Sometimes I feel that modular space stations are not a good idea

[flywlyx]

In the X4 universe, the player is the admiral since there's no such thing as a player AI admiral. If you fail to perform your admiral duties in a battle, it's your own fault for losses of your ships.

Typically, soldiers will halt and await further instructions once they complete a given command.

In X4, they tend to engage in unintelligent actions afterward without informing players, making player more of a kindergarten teacher's approach than that of an admiral.

[Nanook]

We're gin' OT well...

You're going OT, not me. Naval warfare, which is what X4 tries to simulate, is vastly different from ground warfare. Otherwise, admirals could command ground forces and generals could command fleets. In the X universe, capital ships are the equivalent of army corps, and fighter squads are the equivalent of your platoons. If you don't feel the need to manage your fleets in battle, then don't blame the game.

In the X4 universe, the player is the admiral since there's no such thing as a player AI admiral. If you fail to perform your admiral duties in a battle, it's your own fault for losses of your ships.

Typically, soldiers will halt and await further instructions once they complete a given command.

That works for soldiers but not for ships. Ships stopping dead in space tend to end up dead ships.

In X4, they tend to engage in unintelligent actions afterward without informing players, making player more of a kindergarten teacher's approach than that of an admiral.

There's no argument from me that they do unintelligent things, which just reinforces my argument that the player needs to stay involved with the action, not 'order and forget'.

[sxh1998]

What I really want to discuss is that some content does not make AI compatible.
For example, explosions of capital ships and space station modules can cause damage to surrounding ships.AI doesn't seem to know they will explode and won't move away.
A good example is the star tide.AI will attempt to evacuate the star zone or dock at the space station upon receiving notification.

The current situation is that AI subordinates behave like babies when blocked by module debris. It is understandable that AI will not choose the "best attack route", but showing too obvious errors is unacceptable.

What players should do is adjust the ship to the optimal position, and what AI should do is adjust the ship to the position where commands can be executed. It seems that the current subordinate destroyers are waiting for the wreckage to disappear, as if they do not know that the wreckage is invincible.

[flywlyx]

That works for soldiers but not for ships. Ships stopping dead in space tend to end up dead ships.

That excuse doesn't hold up for being AWOL, especially considering that 99 other ships are able to pause there without issue.

There's no argument from me that they do unintelligent things, which just reinforces my argument that the player needs to stay involved with the action, not 'order and forget'.

What you've explained is commonly referred to as babysitting, rather than commanding.

[Nanook]

...

There's no argument from me that they do unintelligent things, which just reinforces my argument that the player needs to stay involved with the action, not 'order and forget'.

What you've explained is commonly referred to as babysitting, rather than commanding.

No, it's called playing the game within the game's rules. Besides, we don't really "command" in the game world, nor do we "babysit". We can pretend in our minds that these are real ships and beings, but they aren't. They're just game pieces that follow the coding the devs game them. Attacking stations with many modules is a complex scenario that's very hard to program for and still keep the framerates within reason. The only other solution is to do as the OP suggests and make the stations a single unit. But that would make station combat rather boring, IMO.

[sxh1998]

...

There's no argument from me that they do unintelligent things, which just reinforces my argument that the player needs to stay involved with the action, not 'order and forget'.

What you've explained is commonly referred to as babysitting, rather than commanding.

No, it's called playing the game within the game's rules. Besides, we don't really "command" in the game world, nor do we "babysit". We can pretend in our minds that these are real ships and beings, but they aren't. They're just game pieces that follow the coding the devs game them. Attacking stations with many modules is a complex scenario that's very hard to program for and still keep the framerates within reason. The only other solution is to do as the OP suggests and make the stations a single unit. But that would make station combat rather boring, IMO.

There is no need for the space station to be single unit.Just make sure that the wreckage of the module can be eliminated. For example, setting HP for module debris. For balance, this HP can also be higher than the original hull value. This can enable AI to ultimately eliminate the space station, but it takes more time than manually adjusting its position.
The current situation is that if AI attacks the space station, they will be endlessly blocked by debris. Even if I intentionally surround the middle module with a few modules, then this space station is indestructible under high attention

[flywlyx]

No, it's called playing the game within the game's rules. Besides, we don't really "command" in the game world, nor do we "babysit". We can pretend in our minds that these are real ships and beings, but they aren't. They're just game pieces that follow the coding the devs game them. Attacking stations with many modules is a complex scenario that's very hard to program for and still keep the framerates within reason. The only other solution is to do as the OP suggests and make the stations a single unit. But that would make station combat rather boring, IMO.

All games share this characteristic, but players don't expect to be babysitting the world's most advanced battleships. Like you said:

In the X4 universe, the player is the admiral since there's no such thing as a player AI admiral.

It is common understanding that the AI shouldn't exhibit unexpected behaviors.
It's the developer's responsibility to ensure that the AI functions as expected.
I'm confident that Egosoft didn't anticipate such significant issues with AI pathfinding persisting to this day, so it falls on them to address these issues and prevent them from impacting players' gameplay.
Both a single station or destructible wreck are acceptable solutions in my view.

[TroubledRabbit]

We're gin' OT well...

You're going OT, not me.

Let it be.

I won't be trying to break your conviction that the commander of the 5th fleet is deeply interested in the course, speed, and aligment of each destroyer, submarine, frigate and countless support units (not mentioning wings, marines, and the most important part of the Fleet (I am serious): kitchen masters) instead giving them tasks and expecting that they are not completely incompetent. You know, there are staff officers for a reason.

I would be happy if the 'AI' would be stupid in predicable and consistent way - other that: 'I have do everything by hand because I cannot leave them alone for 30 sec.'. By that feat it actually might act not only more competently but also: more 'intelligent' in appearance. Like "see there is something in your way 50km on your course, maybe adjust it a little instead hard breaking 10km before and dancing around?" or "this piece of something is blocking you LOF, maybe move your ass 100m up and try again?".

Nothing particularly fancy.

[GCU Grey Area]

'I have do everything by hand because I cannot leave them alone for 30 sec.'

You're vastly overstating this. Have blown up a great many stations (well into the 100s by now) & not one of them required manual intervention anywhere near that frequently. For most stations I need to move my forces precisely ONCE during the demolition process, into flanking positions on each side of the station. For particularly large stations I may need to move them one or two more times (at most). Usually each of those redeployments consists of just 2 orders (fly & wait, then attack). It's hardly an onerous burden.

[sxh1998]

You're vastly overstating this. Have blown up a great many stations (well into the 100s by now) & not one of them required manual intervention anywhere near that frequently. For most stations I need to move my forces precisely ONCE during the demolition process, into flanking positions on each side of the station. For particularly large stations I may need to move them one or two more times (at most). Usually each of those redeployments consists of just 2 orders (fly & wait, then attack). It's hardly an onerous burden.

I want to know if making the module wreckage destructible will reduce your gaming experience.I don't think that will affect your gaming style, you can still use your methods. I don't think you would object to my proposal.

[GCU Grey Area]

I want to know if making the module wreckage destructible will reduce your gaming experience.I don't think that will affect your gaming style, you can still use your methods. I don't think you would object to my proposal.

There's still an opportunity cost. Would take dev time to make such a change, which would add absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of the game. That time could instead could be used to make a different change that might improve the game in a manner that I would find enjoyable. There are many other aspects of the game I'd prefer them to be working on, rather than tinkering with something that's incredibly easy for the player to resolve by simply giving their ships a couple of orders to reposition them.

[sxh1998]

I want to know if making the module wreckage destructible will reduce your gaming experience.I don't think that will affect your gaming style, you can still use your methods. I don't think you would object to my proposal.

There's still an opportunity cost. Would take dev time to make such a change, which would add absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of the game. That time could instead could be used to make a different change that might improve the game in a manner that I would find enjoyable. There are many other aspects of the game I'd prefer them to be working on, rather than tinkering with something that's incredibly easy for the player to resolve by simply giving their ships a couple of orders to reposition them.

It seems that you are as selfish as me.As you said, "problems that players can easily solve" do not require developers to spend time. Low attention (OOS) can solve many AI performance problems. So developers should no longer focus on AI performance under high attention? To enhance more things that you think are more interesting?

[jlehtone]

If one wants extreme simplification, then devs could simply show THE END the moment the game loads. That would naturally be temporary, used only until the AI is perfect.

Naturally, the financial effect of such -- by all logic easy-to-implement -- addition would be substantial.


The game does have features that are apparently result of player requests. I don't like some of those features. The idea of modular stations is a good one. The modules are not the issue. Salvaging resources from destroyed modules is a nice idea too. Destruction of those profits is not a nice idea.

[TroubledRabbit]

You're vastly overstating this.

a bit.

You have never been pissed of that your flotilla is unable to simply execute the order 'destroy the station' without all the mess?

The point is the game wants to be 'somewhat RTS of a kind but not really' while it does not give the player tools to do this.

[sxh1998]

If one wants extreme simplification, then devs could simply show THE END the moment the game loads. That would naturally be temporary, used only until the AI is perfect.

Naturally, the financial effect of such -- by all logic easy-to-implement -- addition would be substantial.


The game does have features that are apparently result of player requests. I don't like some of those features. The idea of modular stations is a good one. The modules are not the issue. Salvaging resources from destroyed modules is a nice idea too. Destruction of those profits is not a nice idea.

It seems that you misunderstood me.I also like modular space stations. The indestructible wreckage only affects both realism and gameplay.

[GCU Grey Area]

You have never been pissed of that your flotilla is unable to simply execute the order 'destroy the station' without all the mess?

Nope, not in the slightest. Indeed I gain a significant amount of enjoyment from planning my attacks on stations; deciding the optimal approach angle, setting up my firing lines, manoeuvring my forces around them, etc. Makes me an active participant in the battle, rather than just a passive observer.

The point is the game wants to be 'somewhat RTS of a kind but not really' while it does not give the player tools to do this.

Disagree, tools are there. I use them every time my fleet destroys a station.

[flywlyx]

Disagree, tools are there. I use them every time my fleet destroys a station.

UI is way too bad to micro-manage the fleet properly. Players could not target individual modules or ask the ships to stay in position.
And capital ships have way too many counter-common sense limitations.

[jlehtone]

The point is the game wants to be 'somewhat RTS of a kind but not really' while it does not give the player tools to do this.

The X games have been mainly first person shooters. The RTS-like UI is very recent.

You have never been pissed of that your flotilla is unable to simply execute the order 'destroy the station' without all the mess?

That is a standard Bond trope. "See that some harm comes to him." That is what you, the villain, expects to happen ("Station, I expect you to die.") but do the subordinates ever succeed? No, it is the villain that ends up dead (and/or possibly pissed). Faring generally better than Bond villain is not proper comfort though.

RISK is perhaps closer to that (desired) level of "RTS"; one tells armies to take an area and they do (or die). We have no control on details, on tactics. We can only harness the logistics to send enough numbers to beat the odds. (I presume, can't remember rules of that game.)


For the record: I've used only two approaches with stations:
A) Shoot everything myself
B) Shoot turrets myself and then let fleets do the rest
Neither is a mess. Oh, and I don't play other FPS games.

[flywlyx]

RISK is perhaps closer to that (desired) level of "RTS"; one tells armies to take an area and they do (or die). We have no control on details, on tactics. We can only harness the logistics to send enough numbers to beat the odds. (I presume, can't remember rules of that game.)

What you said is a typical turn-based strategy game(TBS) rule, not Real-time strategy (RTS).

The X games have been mainly first person shooters. The RTS-like UI is very recent.

This is the biggest problem, players notice an RTS-style interface, they will expect an RTS-style game, but X4 is not. In RTS, units are extensions of the player, every behavior should perform exactly as players expect, but in X4 it is not, AI has way too many limitations that players won't expect.

[GCU Grey Area]

UI is way too bad to micro-manage the fleet properly. Players could not target individual modules or ask the ships to stay in position.

It is possible to do this if the player's flying the lead ship in a fleet & has subordinates set to 'attack'. Then it's just a matter of choosing which module you want them to shoot at.
For example, first I ask them to shoot the module on the right: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u6r4iilx ... u03q2&dl=0
Then I select a different target & they shoot the module on the left: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/llehonch ... zycny&dl=0

In practice though I prefer to have a carrier as fleet command & there's absolutely no way I'm flying a ship with a such an appalling turn rate (or lack of main guns) & find it works well enough just to setup my firing lines near the modules I want them to start with.

As for staying in position, mine mostly do, until it's time to give the orders to reposition. They are however all flown by exceptionally well trained pilots (5* for both piloting & morale).