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

[PV_]

You're not wrong, but by God Egosoft tried many times - at some point it's time to accept failure and seek alternative.

What are these "times" exactly? I'm still waiting the game version number where capitals used travel engine instead of boosting.
Is it private discussion with developers or what? If they made so many attempts and didn't find solution, if they see the core of the problem why Ego even asks us for opinion without details of the issue? Timelines trauma?
What that "secrecy" is about? "I know the truth, but I won't tell you, just believe my word". Really?

[adeine]

You're not wrong, but by God Egosoft tried many times - at some point it's time to accept failure and seek alternative.

What are these "times" exactly? I'm still waiting the game version number where capitals used travel engine instead of boosting.

Traversal of gates by larger ships has seen frequent change.

In early versions they just kind of stopped and slowly approached the gate at glacial speeds (no boost). Then they changed it so they approach gates from the back, which made things even slower with frequent stopping, spooling up travel drive, immediately stopping, etc. ad nauseam. Then they implemented the remote jump ability for the AI.

For exiting gates, there were also quite a few different implementations. Before the addition of Jolt physics, they generally did not get teleported all over the place and boost away their shields. They just kind of spun around in place for a long time.

[PV_]

Traversal of gates by larger ships has seen frequent change.

Among listed changes I haven't noticed one when capitals teleport in the gate area sector closest to their next gate/station target and immediately engage travel drive while already facing the target.

[mr.WHO]

What are these "times" exactly? I'm still waiting the game version number where capitals used travel engine instead of boosting.
Is it private discussion with developers or what? If they made so many attempts and didn't find solution, if they see the core of the problem why Ego even asks us for opinion without details of the issue? Timelines trauma?
What that "secrecy" is about? "I know the truth, but I won't tell you, just believe my word". Really?

Ever since 1.0 from time to time patch notes contain some supposed fixes to AI boosting logic yet we're already past 7.0 and everyone still complain about S/M ships boosting their shields away, capital ships booseters beign nothing useful but shield depletion and problems with boosting atound gate travel.
It doesn't ends and it doesn't improve.


The gate travel is interesting example as here was nearly eaxctly the same:
People complained how bad is the AI gate travel, making traffic jams for capitals.
After multiple attempts Egosoft said "F*ck it" and changed that AI controlled capships now use jumpdrive to teleport from entry gate proximity to exit gate proximity.

it was bit immersion breaking and gameplay change (especially if someone build gate facing defenses), but it solved most capship AI issues (bar mentioned gate boosting problem).

Same should be valid with switch to new booster. Change to gameplay logic, but fixing AI problems.

[EGO_Aut]

What are these "times" exactly? I'm still waiting the game version number where capitals used travel engine instead of boosting.
Is it .........
........rd". Really?

.......
After multiple attempts Egosoft said "F*ck it" and changed that AI controlled capships now use jumpdrive to teleport from entry gate proximity to exit gate proximity.

it was bit immersion breaking and gameplay change (especially if someone build gate facing defenses), but it solved most capship AI issues (bar mentioned gate boosting problem).

Same should be valid with switch to new booster. Change to gameplay logic, but fixing AI problems.

It is still NOT solved, sometimes they do not take the traveldrive, they just boost. I had a Sapporo in "The Void" flying from east to north gate
S ships still like to burn their shields after gate, why dont they use traveldrive
(all from actual beta)

[jlehtone]

Ever since 1.0 from time to time patch notes contain some supposed fixes to AI boosting logic yet we're already past 7.0 and everyone still complain about S/M ships boosting their shields away

Do not say "everyone"; that is not true.

[LameFox]

S ships still like to burn their shields after gate, why dont they use traveldrive

Last time I reported this it was marked as "WAI". The ships were in squads and when passing a gate they'd boost frantically like disturbed wasps, deleting all their shields, then settle down and gather after a bit. For what purpose that would be intended I'm not really sure, but it certainly doesn't endear me to shield-draining boost.

[PV_]

Ever since 1.0 from time to time patch notes contain some supposed fixes to AI boosting logic yet we're already past 7.0 and everyone still complain about S/M ships boosting their shields away, capital ships booseters beign nothing useful but shield depletion and problems with boosting atound gate travel.
It doesn't ends and it doesn't improve.

I've asked what is the game version when ships started to use travel drive right away without boosting or maneuvering. Over and over I hear same thing: they tried, nothing works. I guess the moment with appropriate version never happens, because it doesn't exist, but of course its the boosting is the core issue.

After multiple attempts Egosoft said "F*ck it" and changed that AI controlled capships now use jumpdrive to teleport from entry gate proximity to exit gate proximity.

For anyone who played X3 for a few days utterly obvious that capitals traversing gate and pushing out / destroying smaller ships on the way is the development dead end. Numerous pilot scream of multiple ship destroyed is what breaks immersion, not gate teleporting.
I understand that many former employees left, but not all of them them. None of them could have made a right call?
I'm trying to deliver a message that just "trying" isn't enough for make things work.

Last time I reported this it was marked as "WAI". The ships were in squads and when passing a gate they'd boost frantically like disturbed wasps, deleting all their shields, then settle down and gather after a bit. For what purpose that would be intended I'm not really sure, but it certainly doesn't endear me to shield-draining boost.

Developers tried, really. Tried multiple time to find code rows what responsible for boosting after gate passed. But failed... We all should get over and admit it isn't fixable problem.

[CBJ]

Developers tried, really. Tried multiple time to find code rows what responsible for boosting after gate passed. But failed...

Please stop making things up. That's intentional behaviour and has been explained on a number of occasions, including the one below quite recently.

It's to do with clearing the gate exit area so that other ships coming through the gate from the other side don't land on top of the first ship and have exit routes of their own to get out of the way of further ships. This can obviously happen with any ship that comes through, but it's particularly noticeable with ships travelling in a fleet. With unknown numbers and sizes of ships that could come through the gate, the clearance distance has to be fairly generous.

[LameFox]

Well, that is definitely a case where the flaws of the current system are apparent then. Passing a gate into hostile territory often puts you immediately or very quickly into combat, as ships like to gather around their gates (and defence platforms often aren't far away either). The absolute worst time for your ships to have just deleted their shields, from fighters to capitals.

[PV_]

It's to do with clearing the gate exit area so that other ships coming through the gate from the other side don't land on top of the first ship and have exit routes of their own to get out of the way of further ships. This can obviously happen with any ship that comes through, but it's particularly noticeable with ships travelling in a fleet. With unknown numbers and sizes of ships that could come through the gate, the clearance distance has to be fairly generous.

- why subordinates teleport with their nose direction aren't matching their leader's one? And they spend a lot of time rotating and occupying the space all that time.
- how boosting solves the issue with traffic? From what I clearly see immediate spoiling engine up clears the area up significantly faster overall, because the moment a capital finishes boosting on moving forward travel engine could has been charged and the capital is quickly leaving traffic area. Of course, if the capital is under fire they can't perform travel charge, but its a rare or not a numerous occasion without player's building around gates and usually solved by defense modules fire. Fine... Boosting is free. Capital has teleported and heading to their order target using boost while gets hit from an enemy. Shields dropped down, time to escape to nearest station on the right, but there is no boost available, it was wasted.
- why capitals not use closest and free / not occupied side of a gate to teleport right away in travel mode (I don't mind stopping after teleport animation begun) and instead they stop near target gate and then may slowboating to the farthest gate side or routing behind the gate? Why they don't use boost at this case? Nothing should become free asap to free the area?
- why teleporting behavior doesn't use space reservation to prevent ships collision at gates? There aren't that much capitals in the game to create total mess if things made right, even in The Void. If player decided to pull their 100 Asgards through there will be mess anyway. Not to mention capitals anyway perform short situational teleporting to get rid of current collisions.

[Raptor34]

What about a compromise? Or what I call 50% Shield Boost.
Above 50% shields boost works as it currently does, but perhaps with reduced consumption. 50% and below boost takes no shields but becomes weaker. 10% and below perhaps disable it entirely depending on how you intend things to play out.
The player perhaps gets to keep the old system if they know what they are doing, but get to switch to the new system if they think it fits them more.

Capitals perhaps get a separate boost bar instead? I really don't know what's the point of even giving them boost considering how slow it feels. Frankly it might be better to remove capital ship boost entirely, remove any damage disrupting capital travel drive and instead tie it to engine damage or something. Or make it that capital TD slows down significantly due to needing to protect their TD bubble integrity or something. So I guess the idea is that fighters can still pin down a fleeing capital, but they can at least still flee hostile capital ships.

[mr.WHO]

That just more convoluded - why you're fine with separate boost bar for Capitals, but not for S/M?

There is no reason for arbitrary split.

[Raptor34]

Because capital boosting is complete trash. Frankly I rather them rework that one entirely. At least S/M boost gets them somewhere, capital boost is just a lose harder button, it needs to drastically reduce it's consumption for how little effect it gives.

[RoverTX]

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.

Just want to say I love this idea! Perfect middle ground!

[xrogaan]

That just more convoluded - why you're fine with separate boost bar for Capitals, but not for S/M?

There is no reason for arbitrary split.

Capitals are bigger, have more space for dedicated afterburners.

[jlehtone]

That just more convoluded - why you're fine with separate boost bar for Capitals, but not for S/M?

There is no reason for arbitrary split.

Capitals do have distinct, damageable surface elements too, unlike S/M. Isn't that already a split?

[Submarine]

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.
...

Just want to say I love this idea! Perfect middle ground!

I agree this is an interesting suggestion from Duncaroos. Boosting ships would not deplete shields but low shields would impede boost recharge. Would it solve people's gripes?

It would ...

• stop ships depleting their own shields in the middle of a fight, giving them and players more time to react and ending the tyranny of micro (to switch boost off).
• allow a player with low shield to boost away and save their skin providing they had kept boost charge in reserve.
• allow capture or defeat of opponent ships but would be more difficult as they would have more shield, could boost more while retaining shield and one reserve boost after losing shields (but that strikes me as a worthy challenge).
• not address AI's gratuitous use of boost e.g. after going through a gate etc, which cannot be fixed by adjusting the boost mechanic anyway but it would mitigate the impact on shields.

I would +1 that idea as worth trying.

[Duncaroos]

allow a player with low shield to boost away and save their skin providing they had kept boost charge in reserve.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but that isn't the intention of my proposal(*), from this point:

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 ...

Your boost is still tied to your available shields. If you have no shields you can't boost. There needs to be a way for AI/player to cripple a ship from boosting like Egosoft's original intention; I'll confirm the proposal is supposed to be fixing:

1. Non-combat scenarios like gate clearing from having L/XL ships from draining most of their shields for minimal speed increase.
2. AI overusing boost in combat draining shields to nothing and becoming exposed, but ships with say 5% shields can only have up to 5% boost energy available.

(*)NB: I think I made a mistake here in my initial proposal:

If an AI ship is at say 5% hull, it shouldn't be able to boost away at insane speeds escaping death.

I meant to say any ship (Player or NPC)

[Submarine]

allow a player with low shield to boost away and save their skin providing they had kept boost charge in reserve.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but that isn't the intention of my proposal(*), from this point:

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 ...

Your boost is still tied to your available shields. If you have no shields you can't boost. There needs to be a way for AI/player to cripple a ship from boosting like Egosoft's original intention; I'll confirm the proposal is supposed to be fixing:

1. Non-combat scenarios like gate clearing from having L/XL ships from draining most of their shields for minimal speed increase.
2. AI overusing boost in combat draining shields to nothing and becoming exposed, but ships with say 5% shields can only have up to 5% boost energy available.

(*)NB: I think I made a mistake here in my initial proposal:

If an AI ship is at say 5% hull, it shouldn't be able to boost away at insane speeds escaping death.

I meant to say any ship (Player or NPC)

OK, yes you are right, looks like I misunderstood the specific mechanic you were suggesting, sorry. In principle I think its a good idea for boost to be affected by shield state, one way or another. For the sake of discussion I will describe what I was thinking more clearly.

I was imagining a mechanic hybridising your idea with the dev's proposal for the "new model" with an "energy pool that recharges" where the recharge rate depends on the shield state (rather than the boost % available depending on shield state).

Meaning the pool would charge slower if shields were at 5% and at full rate if they were fully charged (as if energy used to charge shields was unavailable for charging boost). Allows keeping a full pool of boost energy to provide a full boost even if the shield was down, which is one difference between the two models. Also allows partial boosts using part of the pool.

Hope that explains why I imagined it would be more difficult to capture.

Your initial model Duncaroos would mean that if you beat the shield down to zero you could stop the opponent boosting at all (as if the presence of the shield enabled boost), which would facilitate capture, if I have understood correctly. For comparison, the recharge model would mean you would need to keep the shield down to stop boost recharging and also give chase if the opponent used remaining boost reserves.

You could do it either way and I am sure it would be fun. Food for thought.