up with money at the start of the game, why waste your own time.

Everyone has different borders of what we are and how we function.

[Omni-Orb]

The thread was merged and updated because I wanted to share a video of a Fly By Boarding using an Asgard to show how effective this is.
And would like to talk about if/how this should change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLt22PIGrd4

[GCU Grey Area]

That's absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned. As long as you enjoy doing your boarding that way you should feel free to carry on using that approach. Does look quite effective. Not the way I'd choose to do it, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the wrong way. Personally prefer using an M ship for the task (Cerberus in my current game). Find such ships MUCH more enjoyable to fly than bigger ships with slow turn rates. Also because my Cerberus can only carry 14 marines it's absolutely essential to completely disarm the target before they go in - can't afford to lose even a single boarding pod during their flight to the target. Significantly increases the odds that all the other marines will be killed inside the target whenever that happens. Using Cerberus rather than Asgard takes a bit longer & makes boarding a little bit more complicated & risky, but that's just how I prefer it. However I'm fully aware that my favourite way to conduct boarding ops is not necessarily the best way for everyone. Glad there's scope in the game for boarding to be practical using such a diverse range of vessels.

[LughC]

It really needs to be nerfed.

Either boarding pods should only launch one at a time or the host ship shouldn't be able to launch them past a certain speed.

The argument of "just don't use it" is disingenuous. There is a reason games don't leave debug tools on by default.

[Alan Phipps]

@ PhotonPulse: You already have a topic thread about this and so I'll merge the video thread.

[GCU Grey Area]

The argument of "just don't use it" is disingenuous.

Just in case this was in response to my comment above want to make it clear that I was in no way suggesting "just don't do it". Quite the opposite. Indeed would encourage people to use PhotonPulse's approach IF that would make the game more enjoyable for them. There are no difficulty settings in X4. The primary mechanism we have to affect game difficulty is in selection of ships & how they are used. If people want an easy approach to boarding this certainly looks to be an effective one.

[Caedes91]

It really needs to be nerfed.

Either boarding pods should only launch one at a time or the host ship shouldn't be able to launch them past a certain speed.

The argument of "just don't use it" is disingenuous. There is a reason games don't leave debug tools on by default.

Do you even know what disingenuous means? When someone wants the game with established features and mechanics to cater to their taste. Especially if that person doesn't even own the game.

This is not glitching or exploiting bugs. It's a genuine approach, well within the game's confines. If you can fly at 11km/s without real pilot seat or suit and then immediately come to halt without becoming red paste, then fly-by-boarding is entirely plausible too. Egosoft understands this fact and that is why they won't waste time to "fix" this. Furthermore, this is not an mmo, where other players might get griefed. It's a singleplayer sandbox. You play how you want. Live and let live.

IRL every not stupid admiral would do this, when given the option. You don't half destroy a ship you want to board. The whole purpose of boarding any ship in the first place is to get it mostly undamaged. It's not worth getting a leaking pile of scrap all the way home, when you might as well destroy it without wasting lives.
This game gets repair capabilities and cost wrong. Increase the repair cost by 1000% to more accurately reflect the efforts needed to repair damaged ships and suddenly capturing ships without damaging them beyond recognition will sound more plausible than it already is.

Even then, the game already balances this out for you by having your pods at risk and artificially lengthening the time needed to start fighting. Time, one of the most valuable resources for adults with a life.

You only see it as cheating, because of your naive and narrow world view from as a "gamer"-perspective. Who probably still believes, that suppressors hide you from radar, are whisper quiet and reduce damage of the bullet!? Or how shotguns have this ridiculous spread to "balance" them out. In war, the enemy soldier won't honorably challenge you to a duel on equal terms. They will just use any viable tactic/advantage they have to kill you. It may feel cheesy for you, but your enemy does not care for your feelings. That is why Russia uses missiles and bombs from above against Ukraine. Why? Because they don't care about "balance" or "fairness". Victory is all that matters.

However, if you do want to blame anybody, blame Egosoft for putting so few turrets on ships in general. Nobody in their right minds, builds battleships of whatever size with only 3-4 m-turrets or groups.
Have ships actually populate their hull with PDCs instead of wasting 90% of it. Don't limit missiles to launchers, therefore wasting the already few weapon-/turret slots. Instead make ships have internal launch tubes again, like in past games. This way, pods will easily get shot down, making it much more difficult while being more immersive at the same time. Win-win.

This is my suggestion for this issue, instead of only complaining without offering anything in return like you.

[LughC]

This is my suggestion for this issue, instead of only complaining without offering anything in return like you.

I did offer a suggesting... two of them.

And the smile fact that there is no reason not to use this method is poor game design. There is very little risk for an extremely high reward.

[Omni-Orb]

This is my suggestion for this issue, instead of only complaining without offering anything in return like you.

I did offer a suggesting... two of them.

And the smile fact that there is no reason not to use this method is poor game design. There is very little risk for an extremely high reward.

As someone who does this much and cannot limit myself, I think that it needs to be more complex, not more difficult, just more steps to able to get the most powerful battleship in the game and all others.
I recently tried a speedrun, it only lasted 7 hours, however by then I had 500million Cr in player worth.

I feel like this tactic is far too quick if anything, compared to what X usually is in progression speed.

[GCU Grey Area]

And the smile fact that there is no reason not to use this method is poor game design. There is very little risk for an extremely high reward.

Rubbish, there are many reasons not to use this method.

Personally find greater satisfaction in using a smaller ship - the reward for me is that I enjoy this aspect of the game far, far more if I use my Cerberus rather than an Asgard. For me if there's no risk there's also no satisfaction whatsoever to be gained by playing the game that way. Furthermore, I find XL handling to be so appallingly dreadful that I simply can't enjoy even a single moment flying one personally - it actively detracts from my enjoyment of the game to fly one.

Instead I can have an inordinate amount of fun flying high risk boarding ops in my Cerberus (which, incidentally, has been modded to give it turn rates more comparable to a nimble S fighter than a bulky frigate: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tsqxbe8m8gcne ... 1.jpg?dl=0 - Lubricator chassis & Whirlygig engine mods to be specific). May not have quite the same level of firepower, or shielding (or to be frank pretty much anything else compared to an Asgard), however for me at least it's a far superior ship in that brings a smile to my face whenever I fly it.