4.10 OOS Combat balance

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

Sassbarman
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue, 21. Jul 15, 20:19

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Sassbarman » Sat, 23. Oct 21, 00:52

Gavrushka wrote:
Fri, 22. Oct 21, 15:29
I'd been away from the game for a while, and wonder if the OOS combat issues are the main reason the economy has grown so sluggish in my game. If battles go unresolved, essentially raging in perpetuity, then the demand for replacement bits also drops off.

Having said that, I sent a fleet of destroyers, carriers and auxiliaries up against a Khaak station in Getsu Fune, thinking no more of it until the video messages 'we're taking hits' started flashing up, and I realised the massive fleet were getting wacked without doing any damage to the station. Withdrawing them would have incurred huge losses, and I have little money for replacements, so I teleported into one of the ships in the sector... I like to think my mere presence inspired the fleet to turn the tide, but perhaps it was more the balancing issues being discussed in this thread. - From 'gonna lose my whole fleet without doing 1% of damage' it went to a good old 'kick in the Khaak's Jacksey' within moments.

But the upshot for me is, I guess my game is populated with faction capital ships locked in stalemate situations because there is no demand for anything much in my game. (Since 4.1 dropped.)
“I like to think my mere presence inspired the fleet to turn the tide, but perhaps it was more the balancing issues being discussed in this thread.”

Haha...don’t sell yourself short I think your a great and inspiring leader.

Gavrushka
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri, 26. Mar 04, 19:28
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Gavrushka » Sat, 23. Oct 21, 08:29

Sassbarman wrote:
Sat, 23. Oct 21, 00:52


“I like to think my mere presence inspired the fleet to turn the tide, but perhaps it was more the balancing issues being discussed in this thread.”

Haha...don’t sell yourself short I think your a great and inspiring leader.
I'll take that. It sounds like a very plausible explanation... :mrgreen:
“Man, my poor head is battered,” Ed said.

“That explains its unusual shape,” Styanar said, grinning openly now. “Although it does little to illuminate just why your jowls are so flaccid or why you have quite so many chins.”

“I…” Had she just called him fat? “I am just a different species, that’s all.”

“Well nature sure does have a sense of humour then,” Styanar said. “Shall we go inside? It’d not be a good idea for me to be spotted by others.”

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30429
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Alan Phipps » Sat, 23. Oct 21, 15:39

@ Lord Crc: "You could easily spin up a large number of games where you have a certain scenario, .."

Ah, that would probably not appeal much to Egosoft since they discovered the hard way and in hindsight that the cheat engine they were using for setting up and accelerating test scenarios was not providing consistently valid gameplay test results during the Alpha and Beta development cycles for X Rebirth. We all know how well that ended up. Hence they have instead stayed with using public beta live testing of actual play builds for their test and feedback for X4.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

Lord Crc
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun, 29. Jan 12, 13:28
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Lord Crc » Sat, 23. Oct 21, 15:58

Alan Phipps wrote:
Sat, 23. Oct 21, 15:39
Ah, that would probably not appeal much to Egosoft since they discovered the hard way and in hindsight that the cheat engine they were using for setting up and accelerating test scenarios was not providing consistently valid gameplay test results during the Alpha and Beta development cycles for X Rebirth. We all know how well that ended up. Hence they have instead stayed with using public beta live testing of actual play builds for their test and feedback for X4.
They shouldn't need a cheat engine. They should use the actual thing, just without graphics and sound. If they can't run it at accelerated pace, the lack of graphics/sound and minimal universes should lead to low resource usage, so multiple instances could run in parallel (e.g. Docker if they need some isolation). If this doesn't produce the same results, then that's a bug somewhere.

Of course for long-term gameplay and universe evolution, I agree this approach would not be the best. This is for focused testing of certain core functionality.

Eyeklops
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue, 23. Mar 21, 17:58
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Eyeklops » Mon, 25. Oct 21, 21:22

I don't envy the dev team on this topic. Creating a simulation that gives roughly the same results IS vs OOS given all the variables and meets a strict CPU budget is NO easy feat. I'd love to see how that was coded just for the learning experience.

Bommelhonk
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon, 28. Aug 06, 10:09
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Bommelhonk » Tue, 26. Oct 21, 12:02

Eyeklops wrote:
Mon, 25. Oct 21, 21:22
I don't envy the dev team on this topic. Creating a simulation that gives roughly the same results IS vs OOS given all the variables and meets a strict CPU budget is NO easy feat. I'd love to see how that was coded just for the learning experience.
Just came here to agree on that.

The core problem of getting OOS in IS similar or ideally the same behaviour is very similar to the "multi scale coupling" problem in simulations. Wiki Article. This is a non trivial, very complex problem and there is no standard solution available to solve this class of problems. Whole years of working on PhD theses have been necessary to develop coupling methods for simple stuff like uniform particles arranged in grids of different sizes. X4 is a much more complex simulation in the sense that the constituents of the simulation (the ships and their equipment) are much more diverse and can influence each other in ways that are much more complex than problems normally attacked with a multi-scale simulation. Systems with so many parameters tend to react in nonlinear and chaotic ways to changes of parameters and boundary conditions.

I'm no software engineer and I have no experience with automated testing or software development. Just came here to say that coming from the background of simulations I have an immense respect for Egosoft and their developers for working on such a complex piece of software since so many years.
Haste Raumsprit in den Flaschen, fängt auch der Goner an zu lachen...

Eyeklops
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue, 23. Mar 21, 17:58
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Eyeklops » Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34

Bommelhonk wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 12:02
Eyeklops wrote:
Mon, 25. Oct 21, 21:22
I don't envy the dev team on this topic. Creating a simulation that gives roughly the same results IS vs OOS given all the variables and meets a strict CPU budget is NO easy feat. I'd love to see how that was coded just for the learning experience.
I'm no software engineer and I have no experience with automated testing or software development. Just came here to say that coming from the background of simulations I have an immense respect for Egosoft and their developers for working on such a complex piece of software since so many years.
If I could pick the brain of the dev who handles OOS simulation I could probably ask endless question lol.

1. Are OOS damage calculations based upon lookups in an N-dimensional database that was created from an "In System" multivariate simulation?
2. Would a method like this work or be too CPU intensive?
3. Are lookup tables even used or is an algorithm used to approximate damage? A combination of both?
4. Can I see the algorithm? Can you explain it please?
5. Are sectors where the player hasn't uncovered the fog, or are completely out of map view, running an even more simplified simulation?
6. Etc...

The list of questions would probably go on forever as I have an intense interest in understanding X4 mechanics.

j.harshaw
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon, 23. Nov 15, 18:02

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by j.harshaw » Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35

Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34
If I could pick the brain of the dev who handles OOS simulation I could probably ask endless question lol.
There is no one person who handles all of the low attention simulation, but maybe I could answer some questions.
Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34
1. Are OOS damage calculations based upon lookups in an N-dimensional database that was created from an "In System" multivariate simulation?
Simulated on the fly, but simulation is simplified somewhat mostly due to there being no physics in low attention since that would be computationally prohibitive although some other aspects are simplified as well for the same reason. We have very broad parameters of how weapons with certain characteristics on ships with certain characteristics perform against various targets with certain characteristics. Apologize for sounding redundant, but would like to stress that it is the characteristics that are important rather than each individual object.
Design goals are broadly defined:
- Within reason, encounters between various objects with specific characteristics must tend to have the same outcome in visible and in low attention if left to their own devices (for which I did write a tool that allows us to define parameters and multiply that battle around a hundred-fold giving us a large number of samples in a relatively short amount of time, usually then repeated a number of times).
- Combat in low attention must tend to take longer than in visible attention.
Model is tweaked when we encounter very large discrepancies. Things like a fight that's consistently won in one model but lost in the other, battles that don't conclude in one but do in the other, etc. Because of the nature of the simulation, we accept that outcomes cannot be consistent all of the time due to variance in the decisions that individuals in the simulation make, and I personally count this as one of the strengths of the simulation rather than a weakness.
Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34
2. Would a method like this work or be too CPU intensive?
If I understand you correctly, this would require either a very large database or an extremely simplistic model.
Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34
3. Are lookup tables even used or is an algorithm used to approximate damage? A combination of both?
Answered in my response to your first question. I think. Maybe.
Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34
4. Can I see the algorithm? Can you explain it please?
I suppose you could call the simulation an algorithm. If that's what you mean, it is a very large algorithm. I've worked on this full-time for coming on six years, and I still occasionally come across code that I haven't seen before.
Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 18:34
5. Are sectors where the player hasn't uncovered the fog, or are completely out of map view, running an even more simplified simulation?
No difference. Things you can see are in visible attention and are simulated in one way, things that are not close enough for you to see are simulated in another. Some parts of the simulation such as trade and production are the same in both and constitute some of the most expensive code the game runs.

I hope you weren't hoping for something like Flak beats Discoverer always unless Discoverer flown by a five-star pilot or something like that. No such thing. Flak might tend to beat a Discoverer, and a Discoverer might tend to survive longer (maybe even win) if flown by a good pilot and equipped with Tau Accelerators, Paranid shields, and Mk3 Thrusters; but nothing like that's set in stone.

Eyeklops
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue, 23. Mar 21, 17:58
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Eyeklops » Tue, 26. Oct 21, 23:39

j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
Lots of DEV goodness.
Wow...thank you for the amazing response!
j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
I suppose you could call the simulation an algorithm. If that's what you mean, it is a very large algorithm. I've worked on this full-time for coming on six years, and I still occasionally come across code that I haven't seen before.
I was mainly interested in the part of the simulation on how damage is applied to targets. I'm sure even looking at that limited scope is still some substantial amount of code.

-=SiR KiLLaLoT=-
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sat, 3. Mar 12, 19:58
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by -=SiR KiLLaLoT=- » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 00:14

Eyeklops wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 23:39
j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
Lots of DEV goodness.
Wow...thank you for the amazing response!
I admit to having had an orgasm :lol: :lol:
HW Spec:
CPU: Core i9 9900k @ 5.0Ghz - MOBO: MSI Z390-A PRO - RAM: 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix MAX DDR4 4400Mhz CL19 - GPU: nVidia RTX 3070 FE - M.2: Samsung 980 512GB - SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB - Samsung 850 EVO 250GB - Sandisk Plus 240GB – HDD: WD Caviar Black 1TB – WD Caviar Blue 1TB – WD Caviar Black 2TB - PSU: Enermax Liberty 82+ PRO 620w - CASE: iTek Iron Soldier - MONITOR: 27” Acer ED270UP - Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit - KEYBOARD: Logitech G11 – MOUSE: Red Dragon Perdition
My X4 Steam screenshots.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Imperial Good » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 00:49

j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
- Within reason, encounters between various objects with specific characteristics must tend to have the same outcome in visible and in low attention if left to their own devices (for which I did write a tool that allows us to define parameters and multiply that battle around a hundred-fold giving us a large number of samples in a relatively short amount of time, usually then repeated a number of times).
This currently does not seem to be the case when guns are involved. Put an Asguard with only the main batteries and have it point at a fighter swarm. Large numbers of fighters get deleted in low attention combat. Now repeat this but with the Asguard in high attention. It is unlikely it will ever kill a single fighter.

This applies to all ships with guns. It is as if the hit chance logic that apply to turrets is missing from guns. As such on S and M ships Plasma cannons are much more effective than Pulse laser at swatting S and M ships in low attention despite the inverse being true in high attention, where Plasma cannons are unlikely to hit S and M ships reliably.

At least that is what it feels like from my experience with combat, and a lot of people on discord feel the same is happening.
j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
- Combat in low attention must tend to take longer than in visible attention.
Due to the above mentioned gun issue, the opposite is true for destroyers against S/M ships. A fleet of 7 destroyers pointing at a gate will near instant kill most S/M ships that come through in low attention. In high attention the ships will have no issue flying past, and if they attack the fight might take several minutes depending on the turret types involved. These fights last significantly shorter in low attention than high attention.

It is fine to lower combat damage in low attention levels so that fights last longer but if you do you also need to lower shield regeneration equally so that shields regenerate more slowly to match the lower damage. A lot of the reported issues of ships ending up in never-ending stalemate fights in low attention might be due to this since the ships deal reduced damage to each other, but the shield regeneration is the same as high attention so they are unable to kill each other. This is a newish problem since originally L and XL shields had recharge delay (like M shields) which prevented this from being a problem, but now that L and XL shields constantly regen even when taking damage it is possible for them to out regenerate lesser sources of damage. As such minor differences in average damage between high and low attention levels results in an L or XL ship that would slowly die in high attention being immortal in low attention due to dropping below the shield regeneration rate. A solution to this would be to drop shield regeneration of entities with regeneration delay less than the low attention update period by the desired low attention average damage reduction multiplier for a while (some multiple of the update period) after taking damage.

j.harshaw
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 1872
Joined: Mon, 23. Nov 15, 18:02

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by j.harshaw » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11

Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 00:49
j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
- Within reason, encounters between various objects with specific characteristics must tend to have the same outcome in visible and in low attention if left to their own devices (for which I did write a tool that allows us to define parameters and multiply that battle around a hundred-fold giving us a large number of samples in a relatively short amount of time, usually then repeated a number of times).
This currently does not seem to be the case when guns are involved. Put an Asguard with only the main batteries and have it point at a fighter swarm. Large numbers of fighters get deleted in low attention combat. Now repeat this but with the Asguard in high attention. It is unlikely it will ever kill a single fighter.
Known. The Asgard is a particular oddity since the difficulty their pilots have with their main guns doesn't have to do with hitting things, it's the amount of time it takes to aim the thing relative to how fast everything else moves. We're working on it, but no promises.
Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 00:49
This applies to all ships with guns. It is as if the hit chance logic that apply to turrets is missing from guns. As such on S and M ships Plasma cannons are much more effective than Pulse laser at swatting S and M ships in low attention despite the inverse being true in high attention, where Plasma cannons are unlikely to hit S and M ships reliably.
Mostly because nothing with fixed guns shoots anything like plasma which would be too slow to hit small fast things. Deliberate since it would limit utility of the one object on capital ships that players can directly control to reach out and touch someone. Also known, and would likely benefit from a solution to the Asgard problem as well.
Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 00:49
Due to the above mentioned gun issue, the opposite is true for destroyers against S/M ships. A fleet of 7 destroyers pointing at a gate will near instant kill most S/M ships that come through in low attention. In high attention the ships will have no issue flying past, and if they attack the fight might take several minutes depending on the turret types involved. These fights last significantly shorter in low attention than high attention.
This I did not know. Will add to the list of cases to look into. Thanks. I also know that this will partly be dealt with with a change that's coming down the pipe.

Just to double check before I request time for it, are you sure this is from direct observation? Not extrapolation?
Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 00:49
It is fine to lower combat damage in low attention levels so that fights last longer but if you do you also need to lower shield regeneration equally so that shields regenerate more slowly to match the lower damage. A lot of the reported issues of ships ending up in never-ending stalemate fights in low attention might be due to this since the ships deal reduced damage to each other, but the shield regeneration is the same as high attention so they are unable to kill each other. This is a newish problem since originally L and XL shields had recharge delay (like M shields) which prevented this from being a problem, but now that L and XL shields constantly regen even when taking damage it is possible for them to out regenerate lesser sources of damage. As such minor differences in average damage between high and low attention levels results in an L or XL ship that would slowly die in high attention being immortal in low attention due to dropping below the shield regeneration rate. A solution to this would be to drop shield regeneration of entities with regeneration delay less than the low attention update period by the desired low attention average damage reduction multiplier for a while (some multiple of the update period) after taking damage.
One possible solution, yes, but would also introduce its own set of discrepancies all of which would have to be identified and dealt with. Answer isn't that simple and rarely is, but pretty sure you of all people would know that. For one thing, damage isn't reduced across the board by a single factor so there is no single number that shield regeneration can be changed by to bring things to parity in all situations. It's all conditional adjustment hearkening back to my point above about characteristics. Plasma doesn't do 20% of its damage constantly to fighters, it mostly won't do any except for the very rare lucky (or unlucky if you're in the other ship) shot that hits with devastating consequences.

Malchar
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed, 7. Apr 21, 00:56
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Malchar » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 04:59

j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
The Asgard is a particular oddity
I dont think it is so odd, especially after reading the ship description. It become obvious spinal mounted gun on this ship have situational use, and are fully efficient only in the anti station/fortress duty.

It may be use at long range vs large target, but if it turns in dogfight, forget main gun.

In some tests I made xenons ships seems not have any problems when handle by AI. However, curiously If I allows me to use a xenon K, for exemple, to fight OOS an other xenon K, my IA controlled K is always defeat when the AI control K, owned by xenon suffer, no damage at all.

One exception ; it can occurs the two ship fight at very short range ; here the true xenon K can suffers some shield damage. most probable explanation is these damages are delivered by medium turrets.

Bommelhonk
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon, 28. Aug 06, 10:09
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Bommelhonk » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 07:45

j.harshaw wrote:
Tue, 26. Oct 21, 21:35
Lots of DEV goodness.
Thank you very much for that great insight into the inner workings of the calculations! It's amazing and very appreciated that you as a DEV are willing to engange in this conversation and share this details.

To pick up the discussion about differences in high/low attention: it's totally understandable for low attention fights being different, most importantly taking significantly longer than high attention fights from a gamedesign standpoint: after all, the primary scope of the game is for the player to have fun. If you receive the message one of your ships is involved in combat, only to look it up and see it getting destroyed two seconds into the fight, it's not fun. It's much more fun and satisfying for the player to watch it for a couple of seconds, realize your ship's probably going to be wrecked and decide to teleport in, kick the pilot out of his or her seat, take control yourself and save the day in a glorious dogfight.
Haste Raumsprit in den Flaschen, fängt auch der Goner an zu lachen...

XTC0R
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 19:58
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by XTC0R » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 13:28

j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
This post deserved to be #1337!

Image

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Imperial Good » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 19:30

j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
Known. The Asgard is a particular oddity since the difficulty their pilots have with their main guns doesn't have to do with hitting things, it's the amount of time it takes to aim the thing relative to how fast everything else moves. We're working on it, but no promises.
Yes however this should be reflected that the XL battery is incapable of hitting S and M sized ships in low attention. I currently have a strong feeling it has no problem hitting S and M sized ships in low attention, resulting in 5+ of them being instantly destroyed in the direction it is pointing from over 10 km away.

People report similar cases with weapons like mass driver. Anything gimble locked (or "spinally mounted") should have near 0 chance to hit or deal as good as 0 damage to S and M sized ships. This reflects the reality of using such weapons, especially in high attention. Sure maybe a player will ping a S or M ship with them from very close range, but the player will average significantly more damage from further away with a weapon like Pulse Laser or Chain Bolt which have gimbles to auto aim with.
j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
Mostly because nothing with fixed guns shoots anything like plasma which would be too slow to hit small fast things. Deliberate since it would limit utility of the one object on capital ships that players can directly control to reach out and touch someone. Also known, and would likely benefit from a solution to the Asgard problem as well.
I was referring to the guns never miss/always do good damage in low attention aspect and not the lack of gimble. Put 6 M plasma on a Dragon and order it to attack a target. In low attention it will near instantly kill any S ship in front of it from maximum plasma cannon range. In high attention it is unlikely to ever damage an S ship, or even an M ship.

The intended behaviour would be that in both low and high attention the Dragon will deal as good as no damage to the S ship because Plasma projectiles are just that slow that hitting anything fast and agile like an S ship is near impossible with them, even for the player. It seems that Plasma turrets follow this logic, but Plasma guns, or any gun, do not. Destroyer Main batteries are similar, being guns as far as I can tell, and seem to consistently deal good damage at long range when in low attention, even in situations where it is unlikely the player would be able to get them to land hits in high attention.
j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
Just to double check before I request time for it, are you sure this is from direct observation? Not extrapolation?
Just tested. I built 7 Oaska equipped with no turrets at all with their only weapon being their 2 TER Main Batteries, and only shielding for their engines and self (best TER shielding). They also have 50 laser towers which are never deployed, max flares which are useless against Xenon (they have no missiles), all software (only affects player?) and full service crew (newbies from a shipyard, so basically 0-1 star). These also have only mk1 thrusters, so their in sector turning is abysmal making main batteries even less practical to fire at targets, even though they have some gimble. I sent these 7 Osaka to Atiya's Misfortune I gate (xenon side) to fight various Xenon combat ships including K (but excluding I) and dozens of S/M sized ships. They were not in a fleet.

In low attention they have no issue chipping away at a K and swatting the S and M sized craft from the sky. The S and M sized craft do live quite long at times, but that is likely due to reasons mentioned in another thread. Because they are attacking a K, they are constantly oscillating in an unstable way with the K due to a feedback loop caused by both parties trying to intercept reach other so rapidly spin on their axis. Due to this rapid spin there is a low chance they will be facing the correct direction that the main batteries can deal their damage (forward).

This is a scene of the combat from map view in low attention. I was in a far away sector at the time (Company Regard). No other assistance was at the location, so these destroyers killed the S and M sized Xenon ships by themselves. The Osaka were slowly winning against the K, removing turrets from it while their shields were regenerating all damage it dealt.
7 Turretless Osaka.jpg
I then teleported in sector onto one of the Osaka while the K and a few S/M sized ships were attacking. During the 5 minute period I was watching, none of the Oaska even fired their main batteries, or tried to point at the K, let alone the S and M sized craft nearby. The K was dealing huge damage to the Osakas uncontested with its Gravaton turrets. I eventually had to teleport away from the sector because one of the Osaka was about to lose its shield.

Once I teleported away, the story returned back to the low attention case. The Osaka quickly regenerated all their shields, the K lost more turrets and slowly was losing shield, and the S and M sized ships also started to die over a few seconds.

LandogarX4
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat, 1. Aug 20, 22:40
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by LandogarX4 » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 20:56

Good to see the devs finally address the issue. The comically bad OOS combat simulation in 4.10 (even worse than what it was in 3.3) is what keeps me from playing the game. Hopefully more resources can be allocated towards improving this vital aspect of the game.

XTC0R
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 19:58
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by XTC0R » Wed, 27. Oct 21, 21:15

Spoiler
Show
Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 19:30
j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
Known. The Asgard is a particular oddity since the difficulty their pilots have with their main guns doesn't have to do with hitting things, it's the amount of time it takes to aim the thing relative to how fast everything else moves. We're working on it, but no promises.
Yes however this should be reflected that the XL battery is incapable of hitting S and M sized ships in low attention. I currently have a strong feeling it has no problem hitting S and M sized ships in low attention, resulting in 5+ of them being instantly destroyed in the direction it is pointing from over 10 km away.

People report similar cases with weapons like mass driver. Anything gimble locked (or "spinally mounted") should have near 0 chance to hit or deal as good as 0 damage to S and M sized ships. This reflects the reality of using such weapons, especially in high attention. Sure maybe a player will ping a S or M ship with them from very close range, but the player will average significantly more damage from further away with a weapon like Pulse Laser or Chain Bolt which have gimbles to auto aim with.
j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
Mostly because nothing with fixed guns shoots anything like plasma which would be too slow to hit small fast things. Deliberate since it would limit utility of the one object on capital ships that players can directly control to reach out and touch someone. Also known, and would likely benefit from a solution to the Asgard problem as well.
I was referring to the guns never miss/always do good damage in low attention aspect and not the lack of gimble. Put 6 M plasma on a Dragon and order it to attack a target. In low attention it will near instantly kill any S ship in front of it from maximum plasma cannon range. In high attention it is unlikely to ever damage an S ship, or even an M ship.

The intended behaviour would be that in both low and high attention the Dragon will deal as good as no damage to the S ship because Plasma projectiles are just that slow that hitting anything fast and agile like an S ship is near impossible with them, even for the player. It seems that Plasma turrets follow this logic, but Plasma guns, or any gun, do not. Destroyer Main batteries are similar, being guns as far as I can tell, and seem to consistently deal good damage at long range when in low attention, even in situations where it is unlikely the player would be able to get them to land hits in high attention.
j.harshaw wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 01:11
Just to double check before I request time for it, are you sure this is from direct observation? Not extrapolation?
Just tested. I built 7 Oaska equipped with no turrets at all with their only weapon being their 2 TER Main Batteries, and only shielding for their engines and self (best TER shielding). They also have 50 laser towers which are never deployed, max flares which are useless against Xenon (they have no missiles), all software (only affects player?) and full service crew (newbies from a shipyard, so basically 0-1 star). These also have only mk1 thrusters, so their in sector turning is abysmal making main batteries even less practical to fire at targets, even though they have some gimble. I sent these 7 Osaka to Atiya's Misfortune I gate (xenon side) to fight various Xenon combat ships including K (but excluding I) and dozens of S/M sized ships. They were not in a fleet.

In low attention they have no issue chipping away at a K and swatting the S and M sized craft from the sky. The S and M sized craft do live quite long at times, but that is likely due to reasons mentioned in another thread. Because they are attacking a K, they are constantly oscillating in an unstable way with the K due to a feedback loop caused by both parties trying to intercept reach other so rapidly spin on their axis. Due to this rapid spin there is a low chance they will be facing the correct direction that the main batteries can deal their damage (forward).

This is a scene of the combat from map view in low attention. I was in a far away sector at the time (Company Regard). No other assistance was at the location, so these destroyers killed the S and M sized Xenon ships by themselves. The Osaka were slowly winning against the K, removing turrets from it while their shields were regenerating all damage it dealt.
7 Turretless Osaka.jpg

I then teleported in sector onto one of the Osaka while the K and a few S/M sized ships were attacking. During the 5 minute period I was watching, none of the Oaska even fired their main batteries, or tried to point at the K, let alone the S and M sized craft nearby. The K was dealing huge damage to the Osakas uncontested with its Gravaton turrets. I eventually had to teleport away from the sector because one of the Osaka was about to lose its shield.

Once I teleported away, the story returned back to the low attention case. The Osaka quickly regenerated all their shields, the K lost more turrets and slowly was losing shield, and the S and M sized ships also started to die over a few seconds.
Thanks for explaining what all of us experience. Some of it for quite long time. I'm a bit shocked the devs are not aware of this issue. They are so significant and making the game no fun (for me).

Malchar
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed, 7. Apr 21, 00:56
x4

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Malchar » Thu, 28. Oct 21, 05:50

Imperial Good wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 19:30
Because they are attacking a K, they are constantly oscillating in an unstable way
L and XL ship in battle have always acted like that, that means including at time when OOS caused no problems that mades game unplayable.

You can switch back in the oldest version you have and send a horde of destroyers in an enenmy sector. You will see L And XL ships dancing on their axe each time they will have to fight each others ... except they all will takes quicky serious damage until death.

I m even not sure this dance reflect really. Theorically lack of manuoeuvrabilily would not permit it.

Mistle
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu, 27. May 21, 09:16

Re: 4.10 OOS Combat balance

Post by Mistle » Thu, 28. Oct 21, 10:55

XTC0R wrote:
Wed, 27. Oct 21, 21:15

Thanks for explaining what all of us experience. Some of it for quite long time. I'm a bit shocked the devs are not aware of this issue. They are so significant and making the game no fun (for me).
To be honest I'm a bit shocked too :gruebel: :rant:
So many topics, movies, about Asgard, problems with Xenon, all this connected to OOS and nothing. Devs says that are not aware of the problem :doh:
So it could be that this forum is one world , team of devs is another and except in occasional cases they are not connected. I'm speechless :(

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”