Will we be able to navigate large capital ships by ourselves in X4?

[Ketraar]

Because pizza aint free?

Seriously did you read any of this thread at all?

MFG

Ketraar

[Anubitus]

I am in the process of reading the posts now.. It is a tough read..

EDIT: I see.. Well lets just say that if they had to chose between these two due to time and fund restrictions, i would take better AI pathing and ship control over manually flying capital ships.. But having a choice would be far better..

[Alandauron]

Because pizza aint free?

then...wha...???

[Slashman]

What it comes down to for me is:

I would like to pilot cap ships if I so desired. Even if the method of piloting had to be changed so it was more slow and deliberate and much less fighter like.

However, since this is a game where you will undoubtedly have multiple cap ships sooner or later, I would much prefer to be presented with a piloting AI that had its crap together and didn't make me want to bang my head on a concrete wall until loss of consciousness.

I am pretty sure that the former can be done, based on the fact that it has been done before. I am MUCH less convinced of getting a satisfactory implementation of the latter due to the fact that we're still struggling with it after years and years of this series. And when I say satisfactory, I mean satisfactory enough that I won't miss piloting the cap ship myself out of frustration when the AI gets it wrong.

[Nanook]

Trivial: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial

So by the very definition if you're thinking in terms of the game(which is what Ketraar was doing) piloting a single ship is in fact a very trivial matter when thinking about the grand scheme of the game. That's not opinion based, that's a fact....

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. 'Trivial' is in the eye of the beholder, and is thus an opinion, not a fact. Read the definition of 'fact' again. What's trivial to you may be the most important part of a game to another player, and thus not trivial. Flying capital ships, to me, is a very important part of my enjoyment of the X games. So kindly don't claim it's trivial to me.

[Alandauron]

...part of my enjoyment of the X games...

It's an important part of your enjoyment, no one said otherwise. It is not however an important part of the game, thus trivial. Once again you're either both right or both wrong. Either others can manipulate fact the way you're doing or you must stop the manipulation yourself.

[Nanook]

...part of my enjoyment of the X games...

It's an important part of your enjoyment, no one said otherwise. It is not however an important part of the game, thus trivial. Once again you're either both right or both wrong. Either others can manipulate fact the way you're doing or you must stop the manipulation yourself.

[Final comment]



[/Final comment]

[Alandauron]

[Final comment]



[/Final comment]

The point being made was simply that you were the only one making it personal where others were attempting to point out the feature in relation to the game, not the game experience.

[OPINION]
"Everyone thinks capship piloting is trivial!"
[/OPINION]

[FACT]
"Being able to pilot a single ship is rather trivial in X Universe games"
[/FACT]

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's not a fact.[/img]

[BigBANGtheory]

I used to be against it (based on X3 experiences) but listening to Nanook & plynak thoughts on the issue has made me think there is more to it and opportunity for good gameplay.

Its a matter for ES to comment on imho we are just going in circles now.

[Ketraar]

Its a matter for ES to comment on imho we are just going in circles now.

Arent we always in regards to features?

The point is, its not about personal preference. Its not too hard to understand that producing games (or anything really) requires effort, aka pizza, aka money. If we agree that any of these are a finite resource, then "just make it optional" is most senseless and rather annoying statement one can make.

Adding "if done right" to any feature you hardly will find anyone disagreeing for it to be included. Its like saying no to free pizza, thats just stupid and frankly one should be tossed out the edge of this flat earth for it, but I digress.

I dont see anyone not wanting features in a game just for the sake of being against it. People usually apply preference, which then creates priorities. If you apply this logic, look at any game and prioritize features based on their impact and "dominance", you can safely say which features are vital and those who are not.

So you say I want to be able to fly capital ships, you are saying you want ships to exist, thus already created a priority in making ship assets over the ability to fly them, since if they dont exist... well I think you get my point.

Now look at any X game, and tell me that flying capital ships is not trivial and I say you have no clue how games work.
Alternatively tell me which are the things you'd not object to be discarded over it.

MFG

Ketraar

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

In X3 I assembled a fleet in Eighteen billion. To invade 347.

Two carriers full of M3+ M3 M4+ M4 fighters in different wings.
Three Boreas to provide extra fire power.
Several assorted frigates and M6s. Assembling this took absolutely ages.

Now to order to fleet into Xenon sector 347. Well that was a massacre right there. Carnage at the gate.
So reload save and start again. So I fly off to Scale Plate green and enter 347 and act as a distraction
to pull the Xenon away from the gate to Eighteen Billion. Again gate behaviour leaves my fleet with low
shields but hey, they finally arrived in the combat zone.

I order my fleet to attack a Xenon K and a Xenon Q.
For a short while I am happy as fighters and carriers and destroyers engage the enemy.
Then as the Xenon are destroyed up pop more and more Xenon out of nowhere.
I watch in facinated horror as my fleet behaves in ways totally incomprehensible to me and gets
completely wiped out. Reload save start again. Similar result. Management of a fleet in combat
was too tedious and slow, even when used the ships could not respond in a timely manner to avoid
being destroyed by newly arrived combatants with full shielding.

I then took a single Boreas that I was piloting into 347, the result? Total annihilation of anything Xenon,
including the station and any Xenon that jumped in or where instantly spawned. Complete suppression of that sector.
This is why people fly these things.

In X:R I have not bothered to do anything similar as
A) There are no proper carriers.
B) There is still no proper and rapid means of controlling a fleet
C) Ships don't even move in proper formation.

[Alandauron]

In X3 I assembled a fleet in Eighteen billion. To invade 347.

Two carriers full of M3+ M3 M4+ M4 fighters in different wings.
Three Boreas to provide extra fire power.
Several assorted frigates and M6s. Assembling this took absolutely ages.

Now to order to fleet into Xenon sector 347. Well that was a massacre right there. Carnage at the gate.
So reload save and start again. So I fly off to Scale Plate green and enter 347 and act as a distraction
to pull the Xenon away from the gate to Eighteen Billion. Again gate behaviour leaves my fleet with low
shields but hey, they finally arrived in the combat zone.

I order my fleet to attack a Xenon K and a Xenon Q.
For a short while I am happy as fighters and carriers and destroyers engage the enemy.
Then as the Xenon are destroyed up pop more and more Xenon out of nowhere.
I watch in facinated horror as my fleet behaves in ways totally incomprehensible to me and gets
completely wiped out. Reload save start again. Similar result. Management of a fleet in combat
was too tedious and slow, even when used the ships could not respond in a timely manner to avoid
being destroyed by newly arrived combatants with full shielding.

I then took a single Boreas that I was piloting into 347, the result? Total annihilation of anything Xenon,
including the station and any Xenon that jumped in or where instantly spawned. Complete suppression of that sector.
This is why people fly these things.

To me all this proves is that better pathing and fleet management should definitely take priority over piloting. I mean what's the point in being able to build a fleet if you can't use it without it being wiped out? Silly to think that anything should take priority over a system that allows you to actually utilize a fleet in a game where fleet building is so big a part of the game.

In X:R I have not bothered to do anything similar as
A) There are no proper carriers.
B) There is still no proper and rapid means of controlling a fleet
C) Ships don't even move in proper formation.

And yet even before the 4.1 patch you had a better chance of pulling that sort of thing off with the much improved AI over X3's. Now with the 4.1 patch the AI and pathing is even better.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I don't disagree. I have watched any video I can get my mitts on that shows battles. Yes the AI is steadily improving.

What I'd like goes something like this.

I board my Flagship. I order the various ships that will form the fleet to rendezvous.

I set up my fleet.

The missile frigates when engaging the enemy will try to stay at a distance and attack a prioritised list of targets.

The ships with large long distance main weapons will have similar orders.

Orther ships will engage the enemy and then close and attack a prioritised list of targets.

My Flagship, which is a carrier will remain ready to launch waves of attacking
fighters when I give the command.

Then when the rules of engagement have been decided. I tell the fleet where to fly to. Then the fleet travels there as a whole unit.

Jumping, boosting and flying in formation.

When we find hostiles I give the order to engage and battle commences.

Oh yes nearly forgot, I also have control over how individual ships withdraw from battle. What level of shield / hull to maintain before boosting away.

The AI skill will have some effect on aim, level of fire etc and when to withdraw.

[Slashman]

Arent we always in regards to features?

The point is, its not about personal preference. Its not too hard to understand that producing games (or anything really) requires effort, aka pizza, aka money. If we agree that any of these are a finite resource, then "just make it optional" is most senseless and rather annoying statement one can make.

Adding "if done right" to any feature you hardly will find anyone disagreeing for it to be included. Its like saying no to free pizza, thats just stupid and frankly one should be tossed out the edge of this flat earth for it, but I digress.

I dont see anyone not wanting features in a game just for the sake of being against it. People usually apply preference, which then creates priorities. If you apply this logic, look at any game and prioritize features based on their impact and "dominance", you can safely say which features are vital and those who are not.

So you say I want to be able to fly capital ships, you are saying you want ships to exist, thus already created a priority in making ship assets over the ability to fly them, since if they dont exist... well I think you get my point.

Now look at any X game, and tell me that flying capital ships is not trivial and I say you have no clue how games work.
Alternatively tell me which are the things you'd not object to be discarded over it.

MFG

Ketraar

At the risk of again perpetuating the circle, I'm going to state once more that it does not matter in the least how much any of us know about game development. It makes zero difference.

All that matters is how much in demand the given feature is and if the developer for whatever reason chooses to deliver it or not.

The arguments you make here are all centered around the premise that somehow we should all take a game development course and intern at a dev studio before we ask for something we want. That is not how product demand, customers and product producers work or how they have ever worked in any industry.

I don't think most of us here know how in demand any of our most treasured features are. And sometimes for a developer it might, indeed, be worth the extra time and resources to realize a feature that is seemingly trivial even if you think you have a good enough alternative that everyone will like.

[Ketraar]

All that matters is how much in demand the given feature is

Sure but how do you determine that number? Making up generalisations and "statistics", like "most people like..." and then just fill the blank with our bias.

The arguments you make here are all centered around the premise that somehow we should all take a game development course and intern at a dev studio before we ask for something we want. That is not how product demand, customers and product producers work or how they have ever worked in any industry.

Well in no other industry people go out their way to TELL the people producing the product which ingredients to put in.
If we are discussing things and that is what we are doing, we can, I think, have at least some basic understanding of how things work roughly. Obviously we can also have just random nonsensical request lists, as we do have many, but those are not worth discussing at all.

I don't think most of us here know how in demand any of our most treasured features are. And sometimes for a developer it might, indeed, be worth the extra time and resources to realize a feature that is seemingly trivial even if you think you have a good enough alternative that everyone will like.

Thats what I was saying for ages. But still I argue that you can, easily spot which features are critical and which are not. You fire up the game and perform tasks, the tasks you perform will be a good indication of feature hierarchy, the longer you play the more "easily" it can be spotted. The Modding section of forums also serves as a good indication to what features people like, even if not perfect its a good hint.

MFG

Ketraar

[Slashman]

Sure but how do you determine that number? Making up generalisations and "statistics", like "most people like..." and then just fill the blank with our bias.

That's squarely in the hands of the developers. It's up to them to use focus groups and their own surveys to determine if they are on the right track wrt features. I'm not saying it is a super exact science. And it does require time and effort. But the payoffs are potentially quite large if approached the right way.

Well in no other industry people go out their way to TELL the people producing the product which ingredients to put in.

Well if Egosoft was making soft drinks, they would be governed by their country's food and drug administration guidelines and by the phenomenal amount of money and resources that a soft drink company like Coke or Pepsi puts into getting the taste of their drinks just right. They don't just roll the dice.

The bottom line is that in most other industries customers don't need to be that specific. There are guidelines in place to keep things moving more or less in an expected fashion. We just pick the brand/flavor/model we prefer and competition takes care of the rest.

Games are a bit different. We, the customers, manipulate the product to derive our enjoyment from it. If it isn't fun or interesting to interact with for whatever reason we deem critical to our enjoyment, we tend to not be interested anymore.

If we are discussing things and that is what we are doing, we can, I think, have at least some basic understanding of how things work roughly.

Sure that is fine for anyone who wants to put in the time and effort to learn about that side of game development. But the vast majority of customers do not know and don't want to learn. That's a very significant point that should not be ignored.

Obviously we can also have just random nonsensical request lists, as we do have many, but those are not worth discussing at all.

I may tend to agree, but only because those lists reflect only the wishes of a very small sample size of the customers for these games. These boards have dried up considerably.

So to follow on from there, a small group of highly opinionated people on the same forum who have some basic knowledge of game making can still end up doing just as much, if not more, harm than good.

Thats what I was saying for ages. But still I argue that you can, easily spot which features are critical and which are not. You fire up the game and perform tasks, the tasks you perform will be a good indication of feature hierarchy, the longer you play the more "easily" it can be spotted. The Modding section of forums also serves as a good indication to what features people like, even if not perfect its a good hint.

MFG

Ketraar

And I'm saying that making assumptions about what is critical, or more accurately, what aspect of a feature is critical or trivial is still rather dangerous without some kind of stats or proofing to backup your claims.

[Santi]

For me it is common sense, "we want to fly capital ships because it was fun in X3", fine, but X4 will use a new engine and going by X Rebirth, things are going to work quite differently and also new avenues of gameplay are open like capital ship command bridges.

It is a no brainer really, if you look at what mods are popular, it clearly shows a shift towards empire building compared to the "Pilot" days of early X games.

[Slashman]

it is a no brainer really, if you look at what mods are popular, it clearly shows a shift towards empire building compared to the "Pilot" days of early X games.

Well if we're talking Rebirth mods, there is no other choice because you can only pilot the one ship. What other avenues are the mod makers going to pursue?

[TemporalAnomaly]

I remember 10 odd years ago, discovering a game that filled me with awe... there i was in a little buster with 1k credits, crappy guns, not enough cargo bay to make any more... so much to explore... so many cool ships populating an exciting universe .... immersion like never before.

Eventually i flew an M2 it was great, but my preference was an m7 or m6 for day to day game play.

In Rebirth the cap ship bridge mod is a game saver, but still the priority has to be s/m piloting.

The thing i REALLY miss is those forum threads... which is the best m6/ m7.. what is the best weapon load out for your m7 etc.

I guess this is the wrong thread to say "I don't have a preference for cap ship piloting" but i do have a preference for immersion and 1000+ hrs in rebirth and i still miss multiple ship choice and multiple weapon choice more!!!

I want to start from nothing and struggle to get a foothold, gradually improve my assets, eventually control a massive empire with a powerful fleet... just give me a reason to do this and something to achieve with it and i will be a (still) happy camper...

[Alandauron]

That's squarely in the hands of the developers. It's up to them to use focus groups and their own surveys to determine if they are on the right track wrt features. I'm not saying it is a super exact science. And it does require time and effort. But the payoffs are potentially quite large if approached the right way.

Yes and no, and frankly your opinion on whether or not we need to have a knowledge of how game development goes is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not we have a knowledge and there's no issue with informing others in a thread that is completely and utterly conversation on where we stand.

Is it beneficial to the developers?

Well that depends, are they reading, are their limitations based around what we're discussing? There is literally nothing wrong with having a, "If you had to choose which would you prefer, X or Y?" it's simply discussion for the sake of sharing our point of view. Our stance isn't any less relevant when other people aren't informed about game development in the same manner we are(general "we" since even with programming experience some may not grasp game development).

It does matter how much we know about game development for the discussion we're having, if you don't care that's fine but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter, just that it doesn't matter to you. These discussions can help or hinder the developers if they were heading in one direction and suddenly see the [printed] interest lies in the opposite. They then can choose to change direction or just continue on their plans with maybe some minor tweaks to add appeal, or just ignore outright. These discussions are mainly for us though so yes our own experience in the discussions are very much relevant.

Rant over, it doesn't take knowledge in game development to understand that some things wouldn't exist at all without other systems to build on top of. We were merely discussing the fact that ship piloting is a rather trivial mechanic in the scope of the game, really takes no game dev experience to see that. It is very true however that a group(we can't be sure of actual size because as others have pointed out they have left the forums) very much wants to be able to pilot everything, how many of those would actually choose to pilot over being able to actually enjoy a functioning fleet is not something we can determine. So we dance around the mulberry bush hurling our boulders [opinions] at one another swearing that we know the truth and not the opposition. It's all in fun for me but I can't speak for everyone else.