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

[mr.WHO]

This is the best option.

Not.

New boost would also increase S/M survivability - no point in keeping whole system needesly convoluded.

[BitByte]

Very much prefer the current boost mechanic where there's an immediate cost to using boost...

Definately this. Current boost method is tactical tool and working.

[RubyRezal]

New model would fix a lot of my frustration with fleet ships of all sizes boosting away from jumpgates until their shields are depleted. Losing ships in sanctuary of darkness because they boosted into the hazard zone and died is annoying and makes it so I have to restrict trade ships and their escorts to one side or the other.
Similar issues exist when fleets go through a gate where a battle is happening on the other side. I've watched small ships boost away from a gate into a swarm of Xenon, good bye ship.

AI tweaks are also needed though to make NPC pilots use boost more conservatively, not boost so far away from gates just to fly slowly back to them to resume course, better evaluate the trade off between boosting and just engaging travel drive for ships like the Orca where boosting is useless due to the mass of the ship and Boron travel drive being a much better option for it, not boost out of the safe corridor into hazardous areas, and not boost into ongoing battles if not an active combatant.


It is understandable how people are used to the old way and think the new way will cause issues, but I don't think that should be a concern. Any change will surely go into the beta branch before release and we'll all have ample opportunity to test it, provide feedback, and ideally find a good balance. Simply denouncing change at this stage for fear of change is silly.

Personally, I feel that relying on enemies to burn their shields boosting probably means you aren't bringing enough dps to a fight to get through their shields to begin with. Fighting that way feels more like exploiting a weakness in AI behavior rather than a proper battle strategy.

[GCU Grey Area]

It is understandable how people are used to the old way and think the new way will cause issues, but I don't think that should be a concern. Any change will surely go into the beta branch before release and we'll all have ample opportunity to test it, provide feedback, and ideally find a good balance. Simply denouncing change at this stage for fear of change is silly.

I do not appreciate my concerns being ridiculed as 'silly'. Have been playing computer games for over 40 years, many of which have been space sims (it's my favourite genre). Many of those have had boost mechanics exactly as described in this thread. I simply don't find it nearly as much fun as the current shield depleting mechanics. It sucks any feeling of tension out of combat if I know I can simply bail out of it at a moment's notice by hitting the boosters. There's no tactical consideration needed in terms of trading one form of defence (shields) for another (high speed evasion). It dumbs down combat & makes it far less appealing to participate in.

[euclid]

Apparently there is a split opinion on the pros & cons. Hence, if it is feasible, make a custon UI setting allowing the player to decide which boost method he prefers.

Cheers Euclid

[xrogaan]

Apparently there is a split opinion on the pros & cons. Hence, if it is feasible, make a custon UI setting allowing the player to decide which boost method he prefers.

Cheers Euclid

This is what I was thinking about. Have a new afterburner module slot, which either eat shield for boosts or use a separate battery banks. Both available with pros and cons. The cons of the shield eating afterburner is evident, who would choose to lose shield when the situation is that they're being fired upon? Anyhow, what would be the cons for the separate battery banks? Increase in mass, thus less speed/agility might be an option. However, that'd only be viable for small ships, large and capitals wouldn't care.

[adeine]

Having both or making it contingent on new engines/upgrades sounds like a bad idea from an implementation and AI point of view.

If you want the trade-off, the best bet that isn't a kludge of disparate mechanics would be a proper power management system as discussed here.

[EGO_Aut]

Apparently there is a split opinion on the pros & cons. Hence, if it is feasible, make a custon UI setting allowing the player to decide which boost method he prefers.

Cheers Euclid

Or you can buy it like "docking computer"

Default, as it is
Combat Boost Capacitor MK1, MK2

[BitByte]

Have a new afterburner module slot, which either eat shield for boosts or use a separate battery banks. Both available with pros and cons. The cons of the shield eating afterburner is evident, who would choose to lose shield when the situation is that they're being fired upon? Anyhow, what would be the cons for the separate battery banks? Increase in mass, thus less speed/agility might be an option. However, that'd only be viable for small ships, large and capitals wouldn't care.

Would module be destroyable in L/XL size ships? So if you leave shield modules untouched but destroy afterburner part from the engine or if batteries are visible outside destroy batteries same way as you can destroy shield generators.

[alt3rn1ty]

I like the challenge of what we have now, I also like the new boost mechanism. Honestly this poll is a tough choice, I think the new could still offer challenge with its recharge time although it kind of waters down the challenge as your shields are not impacted so you will be less concerned about using boost. But ..

.. From my preference of being happiest at the end game, where as much peace has been achieved and I can chill playing the game instead of having to engage in wars, I want to preserve that state of the game. So :

Mods (not third party, I mean the in game mods), already installed in an ongoing game, will they be impacted negatively ?
https://www.qsna.eu/x4/modifications

Slingshot, Atlas etcetera. Some affect Boost duration, some affect Boost thrust, and a lot of time has been spent by players finding resources to apply (and reapply many times rerolling the dice for better specs) their ideal setups for individual ships. Will all of the work applied to an ongoing game we have nurtured for many years now need to be started again?

I can see the proposal of "There will be more variation in the boost characteristics of each engine." would probably have the biggest impact on Mods already installed.

If this change would force me to restart because the change would necessitate too much work to correct every ship, I really wouldn't be happy.

Consider in a late game where the Xenon are extinct, and the only real source of resources for mods are Khaak (and Dukes new stealthy ship which dont appear very often), getting enough resources for the many rerolls of redoing mods would be a major grind.

I guess I will probably restart again at some point, so this concern then goes away as I will have to redo / reassess every ships configuration anyway as I have over the last 3-4 years. And maybe the start of the next beta will force that decision to test as much as possible, I just dread having to do everything again (well, maybe "dread" is a bit too strong a word, I would be reluctant).

[adeine]

Consider in a late game where the Xenon are extinct, and the only real source of resources for mods are Khaak (and Dukes new stealthy ship which dont appear very often), getting enough resources for the many rerolls of redoing mods would be a major grind.

I guess I will probably restart again at some point, so this concern then goes away as I will have to redo / reassess every ships configuration anyway as I have over the last 3-4 years. And maybe the start of the next beta will force that decision to test as much as possible, I just dread having to do everything again (well, maybe "dread" is a bit too strong a word, I would be reluctant).

Might be a weird question, but why would you have to redo boost mods if there is no conflict in the universe? Is it just for personal satisfaction min/maxing reasons?

Even if all the mods disappeared, it's not as if the AI makes any reasonable use of boosting outside combat (and even then the logic is questionable). Just fixing the handful of ships you fly personally should make no appreciable difference in a game like that.

[alt3rn1ty]

Consider in a late game where the Xenon are extinct, and the only real source of resources for mods are Khaak (and Dukes new stealthy ship which dont appear very often), getting enough resources for the many rerolls of redoing mods would be a major grind.

I guess I will probably restart again at some point, so this concern then goes away as I will have to redo / reassess every ships configuration anyway as I have over the last 3-4 years. And maybe the start of the next beta will force that decision to test as much as possible, I just dread having to do everything again (well, maybe "dread" is a bit too strong a word, I would be reluctant).

Might be a weird question, but why would you have to redo boost mods if there is no conflict in the universe? Is it just for personal satisfaction min/maxing reasons?

Even if all the mods disappeared, it's not as if the AI makes any reasonable use of boosting outside combat (and even then the logic is questionable). Just fixing the handful of ships you fly personally should make no appreciable difference in a game like that.

Just for the odd occasion they get attacked by Kha'ak or Dukes Buccaneers, and if I'm honest its a bit of an OCD thing with me in that I like to give all my ships the best they can have "just in case", to improve their chances of surviving anything during trade runs etcetera. Dukes Buccaneers are not so much a concern, but the random pop up nature of Kha'ak is especially after the last update to the game where they now appear in slightly bigger groups to prey on miners.

I have voted for the New scheme, I really do like the old, but on balance looking at the advantages for AI has swung it for me.
It may also be an advantageous change for performance of the game if the new scheme is less of a budget impact than the old, I hope anyway, I dont think that has been mentioned.

[Submarine]

I am filled with hope and happiness that I might one day play X4 again on seeing this thread's OP, yay!

I have read the thread and the many good points raised with interest.

Personally it is hard to decide, because it depends what devs are willing to do to make shield-boost work better if it remains, which would be marginally less than the work needed for a new boost reserve mechanic.

Two things needed to make either mechanic work are...

• player controls, ship memory/default, player assets global setting, distinct fleet and subfleet policies.
• cleverer flight AI, both attacking and fleeing, coordinated with travel drive and even decoupling. They should be able to do anything we can do.

These two improvements are imho needed whatever the boost method. Are the devs willing to fix these for the existing mechanic? If not then the second mechanic might be less destructive of player assets than the current mechanic though that is debatable as the current necessity of disabling shield boost for player forces may only be an advantage where opposing AI are using shields to boost.

I do understand, if the boost mechanic is likely to change, it makes sense to do that first before working on AI. Controls on the other hand would be identical for both mechanics and it might be a good idea to get on with those.

The point about limited AI complexity in regard to CPU overheads makes sense but I don't think that entirely accounts for the simplicity of the current AI and the lack of appropriate sensitivity to context. I think the flight AI needs an overhaul by someone with experience both in AI and X4 piloting who is "as cunning as a fox what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University, but has moved on and is now working for the UN at the High Commission of International Cunning Planning"....! That is how cunning they need to be.

I do like the way shield boost currently plays and gives the player a dilemma as a risk of being hobbled as well as a tool to impede their quarry. I have no doubt a new boost reserve would also be fun and provide a tactical muse. It makes me wonder if the latter should be vulnerable to special weapons, such as the ion cannon or say an EMP cannon, to reduce charge held.

[ragnos21]

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.

Currently, ships trade shield energy for Boost. This model can lead to unnecessary frustration in certain situations, and presents a few quality-of-life drawbacks.

To clarify, we have outlined a few key differences between the two models:

• Old model: Boost uses shield energy
  • In combat situations, you must use boost more tactically, as using it leaves you more exposed to danger with reduced shields.
  • 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.
  • Enemies may be easier to hunt down after they boost, as they often deplete their shields.
• New model: Boost uses separate boost energy
  • Boosting draws from its own energy pool that recharges again over time.
  • You have a better chance of escaping even when shields are down.
  • There will be more variation in the boost characteristics of each engine.
  • Boosting will become more widely employed by both players and the AI during dogfights.
  • A HUD element is introduced to display your ship's boost energy.

We invite you to vote on which boost model you would prefer to see in the game.
We also welcome your written feedback about this change.

Please click on the link below to Enter the Poll:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9PCNNHK

This link cannot be accessed from my country. But I am for separating boost from shields. At the same time, it would be nice to make it possible to deprive the boost of borons from weapons that have the property of slowing down when hit.

[LameFox]

At the same time, it would be nice to make it possible to deprive the boost of borons from weapons that have the property of slowing down when hit.

That's an interesting point. Maybe along with new engine characteristics there could be some new interactions between engines and weapons, too (though ideally not just Boron, since they can't be fitted to any other ships).

[ragnos21]

At the same time, it would be nice to make it possible to deprive the boost of borons from weapons that have the property of slowing down when hit.

That's an interesting point. Maybe along with new engine characteristics there could be some new interactions between engines and weapons, too (though ideally not just Boron, since they can't be fitted to any other ships).

Well, at least the boron weapons of ships already have the effect of slowing down the target and making it impossible to accelerate. Perhaps tying the boost to a separate scale will make their ships more attractive. Besides, don’t forget that there is also an emp rocket. Now she's like trash.

[mr.WHO]

Another example why new boost mechanics would be a welcome addition - new weapon mechanics that drain boost capacitor on impact and make EMP weapons even more useful.


Come on people, that danm old boost mechanic from ancient X-BTF is really stale and dated!

There is a reason why almost all space sims has them separated - no need to shoot yourself in the foot and trying to reinvent the wheel back to square shape

[Irushian]

This was a tricky one for myself as well, though I did end up going with the new method in hopes that the devs will run with it a bit further at some point in the future. I really like the suggestion one of the posters brought up about also tying in the weapon cooldown in to the same mechanic (so basically a powerplant feature that handles shields/weapons/boost).

[surferx]

Apparently there is a split opinion on the pros & cons. Hence, if it is feasible, make a custon UI setting allowing the player to decide which boost method he prefers.

Cheers Euclid

I can't possibly see how anyone would disagree with this option.

[EGO_Aut]

.......
Come on people, that danm old boost mechanic from ancient X-BTF is really stale and dated!
........

Because the old one make sense, high energy in the shields primary or in the engines if you need to
I do not want a new work around, just because EA does not tell us, that they dont know how to fix the "boost bug" of the NPC's