Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

vvvvvvvv
Posts: 1343
Joined: Tue, 28. Nov 23, 15:38
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by vvvvvvvv »

With all the handwaved tech, ship speed still depends on engine thrust. For higher speed they need more engines. More engines means more thrust and more speed. Frame of Sapporo/Hyperion does not look that different from other L ships, so no real cause for higher speed. Sapporo is also an old/outdated design.
Targ Collective
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed, 4. Feb 09, 21:42
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by Targ Collective »

The new flight model will include a rework on the AI, I suspect, so it's time to take this to field testing. Ten to twenty Hyperions and thirty to sixty fighters should be able to survivably disarm a Xenon defense platform, whereas the same cost of standard destroyers would struggle due to mobility constraints. The Encyclopaedia tells us these are for hardpoints and M ships, with generalist capabilities. Let's get in game and see, that the Hyperion is balanced around the player is obvious, let's see if the AI can put the mobility to work well enough to defend that Encyclopaedia entry.

Thanks, when I get passionate it can annoy people. Thanks for being nice about our debate, I value that. I genuinely think that mobility will make the difference, but let's see. :)
I design beautiful, powerful stations that transform your gameplay and look stunning. Now presenting Tachyon Developments - The Terran Collection - now with Community of Planets ship and station technologies!
flywlyx
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by flywlyx »

vvvvvvvv wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 04:04 With all the handwaved tech, ship speed still depends on engine thrust. For higher speed they need more engines. More engines means more thrust and more speed. Frame of Sapporo/Hyperion does not look that different from other L ships, so no real cause for higher speed. Sapporo is also an old/outdated design.
The three-engine Behe E has a top speed that is 77% of Hyperion’s, which shows that engine count has little impact on speed. Additionally, shape has no relevance to speed in space—just look at the mushroom-shaped Phoenix E, the fastest of all E destroyers. In X4, an "old design" doesn’t necessarily mean anything significant; Asgard, despite being an old design, wields the most powerful weapon, and the Xperimental Shuttle, also an old design, remains the fastest heavy fighter.
Targ Collective wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 04:08 The new flight model will include a rework on the AI, I suspect, so it's time to take this to field testing. Ten to twenty Hyperions and thirty to sixty fighters should be able to survivably disarm a Xenon defense platform, whereas the same cost of standard destroyers would struggle due to mobility constraints. The Encyclopaedia tells us these are for hardpoints and M ships, with generalist capabilities. Let's get in game and see, that the Hyperion is balanced around the player is obvious, let's see if the AI can put the mobility to work well enough to defend that Encyclopaedia entry.

Thanks, when I get passionate it can annoy people. Thanks for being nice about our debate, I value that. I genuinely think that mobility will make the difference, but let's see. :)
They use the same AI, and there haven’t been any major mobility improvements for AI-controlled capital ships.
As far as I can tell, the focus is still on improving station sieges, while typical capital ship AI remains the same—standing still and firing.
Hyperion's mobility barely offers any advantage, especially in high-attention combat. In low attention, its short range and lack of L turrets prevent it from dealing comparable damage against other destroyers.
vvvvvvvv
Posts: 1343
Joined: Tue, 28. Nov 23, 15:38
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by vvvvvvvv »

flywlyx wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 04:33 The three-engine Behe E has a top speed that is 77% of Hyperion’s, which shows that
... that there is another factor which is Hull Mass.

Behe E is 260t. Hyperion is 63t. Both are very light for their size, by the way, because an ore truck from Earth can easily be 450t.
Targ Collective wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 04:08 The new flight model will include a rework on the AI,
Combat already feels very different with the new flight model. A lot more fun than before and doesn't feel like space joustling anymore.
flywlyx
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by flywlyx »

vvvvvvvv wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 04:46 Behe E is 260t. Hyperion is 63t. Both are very light for their size, by the way, because an ore truck from Earth can easily be 450t.
Meanwhile, the fastest L destroyer, Phoenix E, weighs 320t.
Targ Collective
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed, 4. Feb 09, 21:42
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by Targ Collective »

So i did some ingame testing - 20 Hyperions to take surface elements out on a Boron Defence Platform. Here are my notes.

1. They need a fighter screen to engage the turrets first for suvivability's sake, but they deal heavy damage against the hardpoints and also deal hull damage which is respectable as well.

2. They can replace destroyers if in high enough numbers and if range is not a factor. M missile turrets won't resupply Heavy missiles but can fire them just fine. If you want them to have range strike capability then you must use missiles. Missiles are never used against stations.

3. They are better at taking hardpoints out than ordinary Destroyers because their weapons recover from overheating *fast* and they are mobile.

4. Destroyers have a range advantage and also a damage advantage.

5. The Hyperion is a terrifying ship for a piratey pirate with high crew and excellent ability to disable turrets. The high damage the weapons do against the hull requires weapon loadout discipline - six, four, two, one of the batteries active in weapon groups will give a lot of nuance to how hard you choose to hit.

Optimum play seems to be top M turrets point defence, bottom your choice of tracking and/or dumbfire launchers for damage and ranged strike, use them in groups for hardpoints backed up by S and M ships giving the turrets something to chase, and if you need ranged energy weapons then you need to bring a full destroyer.

Remember that the best fleet uses different ships. For there to be one best-at-everything ship would be boring, even if it is DLC. I agree the ingame cost is on the expensive side, but so long as you don't try to make a fleet of just Hyperions and no backup they do have a niche - a lightly shielded heavy ship with excellent weaponry, mobility and heat tolerance for the weight it punches.
I design beautiful, powerful stations that transform your gameplay and look stunning. Now presenting Tachyon Developments - The Terran Collection - now with Community of Planets ship and station technologies!
LameFox
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue, 22. Oct 13, 15:26
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by LameFox »

flywlyx wrote: Tue, 25. Feb 25, 16:36
LameFox wrote: Tue, 25. Feb 25, 12:10 Bringing it ever closer to being a normal destroyer would make no sense.
Very true. That’s why I’m not suggesting adding more weapons but instead increasing its speed to differentiate it. Right now, all destroyers have almost identical parameters, with firepower being the only major distinction.

If possible, I’d rather see Sapporo lose 50% of its hull in exchange for a 50% speed boost. That would make it truly unique and align better with its role as a non-combatant exploration vessel.
It just doesn’t make sense for a non-combatant ship to have the same durability as a typical destroyer.
LameFox wrote: Tue, 25. Feb 25, 12:10 It already works in the role it's designed for—having one as a fleet or patrol lead will significantly expand their response range.
It only works right now because of its larger radar range—aside from that, it’s just another typical destroyer, far from its described high speed and maneuverability.

If it had thinner armor while becoming faster and more agile, it would better suit a patrol role since patrol forces need to cover as much area as possible within a given time. On the other hand, if it had thicker armor and slower speed, it would be a better fit for a fleet command role, especially considering that most TER capital ships are much slower than it.

I actually think the Sapporo should have both a Vanguard and a Sentinel variant, with significant differences in hull and agility to better fulfill these distinct roles.
Well, given the one we have access to per the description is post-refit, I'd prefer it maintains the durability that makes it useful in a fleet command role. As for patrolling I am not sure those ever go especially fast. The command itself seems to be a sort of meandering one that frequently assigns new waypoints and makes any ship following it slow as a result. But the sensor range determines how far away they see something and wake up to go do something about it, so that part is useful. It doesn't have to personally arrive first if it has subordinates on attack/intercept/etc.

I guess the real issue here is, there just aren't a whole lot of ways to distinguish ship roles currently. It's taken them until very recently to even start toying with different radar ranges. You can give it speed or agility to be technically a bit better at exploration (I'd favour agility I think, because "explore" is another of those meandering commands), but that's something that also overlaps with other roles. For instance, adding speed to the Phoenix detracts somewhat from the advantages of the Rattlesnake, already kind of a poor ship outside of player control.

Maybe in the future if they get around to improving exploration in 2026, they should update the Sapporo with any new mechanics they might introduce with that rework, to reflect the previous exploration role.
***modified***
Targ Collective
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed, 4. Feb 09, 21:42
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by Targ Collective »

This time I tried leading with Gold and Silver Wings (the Hyperion fighter escorts). Because Boron take flak weapons the fighters took heavy losses.

I found something alarming. The Hyperions stayed at range, and did not attack with missiles or main batteries. Either 'shoot to disable' favours the longest range weapon, including missiles, and that doesn't include an exclusion for stations,

Or 'shoot to disable' does not include Hyperion code. I'm putting a savefile together to make a bug report and we'll see. :)
I design beautiful, powerful stations that transform your gameplay and look stunning. Now presenting Tachyon Developments - The Terran Collection - now with Community of Planets ship and station technologies!
LameFox
Posts: 3637
Joined: Tue, 22. Oct 13, 15:26
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by LameFox »

IIRC shoot to disable only uses very weak weapons. If your ship has only main batteries and missiles it may have elected to fire nothing.
***modified***
Targ Collective
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed, 4. Feb 09, 21:42
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by Targ Collective »

Twenty Hyperions and sixty fighters is sufficient to sink a Boron defence platform without capital losses if the fighters are ordered to attack surface elements and engage first, and if the Hyperions engage afterwards. The hyperions will do massive hull damage and their weapons tolerate heat very well so in terms of continuous firepower they perform very well. I'm testing Attack with Fleet next, and you're welcome to join me - my savegame is on my most recent bug report. :)

it's not just battery damage, heat is also a factor. Terran batteries are crippled by heat, but the Hyperion batteries take a time to overheat and recover well and quickly.
I design beautiful, powerful stations that transform your gameplay and look stunning. Now presenting Tachyon Developments - The Terran Collection - now with Community of Planets ship and station technologies!
Targ Collective
Posts: 2977
Joined: Wed, 4. Feb 09, 21:42
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by Targ Collective »

Four Hyperions lost where if the fighters have disablement time they all survived. So Attack with Fleet isn't *quite* there yet.
I design beautiful, powerful stations that transform your gameplay and look stunning. Now presenting Tachyon Developments - The Terran Collection - now with Community of Planets ship and station technologies!
blackphoenixx
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon, 31. Jan 22, 14:43

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by blackphoenixx »

Targ Collective wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 06:06 This time I tried leading with Gold and Silver Wings (the Hyperion fighter escorts). Because Boron take flak weapons the fighters took heavy losses.

I found something alarming. The Hyperions stayed at range, and did not attack with missiles or main batteries. Either 'shoot to disable' favours the longest range weapon, including missiles, and that doesn't include an exclusion for stations,

Or 'shoot to disable' does not include Hyperion code. I'm putting a savefile together to make a bug report and we'll see. :)
Shoot to disable refuses to use anti-capital weapons to avoid destroying the target. It's not an issue exclusive to the Hyperion, it applies to all torpedoes, heavy missiles, S & M plasma and blast mortars afaik.
Also probably boson lances and meson beams but i haven't checked that.
brume
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu, 3. Sep 20, 18:38
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by brume »

flywlyx wrote: Mon, 24. Feb 25, 21:55 As L- class ships, they should have higher speed than typical destroyers with three shields and 100K hull.

Especially since both are designed for long-range, agile operations—Hyperion as an expeditionary vessel and Sapporo as a high-speed exploration ship. However, in their current state, both are slower than the "robust capital ship" Phoenix E, which makes little sense from both a lore and balance perspective.

Ideally, these ships should function as reconnaissance-in-force units, where mobility is a key factor.
Hyperion should receive a 40–50% speed boost to keep up with M-class ships like the P and Nemesis, given its lack of shields and hull durability.
Meanwhile, Sapporo should get a 20% speed increase to at least surpass Phoenix E, along with a 40–50% boost in steering to align with its description as a highly maneuverable vessel.
I don't think the spirit of the Hyperion is to being a fast recon ship or a military fleet ship at all. It's more of a autonomous exploration ship designed to survive in autonomy for long time alone along with crew and smallers deployable ships. That's how I interpret this ship class, at least.

For fleet recon, you would use scout vessels (maybe those should get a radar range bonus as well).

In other hand, the Sapporo is just an old space flying trashbin, it's already great for was it's truly is.
charlie1024
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon, 1. Aug 22, 03:24
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by charlie1024 »

Was Hyperion's objective is mobile and fast-paced battle? I don't think so. Even, for Sapporo? By the lore, Sapporo was actually not kind of missile destroyer. I think both ships already got heavy and heavy buff at release.

At least, Commonwealth destroyers are 'designed for the battle', no matter how each factions thought to use of. Sapporo isn't. That was just an unarmed exploration ship. During the war, the ship's role was changed to command ship. Sapporo already has fast speed, and has powerful weapons(even though that's not powerful compared to other destroyers).

For Hyperion, from X3, the ship retains some fundamental concepts: Mainly for players, and good to use as a mobile base, can carry something needed to do works. But, it cannot be directly compared with destroyers. Ship behaves like L destroyers, but that doesn't necessarily mean 'This ship should have good performance as L destroyers'.
jonny_taco
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed, 12. Dec 18, 02:26
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by jonny_taco »

Hyperion has like 4.5x the strafe acceleration of the Odysseus E and a significantly smaller profile. For those unaware, size (most especially frontal cross section) and acceleration (most especially strafe) are insanely important in a 6DOF game. These 2 key attribute along with the velocity of projectiles being shot at you determine the potential immunity distance of a ship. Basically, the Hyperion can be immune to incoming fire by spiral strafing at ranges much closer than that of the Odysseus E or really any destroyer. It's a wildly powerful ship in player hands most especially if said player understands proper 6DOF movement and turns flight assist off to disable the goofy strafe acceleration throttling and strafe speed cap.
flywlyx
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by flywlyx »

Targ Collective wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 05:19 So i did some ingame testing - 20 Hyperions to take surface elements out on a Boron Defence Platform. Here are my notes.
With 20 destroyers, you can easily take down that defense platform, and they come at a lower cost. As I mentioned before, capital ship AI struggles with specialized tasks like this—Hyperion in this role is strictly for players.
LameFox wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 05:51 Well, given the one we have access to per the description is post-refit, I'd prefer it maintains the durability that makes it useful in a fleet command role. As for patrolling I am not sure those ever go especially fast. The command itself seems to be a sort of meandering one that frequently assigns new waypoints and makes any ship following it slow as a result. But the sensor range determines how far away they see something and wake up to go do something about it, so that part is useful. It doesn't have to personally arrive first if it has subordinates on attack/intercept/etc.

I guess the real issue here is, there just aren't a whole lot of ways to distinguish ship roles currently. It's taken them until very recently to even start toying with different radar ranges. You can give it speed or agility to be technically a bit better at exploration (I'd favour agility I think, because "explore" is another of those meandering commands), but that's something that also overlaps with other roles. For instance, adding speed to the Phoenix detracts somewhat from the advantages of the Rattlesnake, already kind of a poor ship outside of player control.

Maybe in the future if they get around to improving exploration in 2026, they should update the Sapporo with any new mechanics they might introduce with that rework, to reflect the previous exploration role.
As a patrol unit, it should cover as much area as possible in a given time, which means its efficiency is determined by Radar range x speed, the bigger the radar range, the faster the ship, the more area it could cover in given time which means it patrol more area and has a higher chance to find enemy activities.
The explore/expedition seems a pretty useless role at the moment since the universe is very limited in size, this is why I am leaning toward treating them as recon/patrol units.
brume wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 12:29 For fleet recon, you would use scout vessels (maybe those should get a radar range bonus as well).
Not necessarily—just like Marines use armored vessels for reconnaissance missions, sometimes reconnaissance-in-force is essential to carry out the task effectively.
charlie1024 wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 13:26 Was Hyperion's objective is mobile and fast-paced battle? I don't think so. Even, for Sapporo? By the lore, Sapporo was actually not kind of missile destroyer. I think both ships already got heavy and heavy buff at release.

At least, Commonwealth destroyers are 'designed for the battle', no matter how each factions thought to use of. Sapporo isn't. That was just an unarmed exploration ship. During the war, the ship's role was changed to command ship. Sapporo already has fast speed, and has powerful weapons(even though that's not powerful compared to other destroyers).

For Hyperion, from X3, the ship retains some fundamental concepts: Mainly for players, and good to use as a mobile base, can carry something needed to do works. But, it cannot be directly compared with destroyers. Ship behaves like L destroyers, but that doesn't necessarily mean 'This ship should have good performance as L destroyers'.
I agree that Sapporo shouldn't have that missile weapon—it would be better if it had the same repair function as Hyperion, making it an ideal patrol flagship. It's a shame that Egosoft didn't push for more distinct ship roles, as not every ship needs to be designed for solo operations. But perhaps that's just the limitation of X4—since players can fly any ship, they want every ship to be capable of solo operations.

And as I've mentioned several times, the issue with Hyperion isn't that it's a weak L-class destroyer—I don't want it to simply become a stronger one. Instead, I want it to be fundamentally different from a destroyer, serving a unique role rather than just being an underwhelming variant.
jonny_taco wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 15:04 Hyperion has like 4.5x the strafe acceleration of the Odysseus E and a significantly smaller profile. For those unaware, size (most especially frontal cross section) and acceleration (most especially strafe) are insanely important in a 6DOF game. These 2 key attribute along with the velocity of projectiles being shot at you determine the potential immunity distance of a ship. Basically, the Hyperion can be immune to incoming fire by spiral strafing at ranges much closer than that of the Odysseus E or really any destroyer. It's a wildly powerful ship in player hands most especially if said player understands proper 6DOF movement and turns flight assist off to disable the goofy strafe acceleration throttling and strafe speed cap.
I'm referring to the AI fleet now, but if you believe it's wildly powerful, consider this scenario:Modified Rattlesnake Solo 1I+4K+100P/PE/B/M/N.
I'm curious how long this "wildly powerful" ship would take to clear out a Xenon sector like this.
jonny_taco
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed, 12. Dec 18, 02:26
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by jonny_taco »

flywlyx wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 16:15 I'm referring to the AI fleet now, but if you believe it's wildly powerful, consider this scenario:Modified Rattlesnake Solo 1I+4K+100P/PE/B/M/N.
I'm curious how long this "wildly powerful" ship would take to clear out a Xenon sector like this.
Hyperion has 3x the strafe acceleration, more than twice the pitch/yaw rates and is again, smaller. As for the scenario in your video. The first thing I did with the modded Hyperion (Trinity) was kill a fleet of 3 Is and 6 Ks. Would a modded rattlesnake do this faster? Yes, but the Rattlesnake is insanely strong in the player's hands. Rattlesnake being better does not mean the Hyperion is not a very strong ship.

To be blunt, I don't at all see why the ship needs a speed buff. It's already faster than a destroyer, vastly more agile and packs unique features like longer scanning range and the ability to repair small ships.
flywlyx
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by flywlyx »

jonny_taco wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 17:31 Hyperion has 3x the strafe acceleration, more than twice the pitch/yaw rates and is again, smaller. As for the scenario in your video. The first thing I did with the modded Hyperion (Trinity) was kill a fleet of 3 Is and 6 Ks. Would a modded rattlesnake do this faster? Yes, but the Rattlesnake is insanely strong in the player's hands. Rattlesnake being better does not mean the Hyperion is not a very strong ship.

To be blunt, I don't at all see why the ship needs a speed buff. It's already faster than a destroyer, vastly more agile and packs unique features like longer scanning range and the ability to repair small ships.
So, Rattlesnake is already insanely strong without 3x the strafe acceleration. Syn is even slower than Rattlesnake but remains incredibly powerful in the hands of a player. I don't think 3x strafe acceleration makes much difference—AI capital ships have never been a real threat to player-controlled capitals. Even unmodified destroyers can take down a Xenon K without a scratch on the paint(Odysseus E vs Xenon K). The real danger is always S/M fighters, which can target engines, and in those cases, extra strafe acceleration doesn’t help much.

Meanwhile, Phoenix E, a destroyer, is still faster than Hyperion. The issue isn't whether Hyperion is good for players—it’s about AI fleet composition. In its current state, Hyperion has no real place in an AI fleet.
GCU Grey Area
Posts: 8357
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by GCU Grey Area »

flywlyx wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 21:34 The real danger is always S/M fighters, which can target engines, and in those cases, extra strafe acceleration doesn’t help much.
Helps immensely in my experience. Key difference is that Hyperion is agile enough & has sufficiently accurate main guns to dogfight S/M ships (rather than being almost completely reliant on turrets to provide passive anti-fighter defences, as a destroyer would be). It's really rather good at it, 6x519MW shots moving at 3.3km/s is bloody lethal to S/M size targets. Furthermore, as a consequence of Hyperion's constant movement & strafing while fighting in such a manner it's engine is a much more elusive target for enemy S/M ships to hit.
flywlyx
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat, 15. May 21, 03:45
x4

Re: Hyperion and Sapporo should get some speed buff

Post by flywlyx »

GCU Grey Area wrote: Wed, 26. Feb 25, 22:38 Helps immensely in my experience. Key difference is that Hyperion is agile enough & has sufficiently accurate main guns to dogfight S/M ships (rather than being almost completely reliant on turrets to provide passive anti-fighter defences, as a destroyer would be). It's really rather good at it, 6x519MW shots moving at 3.3km/s is bloody lethal to S/M size targets. Furthermore, as a consequence of Hyperion's constant movement & strafing while fighting in such a manner it's engine is a much more elusive target for enemy S/M ships to hit.
Syn and Rattlesnake also perform fine as long as they are constantly moving and strafing. Like I said, the issue isn’t how it works in the player’s hands—it’s that the AI can’t utilize these advantages. Balance should take the AI’s capabilities into account. The player is overpowered anyway—any capital ship controlled by a player can solo a Xenon K—but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Return to “X4: Foundations”