X4 - important question about missiles

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

gbjbaanb
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 26. Dec 10, 00:07

Post by gbjbaanb » Sun, 7. Jan 18, 20:17

On another thread someone mentioned missile chain-reactions where one missile exploding would cause other missiles in its blast radius to also go off, and so forth. This would have the effect of making missile spam a bit useless - one hits, the rest go off prematurely and cause minimal damage.

I did like the swarm missiles though, especially useful to make the target ship point defences not shoot my marines or shoot the missiles instead of me! So I'd like to see that continue.

As for dumbfire missiles (or rockets as they're usually know), why would such things be a thing at all, unless its to deliver more firepower or to be much smaller and thus fit many more of them in the rocket pods. In the old days of X3, dumbfire missiles were useless unless shooting stations. replacing all dumbfire missiles with rocket pods that held a dozen rockets instead of a single missile might be a worthwhile option though.

User avatar
Gazz
Posts: 12423
Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 06, 17:39

Post by Gazz » Mon, 8. Jan 18, 08:22

A major part of the problem is that missiles were kind of hacked into the game. They would "launch" at 0/0/0 of most ships which is the exact point that any AI ship would be shooting at.

Now if missiles had an actual missile launcher weapon/object to be launching from... no more issue.
My complete script download page. . . . . . I AM THE LAW!
There is no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Slashman
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue, 12. Oct 10, 03:31

Post by Slashman » Mon, 8. Jan 18, 15:02

Gazz wrote:A major part of the problem is that missiles were kind of hacked into the game. They would "launch" at 0/0/0 of most ships which is the exact point that any AI ship would be shooting at.

Now if missiles had an actual missile launcher weapon/object to be launching from... no more issue.
I'm with this! It happens in Freespace 2 so I don't think representing a launcher physically should be that hard...but that is something for the devs to say yes or no to.

Also I think represented launchers add some coolness to ships.
If you want a different perspective, stand on your head.

User avatar
Gazz
Posts: 12423
Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 06, 17:39

Post by Gazz » Mon, 8. Jan 18, 21:17

It doesnt even have to be a thing.

You define 2 points under the wings and... missile launch locations done.
My complete script download page. . . . . . I AM THE LAW!
There is no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Nanook
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 25953
Joined: Thu, 15. May 03, 20:57

Post by Nanook » Mon, 8. Jan 18, 21:29

mr.WHO wrote:...
It is not fun constantly see that AI blow itself up 0.5 second after missile launch and even I often get myself killed with my own missile....
I've never, ever been blown up as a result of me shooting my own missile. When I do suffer such mishaps, it's always the AI shooting my missile just as I launch it. And it happens vice versa: the AI launches a missile at close range and my weapons fire detonates it. They usually do that as a last ditch attempt to kill you when they're about to be destroyed.

That kind of behaviour is to be expected in close quarters fighting and can be prevented by being more careful when firing missiles. Personally, I don't see that it's a problem.
Having an Acronym Attack? See the Ego FAQ. Also now for Terran Conflict and Albion Prelude.
NOT an Egosoft employee.

User avatar
Nikola515
Posts: 2867
Joined: Fri, 4. May 12, 07:40

Post by Nikola515 » Tue, 9. Jan 18, 00:19

I would love to see some missiles like Nova torpedo.... Problem in XR that they or drones wore leaving skunk vulnerable to attack do to it being sitting duck. It would be fine if we fire and control them from inside of our capital ship :wink:
It's not world hunger because we can't feed poor,it's because there will never be enough to feed the rich .....

csaba
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri, 26. Aug 05, 22:39

Post by csaba » Tue, 9. Jan 18, 01:15

Nikola515 wrote:I would love to see some missiles like Nova torpedo.... Problem in XR that they or drones wore leaving skunk vulnerable to attack do to it being sitting duck. It would be fine if we fire and control them from inside of our capital ship :wink:
Novadrones kinda need that tradeoff since they blow half the cannons off a ship.

Stripped a Taranis almost completely clean just with 6 the other day. Just need to kill the escorts before trying then bombard the target from 10 km.

Drones are another issue. Assault ones are practically useless if you control them since you are a sitting duck as you said. The traitor drone also needs some sort of a stealth mode to be useful.

The hacker one I like since it can disable the cap shield if you already stripped a ship from other elements. However hacking a station for reduced production for the little amount of time it gives is really useless if you are playing the economy game.

User avatar
Nikola515
Posts: 2867
Joined: Fri, 4. May 12, 07:40

Post by Nikola515 » Tue, 9. Jan 18, 21:27

This is probably why they are so powerful in XR(or ships surface elements week). If you take look at Hellbuster or even Sunstalker missiles can take small number of turrets if they are clustered together in same area. I was boarding Sucellus and it took me 3 or 4 Sunstlker missiles to take all engines out. I think this is more balancing issue than design. If ship could counter missiles like in X3 or if they make modules stronger this would work.

But this is probably why one ships can do all is bad idea. I'm hoping they do more specialized ships in X4. Hacking ships that are hard to detect or things like that.
It's not world hunger because we can't feed poor,it's because there will never be enough to feed the rich .....

Slashman
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue, 12. Oct 10, 03:31

Post by Slashman » Thu, 11. Jan 18, 18:47

It would be nice if we had some kind of missile counter-measure system like decoy launchers or ECM systems. Something apart from just turrets.
If you want a different perspective, stand on your head.

Requiemfang
Posts: 2743
Joined: Thu, 16. Jul 09, 12:24

Post by Requiemfang » Thu, 11. Jan 18, 19:45

Slashman wrote:It would be nice if we had some kind of missile counter-measure system like decoy launchers or ECM systems. Something apart from just turrets.
I think this is why so many people liked the MARS mod Gazz made in the X3 series of games. When you had that mod running 80% of the missiles were usually shot down by the targeted ship and it's escorts if it had turrets. It basically fixed the press the IWIN button which was fire missiles enmasse and expect everything to blow up which took the challenge out of ship fights.

User avatar
Gazz
Posts: 12423
Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 06, 17:39

Post by Gazz » Fri, 12. Jan 18, 12:56

Yeah, but... while MARS was effective I wouldn't call it balanced.
It was more of a curiosity project to see how turrets (and missile defense in particular) could work if those ships really really meant it.

For a balanced approach you have to start with a design that makes it possible to balance these things.

I talked about it a bit here
https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php ... 93#4696393
but you definitely can't just make missile defense better... which then only works for situations where missiles would be way OP to begin with.
Just pushing defense will never fix the absence of a solid design.
My complete script download page. . . . . . I AM THE LAW!
There is no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 21:51

Post by JSDD » Fri, 12. Jan 18, 13:53

a more balanced way would be to diversify offensive and defensive capabilities. for example, in x3 there was only "shield" and "hull" (both just integers) you had to eliminate to destroy an object. a better way would be to replace "int shield" with a "struct shield" which has several upgradable components, electromagnetic shield, mechanical shield (hull), thermo shield, chemical protection, reflective ship hull against lasers etc ... and all the available weapon systems in the game target a specific type of protection, once 1 protection is down to zero, you can damage/destroy "surface components" and the actual ship/station/object ... the same could be done with missiles: give them different "charge types", chemical bomb, EMP bomb, nuclear/thermo bomb or the like to target a certain protection component
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

gbjbaanb
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 26. Dec 10, 00:07

Post by gbjbaanb » Fri, 12. Jan 18, 17:25

I suppose the idea of turrets as missile defence is that you choose - set them to defend or attack, so if you have them set to shoot down missiles, they're not contributing to attacking the enemy.

User avatar
Killjaeden
Posts: 5023
Joined: Sun, 3. Sep 06, 18:19

Post by Killjaeden » Fri, 12. Jan 18, 20:37

JSDD wrote:a better way would be to replace "int shield" with a "struct shield" which has several upgradable components, electromagnetic shield, mechanical shield (hull), thermo shield, chemical protection, reflective ship hull against lasers etc
That would do little benefit to the balance - That's mostly just introducing even more parameters and complexity. After you added all that you still need to go in and balance (which is now even more work).

Adding more combat utilities that do not serve as offensive weapons helps to increase specific defenses without increasing offense. Chaff, Flares, Counter-missiles, EMP charges for disabling of incoming missiles and so on. Being usables they dont represent "just another shield".
Image
XTC Mod Team Veteran. My current work:
Image

User avatar
Gazz
Posts: 12423
Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 06, 17:39

Post by Gazz » Sat, 13. Jan 18, 13:46

It doesn't really matter what you use but at the core, balancing is about having an attack and a counter for it.

Missiles do fall squarely into that but... the problem is in other game systems.
When you achieve "infinite funds" you are adding another element to the situation: All The Missiles.

Missile defense means can be set up to have a certain efficiency but if the player can casually fire 20x as many missiles then the intended balance will break.

That's one of the bits I had suggested above. Organically making spam attacks less effective than ones of ahh... reasonable magnitude. =)
But this is really just a low hanging fruit issue and cannot be seen in isolation. (because that's how this started...)

Killjaeden wrote:That would do little benefit to the balance - That's mostly just introducing even more parameters and complexity. After you added all that you still need to go in and balance (which is now even more work).

Adding more combat utilities that do not serve as offensive weapons helps to increase specific defenses without increasing offense. Chaff, Flares, Counter-missiles, EMP charges for disabling of incoming missiles and so on. Being usables they dont represent "just another shield".

So you would suggest adding more parameters and complexity instead of adding more parameters and complexity? =P

Consumeables are quite comparable to a shield because you have limited availability of an item vs limited (by recharge time) power of a shield.

The details don't even matter. All I'm saying is that you can't just "fix the balance" in beta.
You have to plan for a system that allows you to do so and then stick to your uhh... launchers without messing it up with "wouldn't it be cool".
My complete script download page. . . . . . I AM THE LAW!
There is no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”