What are the AI issues, specifically?

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Falcrack
Posts: 5008
Joined: Wed, 29. Jul 09, 00:46
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by Falcrack » Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:55

V3N wrote:
Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:00
Drones won’t deploy when parent ship is obviously outnumbered.
False. I see drones deployed all the time. Though sometimes they won't deploy the max number of defense drones, I think that might be tied to pilot/crew skill level.
V3N wrote:
Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:00
Building stations takes forever because ships carrying needed wares never get to them.
False. Ships deliver stuff all the time. Sometimes stuff gets delayed because pirates and Xenon happen, but that's just part of the game.
V3N wrote:
Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:00
If you have to mine resources for a station supply mission it’s a guaranteed fail because your AI won’t use travel drives and will sell your ore/gas in the wrong system.
False. I don't know if I've ever seen this. I do know AI sometimes fail to use travel drives as often as I would like, but to say they won't use them is a gross exaggeration. And I have no idea what you are talking about selling in the wrong system.
V3N wrote:
Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:00
Somehow the enemy AI is smarter than the player owned AI because I see xenon Ks soloing entire systems
False. Same AI, it just seems it is worse because you are raging at how poorly your ships are behaving, and not caring or not noticing how badly the enemy AI is behaving. With your own ships, you can compare how you intended them to behave with what you observe, and with AI ships, you only see how they behave, so you are only seeing at best half of the picture.

flywlyx
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by flywlyx » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 00:28

Falcrack wrote:
Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:55
False. Same AI, it just seems it is worse because you are raging at how poorly your ships are behaving, and not caring or not noticing how badly the enemy AI is behaving. With your own ships, you can compare how you intended them to behave with what you observe, and with AI ships, you only see how they behave, so you are only seeing at best half of the picture.
Not entirely accurate, the Xenon K lacks front-mounted weapons, so it's not the same AI. Additionally, the design of Xenon K is notably superior to any faction's destroyers, and the AI doesn't encounter many issues in handling it.

Falcrack
Posts: 5008
Joined: Wed, 29. Jul 09, 00:46
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by Falcrack » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 01:41

flywlyx wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 00:28
Falcrack wrote:
Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:55
False. Same AI, it just seems it is worse because you are raging at how poorly your ships are behaving, and not caring or not noticing how badly the enemy AI is behaving. With your own ships, you can compare how you intended them to behave with what you observe, and with AI ships, you only see how they behave, so you are only seeing at best half of the picture.
Not entirely accurate, the Xenon K lacks front-mounted weapons, so it's not the same AI. Additionally, the design of Xenon K is notably superior to any faction's destroyers, and the AI doesn't encounter many issues in handling it.
You think the Xenon K has a separate AI logic just for it? It is probably the same logic, just behaves differently since it lacks front mounted guns. A destroyer for another faction that lacks front mounted guns (the Hound from the VRO mod comes to mind) would probably share the AI. The Hound works pretty good, though it seems to me a bit of a glass cannon.

I will agree that destroyers with front mounted weaponry have severe issues in keeping their nose on target and generally dinking around. It would be better if they more freely used reverse thrust and strafe in order to adjust their position, so as to enable them to better keep their node on the target.

Nanook
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 27880
Joined: Thu, 15. May 03, 20:57
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by Nanook » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 02:38

Falcrack wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 01:41
...

I will agree that destroyers with front mounted weaponry have severe issues in keeping their nose on target and generally dinking around. It would be better if they more freely used reverse thrust and strafe in order to adjust their position, so as to enable them to better keep their node on the target.
What would be better is if capital ships didn't have nose-mounted weapons and left those to the fighters. It would certainly solve a whole host of AI issues. Can you imagine a WWII battleship trying to turn to point it's nose at the enemy ships? :lol:
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.

X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.

flywlyx
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by flywlyx » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 07:07

Falcrack wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 01:41
You think the Xenon K has a separate AI logic just for it? It is probably the same logic, just behaves differently since it lacks front mounted guns. A destroyer for another faction that lacks front mounted guns (the Hound from the VRO mod comes to mind) would probably share the AI. The Hound works pretty good, though it seems to me a bit of a glass cannon.
It's different; capital ships with front-mounted weapons have their own movement logic. Additionally, Xenon K's unique ship design provides it with an additional layer of advantage.
Falcrack wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 01:41
I will agree that destroyers with front mounted weaponry have severe issues in keeping their nose on target and generally dinking around. It would be better if they more freely used reverse thrust and strafe in order to adjust their position, so as to enable them to better keep their node on the target.
I agree, but the developers may not share our perspective.
Nanook wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 02:38
What would be better is if capital ships didn't have nose-mounted weapons and left those to the fighters. It would certainly solve a whole host of AI issues. Can you imagine a WWII battleship trying to turn to point it's nose at the enemy ships? :lol:
Indeed, capital ships with front-mounted weapons should serve as specialized units, similar to artillery in World of Tanks. Handling them is far more complex compared to ships with rotary turrets.

However, X4 AI pathfinding suffers from serious issues; currently, only short-range brawler type ships perform effectively, while others struggle to maintain proper distancing.

S!rAssassin
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat, 7. Aug 10, 10:31

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by S!rAssassin » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 08:31

Nanook wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 02:38
What would be better is if capital ships didn't have nose-mounted weapons and left those to the fighters. It would certainly solve a whole host of AI issues. Can you imagine a WWII battleship trying to turn to point it's nose at the enemy ships? :lol:
Egosoft maked mistake on it. If ship have front guns, it should also have hight agility for aiming to enemy. Egosoft should gives nose weapons to ships, smaller than L destroyer, but bigger than M frigate. Destroyers should be bigger and turret-based, like XEN K.

Also I missing heaviest missiles for L/XL ships and heaviest torpedoes for L nose weapon as alternative.

LameFox
Posts: 2412
Joined: Tue, 22. Oct 13, 15:26
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by LameFox » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 09:47

I wonder if a fairly low impact solution might be to just embrace the current gen of destroyers being this game's M7 class: give them faster manoeuvring and strafe speed in a test version and see if they perform better and waste less time fumbling around. Then in the future if they add more actual big ships, like Asgard, focus on letting them fight broadside with turrets.

Since re-doing all current L ships to be without guns is probably not going to happen and they seem to dislike the idea of space ships not behaving like naval ships.
***modified***

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7842
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by GCU Grey Area » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 10:12

S!rAssassin wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 08:31
Nanook wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 02:38
What would be better is if capital ships didn't have nose-mounted weapons and left those to the fighters. It would certainly solve a whole host of AI issues. Can you imagine a WWII battleship trying to turn to point it's nose at the enemy ships? :lol:
Egosoft maked mistake on it. If ship have front guns, it should also have hight agility for aiming to enemy. Egosoft should gives nose weapons to ships, smaller than L destroyer, but bigger than M frigate. Destroyers should be bigger and turret-based, like XEN K.

Also I missing heaviest missiles for L/XL ships and heaviest torpedoes for L nose weapon as alternative.
Disagree it was a mistake. Very much enjoy the destroyers in X4, far more than M2 ships in earlier games. Flying a turret-only ship was a very unsatisfying experience for me. Just didn't feel involved in the fight with automatic turrets doing 100% of the work (my trigger finger got very, very bored). Consequently rarely flew anything bigger than M6. Can hardly consider X4's destroyers to be a mistake when they've significantly improved my enjoyment of the game.

As regards X4 destroyers under AI control, they work fine against other non-Xenon destroyers (both try to maintain distance). It's only against Xenon capitals, which are optimised for CQB, where they struggle. Current solution I use is Bombardment heavy fighters to distract & prevent travel drive use, so they stay at range for longer. Guess the Xenon could also use the same AI as the rest if they had a long range fixed weapon of their own. Perhaps the big circular structure on the front of the K could be such a weapon?

j.harshaw
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 1881
Joined: Mon, 23. Nov 15, 18:02

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by j.harshaw » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 14:33

Confirm capital ship combat movement logic is different for a ship that doesn't have active forward guns. You can actually switch to that logic by deactivating a ship's forward guns. I do that sometimes with ships whose loadouts I've designed specifically for that task.

Is it better? Debatable. It's certainly different and the difference is sometimes useful. Just another tool in the player's arsenal.

S!rAssassin
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat, 7. Aug 10, 10:31

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by S!rAssassin » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 15:18

j.harshaw wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 14:33
You can actually switch to that logic by deactivating a ship's forward guns.
Deactivate by selecting empty weapons group? Or selecting allowed weaponry in options each attack command? Or both?

j.harshaw
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 1881
Joined: Mon, 23. Nov 15, 18:02

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by j.harshaw » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 17:00

S!rAssassin wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 15:18
Deactivate by selecting empty weapons group? Or selecting allowed weaponry in options each attack command? Or both?
By selecting an empty weapon group for forward weapons.

flywlyx
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by flywlyx » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 17:10

GCU Grey Area wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 10:12
As regards X4 destroyers under AI control, they work fine against other non-Xenon destroyers (both try to maintain distance). It's only against Xenon capitals, which are optimised for CQB, where they struggle. Current solution I use is Bombardment heavy fighters to distract & prevent travel drive use, so they stay at range for longer. Guess the Xenon could also use the same AI as the rest if they had a long range fixed weapon of their own. Perhaps the big circular structure on the front of the K could be such a weapon?
Only if their weapon range is close to eachother, sometimes Behemoth also struggle against Rattlesnake, like in this video: https://youtu.be/CGpTq8XTZjA?si=ujv_T_FoCu76slYT
Capital ships lack the ability to maintain an appropriate distance and will consistently struggle against targets with formidable short range firepower, including stations.
LameFox wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 09:47
I wonder if a fairly low impact solution might be to just embrace the current gen of destroyers being this game's M7 class: give them faster manoeuvring and strafe speed in a test version and see if they perform better and waste less time fumbling around. Then in the future if they add more actual big ships, like Asgard, focus on letting them fight broadside with turrets.

Since re-doing all current L ships to be without guns is probably not going to happen and they seem to dislike the idea of space ships not behaving like naval ships.
The existing destroyers suffice for artillery roles; however, introducing a new Heavy Cruiser class focused on CQC could be beneficial. Since the AI lacks the ability to maintain formation to maximize their long range capability, this might be the only method to prevent them from appearing inept.

Fatsack
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri, 26. Jan 24, 20:50
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by Fatsack » Sat, 27. Jan 24, 21:39

I think alot of these problems could be solved if Egosoft implemented a system to craft custom orders. A way to program your own AI behavior scripts, and apply them on your different ships.

In Final Fantasy 12 (gambit system) and Disgaea 6 and 7 (demonic intelligence or D.I.), they have a combat AI system the player can program themselves, where you could basically set a priority list of conditions and the actions your party members will take when those conditions evaluate to true. It would check the first condition, if it wasnt true, it would move on to the next, until the character had an action to perform.

For example, with your healer you'd create a priority list of, condition->action statements like this:
Priority 1: If target=self, HP<80%, Action=Cast Cure on target=self.
Priority 2: If target=self, is being attacked, Action=flee from target=attacker.
Priority 2: If Target=ally, hp<50%, action=cast Cure on target=self.
Priority 3: Else Target=enemy, HP=Least, action=attack.

So your healer would prioritize healing itself first, if it got attacked it would flee to lose aggro, and then focus on healing allies, then attacking the weakest enemy if your team was already fully healed. Then you'd have your tank character check to see who in your party, with the least HP is being attacked, and taunt the attacker, to pull aggro off them.

Then you could name and save the behavior as "Survive and Heal Party", and apply it to multiple characters at once.

Egosoft needs something like this. Imagine if you could craft your own 'default behaviors' or fleet-group orders in game. Although X4:Foundations is not turn based, they could run the priority action check at whatever time interval makes most sense for performance and optimization.

This could solve all the problems and complaints of the player base, if they provide enough options and choices for stat checks, targeting, target approach, formation with group members, retreat behavior (bee-line, evasive spiral to avoid projectiles like the blasted unhittable criminal traffic does), etc. Different flight patterns, distances, etc, would all be conditions and settings you could program in the behavior. It'd also be nice if they had a sensible 'aggro' system so you could have your tankier M-class ships pull aggro off one of your fighters thats getting wrecked so it has a chance to get away.

However, if that sounds too complicated, there may be a more streamlined way to accomplish this. For example, one way to stream-line it could be with power settings like they have in Elite Dangerous and Starfield. Energy to weapons and shields, no energy to engines = siege/stand ground mode, the weapons energy increases range, damage, reload, and/or fire rate, shields energy increases damage reduction % and recharge rate/delay, lack of energy to engines slows or stops the Destroyer from moving or turning much. You'd couple the power distribution setting and stat buffs/nerfs from how you distribute power, with the inferred AI Pilot behavior that makes sense according to the power distribution setting. I take my own swipe at how it would look in this post here: viewtopic.php?f=181&t=459892

Power to weapons and shields = stand ground/siege/Defend,
Power to shields and engines = Flee/Lose Aggro/Seek Backup,
Power to engines and weapons = Offense/Aggression/Hunt down.

Having power distribution settings along with programmable AI condition->action priorities would also be a cool combination and provide a TON of strategic depth to the gameplay, and tinkering fun for the player, especially in combination with different weapon loadouts.

They could even extend this system in a less complex form to traders, miners, player pirates, smugglers, etc.

I recommend looking up the FF12 gambit system and the Disgaea 6 and 7 'Demonic Intelligence' systems for inspiration, and ideas on how to implement it in a user friendly UI.

A5PECT
Posts: 6159
Joined: Sun, 3. Sep 06, 02:31
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by A5PECT » Sun, 28. Jan 24, 00:52

Not entirely accurate, the Xenon K lacks front-mounted weapons, so it's not the same AI. Additionally, the design of Xenon K is notably superior to any faction's destroyers, and the AI doesn't encounter many issues in handling it.
The superiority of the K is overemphasized because it's designed in a way that exploits a critical flaw in the fight behavior every other destroyer uses. Large ships are programmed to determine the facing that gives them the highest damage output towards their target, then move to a position that gives them that angle. This is good in and of itself. But when the optimal angle is flying directly above the enemy, it's exploiting the blind spot designed into every large ship with forward guns, where in order to attack, they require themselves to be aligned with their target along the vertical axis, while also being arbitrarily limited in how far they're allowed to pitch up or down.

If you took the two bottom L turrets on a K and put them more towards the sides, so that the K's optimal firing position weren't directly above (or below) their target, the discrepancy between it and other destroyers wouldn't be as massive. This wouldn't be much of nerf: the K would still outmatch every other destroyer in the game, and pose a threat to ultra heavy capitals like the Asgard and Raptor. It would just make high attention capital ship fights less one-way affairs, where the K is unloading damage while their target is fumbling around, largely failing to return fire.

P.S. I'm still very, very curious as to why capital ships are programmed to adhere to these Z-axis rules so slavishly: matching Y-planes, pitch restrictions, insisting on being "right side-up" all the time, etc. Designing AI that way isn't inherently wrong or anything, but you need to make sure everything fits within those rules properly, so you don't get lopsisded outcomes like described above.
Last edited by A5PECT on Sun, 28. Jan 24, 18:37, edited 2 times in total.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in figuring out how to make it worse.

flywlyx
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by flywlyx » Sun, 28. Jan 24, 01:50

A5PECT wrote:
Sun, 28. Jan 24, 00:52
The superiority of the K is overemphasized because it's designed in a way that exploits a critical flaw in the fight behavior every other destroyer uses. Large ships are programmed to determine the facing that gives them the highest damage output towards their target, then move to a position that gives them that angle. This is good in and of itself. But when the optimal angle is flying directly above the enemy, it's exploiting the blind spot designed into every large ship with forward guns, where they require themselves to be aligned with their target along the vertical axis while attacking while also being arbitrarily limited in how far they're allowed to pitch up or down.

If you took the two bottom L turrets on a K and put them more towards the sides, so that the K's optimal firing position weren't directly above (or below) their target, the discrepancy between it and other destroyers wouldn't be as massive. This wouldn't be much of nerf: the K would still outmatch every other destroyer in the game, and pose a threat to ultra heavy capitals like the Asgard and Raptor. It would just make high attention capital ship fights less one-way affairs, where the K is unloading damage while their target is fumbling around, largely failing to return fire.

P.S. I'm still very, very curious as to why capital ships are programmed to adhere to these Z-axis rules so slavishly: matching Y-planes, pitch restrictions, insisting on being "right side-up" all the time, etc. Designing AI that way is fine, but you need to make sure everything fits within those rules properly, so you don't get lopsisded outcomes like described above.
You forget another part, capital ships are requested to fire only in a min/max range, since Xenon's turret range is way shorter than destroyers' weapons, a K's target won't even able to fight back, since it will be too close for it to open fire.

taztaz502
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun, 17. Nov 13, 12:22
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by taztaz502 » Sun, 28. Jan 24, 13:03

Formations are broken.

NPC Factions send ships into hostile sectors 1 by 1 like sacrificial lambs.

Ships won't react if performing tasks like dock when being shot at.

Ships never perform as expected. (E.g. You'll often have destroyers hug enemy ships or station like they forgot they have range weapons)

Ships will boost and burn shields at the worst possible times (Even capital ships?!)

Ships leave hyper travel far too early.

Ships even in formation will always arrive at the targets at different times with no coordination.

Ships will often fly past a target especially if in fast travel mode.


So many issues which become apparently late gate when you've got bigger fleets.

X3 worked so much better in my opinion the "AI" felt a lot less like mindless drones especially with mods.

Edit: Also just want to point out egosoft can actually make ships stay in formation, case in point is the wingman you get during the terran start, he's great.
Spoiler
Show
Right up until the point you can recruit him as one of your own pilots even though hes 5*

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7842
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by GCU Grey Area » Sun, 28. Jan 24, 15:13

flywlyx wrote:
Sat, 27. Jan 24, 17:10
Only if their weapon range is close to eachother, sometimes Behemoth also struggle against Rattlesnake, like in this video: https://youtu.be/CGpTq8XTZjA?si=ujv_T_FoCu76slYT
Not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with that video. Your Rattler ambushed a Behemoth from astern. First couple of volleys missed or were slightly out of range. When it did land a hit Behemoth turned hostile & manoeuvred to bring it's main guns to bear. However it was unable to fire back before it was destroyed. Sure, I'd agree a ship being shot from astern by a ship with superior firepower will struggle, but that's hardly a profound revelation.

A5PECT
Posts: 6159
Joined: Sun, 3. Sep 06, 02:31
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by A5PECT » Sun, 28. Jan 24, 18:45

GCU Grey Area wrote:
Sun, 28. Jan 24, 15:13
Not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with that video.
The issue is the rattlesnake enters firing range at 0:05 and begins firing, but doesn't land a hit until the one minute mark. That's longer than the time it takes for the rattlesnake to kill the behemoth once the latter stops moving and the former can consistently get its guns on target. Note that the behemoth was initially flying in a straight line at a constant speed, with the faster moving rattlesnake directly behind it. Not a particularly complex or difficult interdiction scenario.

This is a demonstration of the issues with the large ship AI's ability to pursue/intercept moving targets, as well as showing a bit of the "waggling" behavior when a target is directly in front of them and making no lateral movement.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step in figuring out how to make it worse.

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7842
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by GCU Grey Area » Sun, 28. Jan 24, 22:06

A5PECT wrote:
Sun, 28. Jan 24, 18:45
GCU Grey Area wrote:
Sun, 28. Jan 24, 15:13
Not sure what you're trying to demonstrate with that video.
The issue is the rattlesnake enters firing range at 0:05 and begins firing, but doesn't land a hit until the one minute mark. That's longer than the time it takes for the rattlesnake to kill the behemoth once the latter stops moving and the former can consistently get its guns on target. Note that the behemoth was initially flying in a straight line at a constant speed, with the faster moving rattlesnake directly behind it. Not a particularly complex or difficult interdiction scenario.

This is a demonstration of the issues with the large ship AI's ability to pursue/intercept moving targets, as well as showing a bit of the "waggling" behavior when a target is directly in front of them and making no lateral movement.
Behemoth was just at outer limit of Rattlesnake's range when initial volleys were fired - can clearly see shots fading out just behind it. Did not however make any significant difference to the outcome. Just gave the appearance of ranging shots, which frankly I rather liked.

That wasn't however what I was asking about. Instead was puzzled as to why that particular video was being presented as analogous to a fight between Xenon K & non-Xenon destroyers. If it were analogous one might expect the Behemoth to turn away from an opponent with shorter range guns. Instead the exact opposite occurs - Behemoth is hit & turns towards the Rattlesnake in an attempt to bring it's main guns to bear. If anything it's an indication that in this situation at least the AI controlling the Behemoth is working as intended. It's certainly what I'd want my destroyers to do in the circumstances - turn & fight when hit by enemy fire, rather than making a futile attempt to outrun a faster opponent. Claiming (incorrectly) that the undesirable behaviour exhibited by destroyers when faced by Xenon K also extends to combat against Rattlesnakes just wastes everyone's time.

Yaeko
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu, 18. Jan 24, 01:43

Re: What are the AI issues, specifically?

Post by Yaeko » Mon, 29. Jan 24, 01:32

GCU Grey Area wrote:
Sun, 28. Jan 24, 22:06
Claiming (incorrectly) that the undesirable behaviour exhibited by destroyers when faced by Xenon K also extends to combat against Rattlesnakes just wastes everyone's time.
btw. can someone check this with an I? and other XL ships (K is not a destroyer, its an XL)

Maybe this is a K-specific issue after all.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”