"AI" Update

[Bad2DBone]

I am a big player.
I have to say that the new flight model is "meh".... in fact on balance I find it annoying.
A good thing is having more time to get through the rift after the tide goes through.

Adding default global orders would help new players:
1. Dont go (travel/trade) into sectors owned by factions you are at war with.

So; please can we have the ships "AI" updated as this would make a huge difference.

Be great if the other players added suggestions here.

To start:

• Don't ram into stations (especailly ones placed right in front of gates)

• Fix "Autopilot Epically Failed"

• NPC pilots seem very bad

• Torp bombers don't seem to hold off until the turrets are engaged with fighters.

[Bad2DBone]

• Destroyers during a seige wandering into the stations fire when it has a clear range advantage

[CBJ]

I will repeat what I've said before when people have posted things like this: if you want us to "improve the AI" then you need to give us specifics to work with. I don't just mean a bullet point mentioning some vague scenario, I mean a savegame demonstrating the specific situation you're describing, along with an explanation of what you think is happening and what you think should be happening in that situation. It won't always possible for us to improve that situation, for a variety of reasons, but it gives us a fighting chance of understanding which particular behaviour you're referring to, and why it's unfolding the way it is.

[vvvvvvvv]

I will repeat what I've said before when people have posted things like this: if you want us to "improve the AI" then you need to give us specifics to work with. I don't just mean a bullet point mentioning some vague scenario, I mean a savegame demonstrating the specific situation you're describing, along with an explanation of what you think is happening and what you think should be happening in that situation. It won't always possible for us to improve that situation, for a variety of reasons, but it gives us a fighting chance of understanding which particular behaviour you're referring to, and why it's unfolding the way it is.

Situation #1: During station sieges destroyers often chose to reposition. They do so from flying by one point on invisible sphere round station to another. However, path between points often passes close to the station and the are hit by turrets.
Possible solution: Soft avoidance of station turret range, circling around the sphere.

Situation #2: Asgard trying to attack a K that has sneaked from behind. AI will try to circle around the K, and ends up circling round it without firing single time.
Possible solution: Focus at aiming main gun at the K and instead of flying forward, strafe and backpedal. Fire the moment it aligns.

Situation #3: Fighters attacking target, except there's a xenon sttion in flight path. Fighters will fly by the station and will all die to turrets.
Possible solution: Soft avoidance of turret range.

At this point, I'd basically be happy if the game allowed me to directly alter AI decision tree used by the ship in combat. A script would work as well, as long as it is something like lua, and not that "XML script".

There was also a proposal to create combat test arena where people could pit ships with different loadouts against each other. That would also help a great del.

[Bad2DBone]

There is a whole YouTube about how bad the AI is at attacking stations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM5I8sTuLS4

Conculsion: AI needs fixing.


Example of comments:

@zackhartley4718
2 weeks ago
This is the #1 thing Egosoft needs to fix.. it’s such a frustrating slog to attack stations.

[Bad2DBone]

Please can the AI for Station manager offer advice how to help your station be more profitable.

i.e.

"Oi master... your station manager wants your help" (or put this in your missions list next to the missions that already exist for stations)

• We need more Transports - Please approve my request to build one. Y/N

• We need more Mineral Miners - Please approve my request to build one. Y/N

• We need more Gas Miners - Please approve my request to build one. Y/N

• We need more Defence - Please approve my request to build x figthers to defend the station. Y/N

• We need more Defence - Please approve my request to build x defence nodes to defend the station. Y/N

...

[Bad2DBone]

Please Please Please take my comments as constructive.
I love X4 and just want it to be better!

[Slashman]

Please Please Please take my comments as constructive.
I love X4 and just want it to be better!

That's not what he's saying. He is saying that you need to provide a save of when something unwanted or unusual happens so that they can take a look at the specific scenario and fix that.

There is no magic "fix the AI' button. If there was, I imagine they would have hit it several thousand times by now.

[Duncaroos]

Yup, it's interesting how people are just skipping over the most critical part of CBJ's reply.

A savegame is like providing a picture instead of 1000 words; devs can use a lot of their tools to quickly bring them to the issue at hand if provided savegame.

[MKL81]

Yup, it's interesting how people are just skipping over the most critical part of CBJ's reply.

A savegame is like providing a picture instead of 1000 words; devs can use a lot of their tools to quickly bring them to the issue at hand if provided savegame.

I will repeat what I've said before when people have posted things like this: if you want us to "improve the AI" then you need to give us specifics to work with. I don't just mean a bullet point mentioning some vague scenario, I mean a savegame demonstrating the specific situation you're describing, along with an explanation of what you think is happening and what you think should be happening in that situation. It won't always possible for us to improve that situation, for a variety of reasons, but it gives us a fighting chance of understanding which particular behaviour you're referring to, and why it's unfolding the way it is.

Oh I had multiple examples for weird issues, I see s/m ships now oftentimes ramming big ships after 7.50 update, which was already brought by others. I saw my destroyers sliding Tokio Drift style directly through enemy stations that they were supposed to destroy and get hammered by station turrets in the process. But as many other people, I use mods to compensate for lack of QoL or balance features that I find important. Therefore my saves are not welcomed and I will not bother spending hours to test everything in clean, untouched environment, simply because it is not my job to do so.

[jlehtone]

To start:

• Fix "Autopilot Epically Failed"

If you don't want to see the text, then don't enable the Autopilot?

What else is there to fix? How the current behaviour differs from what you expect? What change could affect that?


It is very easy to say "seem very bad", but that does not tell anything. It has no actionable point to address.
While mostly about different field, the advice in http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is not totally off.

[flywlyx]

What else is there to fix? How the current behaviour differs from what you expect? What change could affect that?


It is very easy to say "seem very bad", but that does not tell anything. It has no actionable point to address.
While mostly about different field, the advice in http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is not totally off.

If he follows this guide, he'll realize the problem has existed for six years. Despite all the discussions over the years, he's still dealing with the same issue.
So, what should he do? Or do you have an example of a smart question about this issue that hasn’t been asked in the forum?

[vvvvvvvv]

While mostly about different field, the advice in http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is not totally off.

I recommend to use sscce instead https://www.sscce.org/.

The advice in smart questions is bad, by non-tech people it is often perceived as elitism, because it doesn't take social behavior into account. It fails at not escalating questions into conflicts, for example.

sscce is much more practical in comparison.

[Ergoswot]

I will repeat what I've said before when people have posted things like this: if you want us to "improve the AI" then you need to give us specifics to work with. I don't just mean a bullet point mentioning some vague scenario, I mean a savegame demonstrating the specific situation you're describing, along with an explanation of what you think is happening and what you think should be happening in that situation. It won't always possible for us to improve that situation, for a variety of reasons, but it gives us a fighting chance of understanding which particular behaviour you're referring to, and why it's unfolding the way it is.

Come on man, seriously? Detailed info has been posted for months and years about scenarios the AI is bad in. The same problems are then repeatedly posted throughout various updates. If you are not keeping a detailed list of those reports then I m a little shocked.

[vvvvvvvv]

Come on man, seriously? Detailed info has been posted for months and years about

You REALLY need to post an example with a save file for each problem you have into technical support problems. Yes it is annoying, no there's no way around it.

However recently they changed behavior now you can at least see if it is assigned a bugfix number, got an answer and is being worked on. That wasn't a thing several months ago.

[CBJ]

If you are not keeping a detailed list of those reports then I m a little shocked.

We are, but what does that have to do with it? The advice that people wanting to report AI issues need to provide detailed information still stands, otherwise we won't know whether the problem they are reporting is the same as, and/or has the same cause as, something that has been reported before.

[alt3rn1ty]

Yes its a shame people put so much time and effort into these topics, instead of doing what the devs need them to do to actually get the issues sorted.

Heres a useful multi point thing ..

First read this topic viewtopic.php?t=402324
Find one thing wrong (not multiple things)
Make sure you have a save the devs can load up which will show them what the issue is
Make a new bug report topic in the Technical support part of the forum, about that one issue
Give as much detail and a walkthrough explaining to the devs how to successfully reproduce the issue.

Enough people do that, and many problems eventually get solved.
There have been many topics blabbing away about AI issues, thats true, but these "reports" dont get anywhere, the effort would best be put into actual useful bug reports.

People who modify the game and subsequently cant provide a useful save .. If you really want to help and not just clutter the forum with useless topics, dont play a modified game, simples. Mods make many changes to the game the devs just cant anticipate the effects of, especially when multiple mods are combined. They havent enough life time to solve all the mod related problems.

One day I will also play a modified game, looking forward to it, but only when the devs are done developing the vanilla game and no longer need vanilla saves.
Admittedly thats a bit of a long haul, but Egosoft cant help being a small team supporting a very complex game, it is what it is.
This is the way.

[flywlyx]

You REALLY need to post an example with a save file for each problem you have into technical support problems. Yes it is annoying, no there's no way around it.

Let’s be honest—it’s Egosoft’s responsibility to provide a working game, not the players'. If they expect helpful feedback from players, they should be helpful first.

Many issues, like the autopilot failure, are nearly impossible to reproduce from a save file. Asking for one in such cases is simply unprofessional.

Admittedly thats a bit of a long haul, but Egosoft cant help being a small team supporting a very complex game, it is what it is.
This is the way.

Egosoft should be the one admitting it, not you or me. Repeatedly asking for a save file is just avoiding the issue, not acknowledging it.

[flywlyx]

We are, but what does that have to do with it? The advice that people wanting to report AI issues need to provide detailed information still stands, otherwise we won't know whether the problem they are reporting is the same as, and/or has the same cause as, something that has been reported before.

Then learn to ask a smart question, it is Egosoft asking for a free help from the player.

You should have a good look at this guide:
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

[vvvvvvvv]

Let’s be honest—it’s Egosoft’s responsibility to provide a working game, not the players'. If they expect

This line of thought is not useful as pointing fingers does not solve problems.

Your relationship with egosoft is defined by terms and conditions which can be found on the site. That's entirety of things you can "expect". https://www.egosoft.com/terms_en.php

The world is not perfect, egosoft does not have infinite resources. So if you want anything to change the idea is to seek functional compromise. Provide data, see if that works. As I mentioned before, there's some indication of certain thing changed, like reorganization of tech support forum and I did see people act on my reports before. The number of issues on tracker is apparently quite large, and for example, setting up a test scenario for an AI glitch can easily take an hour or more vs few minutes when loading the save. That's a compromise. No, it doesn't guarantee things will get fixed, but that's better than finger pointing and it allows people to process your report faster.

At the end of the day, the game is what it is, and if you find its state unacceptable, you can move on and seek alternative products. "If they expect" is not useful and does not get things fixed. Yes, it can be frustrating when some things do not work, but as I said. We are not living in a perfect world, things are what they are and not what they could or "should" have been. Adapt, move on when your expectations aren't met. Or launch your own product. Or become company's investor.

That's how I see it.