[Closed] X4: Foundations Official Poll - Which Boost mechanic do you prefer?

[GCU Grey Area]

Still this would affect you much with new system - with proper capacitor and recharge rate you still need to be tacical in use.

That is indeed my worry, I use boost a great deal in combat so changes to it would undoubtedly affect my enjoyment of the game. At present boost is balanced against shield depletion. Without that as a balancing factor likely the only way to prevent boost becoming an overwhelming tactical advantage for the player would be to severely restrict the amount it can be used. A game in which I can boost less often would be much less fun for me.

[vvvvvvvv]

Hello X-fans,

Based on recurring feedback, our development team is currently investigating the possibility of detaching Boost from Shield energy, and introducing a separate boost energy pool.

As mentioned in previous discussions, would absolutely prefer to have gauges separate.

[Filmor]

Please consider to include both separate capacitors for boost and shield but also one energy source. When boost AND shield will not be full, the replenishment of both should be slower due to higher energy drain. As mentioned above it would be even better to also throw in the weapons energy so that we will finally have proper energy management. You can stop shooting, if want to replenish shields/boost faster etc.

With separate bars AI will also not be able to seriously harm themselves as even when boosting as there would be no tomorrow at worst case its shield will replenish little slower when catched in a fight with boost bar empty. This is a win-win scenario with more realism, better AI support and more tactical options for the player.

[LameFox]

I don't think it would need to be more or less often necessarily. In theory they could make the boost recharge at the same rate shields would have, at least as a base to start balancing with. The main benefit I see would be to ships that lose their shields and would previously be rendered little more than target practice, so my expectation is that it would make fights slightly harder (but not by much).

Another effect I think we might see is that slow ships (Boron, Terran, and specifically glacial things like the Ares or Osprey) as well as fast but weakly shielded ships (Split) will be a bit less vulnerable. The former because boosting is their only real hope of evading damage, and once their shields are down they really do just drop dead—even that spin they do can't save them. I generally don't use this sort of ship in my fleets because they tend to die on their way back to the carrier between orders. Then the latter because when you have almost no shields, the fact that a big part of your mobility is still tied to shields is uh... an "interesting" design choice?

M ships specifically should also last longer in combat because their regen is SO BAD. I have so often seen these absolute nutters boost away about half their shields before even taking a shot, and in the time it takes them to get that back the fight is over, win or lose. They're just gimping themselves.

[xrogaan]

Here's the problem with the old model, highlighted in the poll itself:

Situational awareness is crucial; if enemies catch you off guard and deplete your shields, you won't be able to rely on boost to escape.

There's hardly any good way to have a good situational awareness. The HUD doesn't help you in telling you where the enemies are. Do you have somebody on your tails? Are you a target? Can you pin specific ships and highlight them on the radar? The HUD isn't made for fighting. Neither is the radar thing. It's a one fits all solution, which is working on most situations. However, dog-fighting in space is a highly specialized task which requires specialized tools. The information an asteroid miner would want is entirely different than somebody trying to shoot down other fighters.

So, I voted for the new model. However I believe the issue isn't with the boost mechanic, but with how information is given to the player (HUD). For example, as an asteroid miner, I would love to have a small bar representing the level of fullness of my cargo hold. Or as a capital captain, knowing if my turrets have line on sight through a graphics (Green OK, Orange Not, Red Destroyed).


Back to boosting: capitals shouldn't have to spend shield to boost. They're big enough to have a dedicated energy reserve. You don't want capitals to boost in combat, they're supposed to keep their shields and tank. And boosting elsewhere is pointless, as the speed gain is meaningless.

Anyhow, that's my small rant. Thanks for reading it, if you did

[mr.WHO]

Another benefit for new boost mechanic is that "retreat" command will be more effective - I miss the days when issuing retreat order made AI boost away like no tomorrow.


New boost will fix much more things.

[Duncaroos]

I selected "different system", mainly cause the AI is inept at using the current system, and compounded by the fact there are no Global Orders / settings to turn this behaviour on/off AI ships by default. This is my main gripe about it.

I would think potential system would be a different boost energy, but it does not regenerate if shields are depleted. It still uses the same MJ of the shields, but it cannot go above the current shield level % of the total. That way a ship without shields is crippled in a way (back in X3, more hull damage made the ship slower and incapable of escaping). If an AI ship is at say 5% hull, it shouldn't be able to boost away at insane speeds escaping death.

Edit 1: more descriptor on proposed boost energy system
Edit 2: fixed first sentence about being able to turn behaviour on/OFF.

[LameFox]

I would think potential system would be a different boost energy, but it does not regenerate if shields are depleted. That way a ship without shields is crippled in a way (back in X3, more hull damage made the ship slower and incapable of escaping). If an AI ship is at say 5% hull, it shouldn't be able to boost away at insane speeds escaping death.

Maybe getting a bit tangential but I've always liked games where ships (or vehicles) become disabled before outright death. It feels more immersive IMO and ties in well with other mechanics like boarding, stripping off wares/cargo, or even recovering it if it was one of your ships.

[mr.WHO]

I would think potential system would be a different boost energy, but it does not regenerate if shields are depleted. It still uses the same MJ of the shields, but it cannot go above the current shield level % of the total. That way a ship without shields is crippled in a way (back in X3, more hull damage made the ship slower and incapable of escaping). If an AI ship is at say 5% hull, it shouldn't be able to boost away at insane speeds escaping death.

That would...actually be good middle ground between two solutions.

Separate boost energy would be AI and combat friendly and no boost regenearation when shields are down would make "tactical/ old system" enthusiast happy.

This could be even a special mehanics for a faction - e.g. Terrans or Borons would have very average boost (stats wise), but would be still able to regenerate when shields are down.

[jlehtone]

There are basically three cases of boost:

• Player using it
• NPC AI using it
• Player's AI ships using it

For player, the current system is a "think challenge". That is good.
For NPC, how many of us actually complain when our foes cannot boost away when they lack shields?
For our AI, yes, we do not all share the view that all of our ships should die in every encounter.

Therefore, if the third case is the "most real" pain, then perhaps the "solution" should focus on that?

[LameFox]

Creating a situation where only player ships stop doing it isn't really ideal IMO. Working with the same tools as everyone else (more or less) is part of the appeal. Even if I don't feel particularly frustrated when some Xenon M dies after boosting away its HP, that doesn't mean I want it to keep happening.

[GCU Grey Area]

There are basically three cases of boost:

• Player using it
• NPC AI using it
• Player's AI ships using it

For player, the current system is a "think challenge". That is good.
For NPC, how many of us actually complain when our foes cannot boost away when they lack shields?
For our AI, yes, we do not all share the view that all of our ships should die in every encounter.

Therefore, if the third case is the "most real" pain, then perhaps the "solution" should focus on that?

Perhaps the solution therefore is a new class of boost engines which operate using the new mechanic, but which have somewhat different performance characteristics (in terms of speed, acceleration, etc) for balance. Up to each player then which ships are fitted with the new engines. Would, for example, allow the player to have that "think challenge" of using the current boost mechanic, while their AI minions could be fitted with engines where boost doesn't deplete shields (if that's a concern for them). Meanwhile NPC factions could use a selection of different engines, which would mean you couldn't always count on knocking shields below 50% automatically disabling boost.

[Duncaroos]

Creating a situation where only player ships stop doing it isn't really ideal IMO. Working with the same tools as everyone else (more or less) is part of the appeal.

While I understand and appreciate your point, the option to enable/disable boosting is already inside attack orders itself. There's no reason I can see for there not to be a default order to enable/disable boosting during movement/attack orders.

If a player feels their game is more appealing for their NPCs to use boost by default like other factions, then the default order is left alone to be "on" (which can come as the default setting for new games); the same can be said for other global orders and whitelists/blacklists that allow player factions to deviate from typical faction ship behaviours.

[jlehtone]

While I understand and appreciate your point, the option to enable/disable boosting is already inside attack orders itself. There's no reason I can see for there not to be a default order to enable/disable boosting during movement/attack orders.

If a player feels their game is more appealing for their NPCs to use boost by default like other factions, then the default order is left alone to be "on" (which can come as the default setting for new games); the same can be said for other global orders and whitelists/blacklists that allow player factions to deviate from typical faction ship behaviours.

Indeed.

[LameFox]

Creating a situation where only player ships stop doing it isn't really ideal IMO. Working with the same tools as everyone else (more or less) is part of the appeal.

While I understand and appreciate your point, the option to enable/disable boosting is already inside attack orders itself. There's no reason I can see for there not to be a default order to enable/disable boosting during movement/attack orders.

If a player feels their game is more appealing for their NPCs to use boost by default like other factions, then the default order is left alone to be "on" (which can come as the default setting for new games); the same can be said for other global orders and whitelists/blacklists that allow player factions to deviate from typical faction ship behaviours.

There are a few settings within orders that might be useful to have on a more permanent basis, however even with them I still think it makes much more sense for the game design to accommodate the limits of its AI than to have players opt out of something it can't handle.

[Maebius]

Honestly, separate to shields is the way to go if only to stop ships from stupidly draining their shields and die.
And no, I don't want a mod for that or do behavior magic to -maybe- prevent it.

[EGO_Aut]

ATM for escaping, boosting is only useful if you get far enough away to get into travel drive before the opponent hits you again.  I don't see any escape from this with the new system if the AI ​​were intelligent. And they wouldn't get caught either.

So keep the old, and fix AI dump boosting their shield to
And try to learn using traveldrive instead of boost in dogfights

[jlehtone]

Honestly, separate to shields is the way to go if only to stop ships from stupidly draining their shields and die.

I disagree, the AI can be stopped from doing stupid boosts without touching the boost.


If I'm technically prevented from stupidly draining my shields, then I will be mightily offended for being treated as stupid.

[osv]

- Use a shield for the boost for small/medium (S/M) sizes.
- Use separate boost energy for large (L) or remove the boost completely for capital sizes.

[surferx]

- Use a shield for the boost for small/medium (S/M) sizes.
- Use separate boost energy for large (L) or remove the boost completely for capital sizes.

This is the best option.