Marines should act like service crew

[jlehtone]

But this contradicts reality, as even marines onboard still have to take part in ship maintenance.

The "reality" of X Universe is that marines do not have to take part in ship maintenance.

unlike the current system, under my proposed system, ships don't need to fill up with crew, they would have a crew complement instead that you need to meet, anything beyond that would rapidly run into diminishing returns. They'll still contribute, but it'll be like if say you have a 100 capacity and 20 crew complement, that 20 crew would provide like 80-95% of the possible stats.

Just that change alone for the current system would support the "current reality". If 20 crew can run the ship, then having the default 60+60 would mean that the lack of participation from marines will remain unnoticeable.

[flywlyx]

The "reality" of X Universe is that marines do not have to take part in ship maintenance.

This is the core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve—the game world contains many elements that neither follow real-world rules nor enhance gameplay.

[Nanook]

The "reality" of X Universe is that marines do not have to take part in ship maintenance.

This is the core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve—the game world contains many elements that neither follow real-world rules nor enhance gameplay.

Sorry, but I have to call 'nonsense' on this statement. There's absolutely nothing 'Real World' about the X-Universe. Trying to force real world bits into such a fantasy world is just silly. It Is A Game!! And games have their own rules that players have to learn to follow. Do RL knights follow the same patterns as those on a chess board??

There's nothing wrong with games having rules different from the Real World. I doubt most players have any idea what Real World life is like on a Real World naval ship. And unless you actually served on one, I doubt you do, either. And the bit about "enhance gameplay" is just your opinion. In fact, IMO the current system makes gameplay simpler with simple designations for each crew type. Not having those designations would make it more complex. In My Opinion!

The "core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve" is simply because it's a complex game. I believe many of the proposed changes in this topic would increase that complextiy. And let me point out that Real World life is very complex, with a very steep learning curve.

[azaghal]

The "reality" of X Universe is that marines do not have to take part in ship maintenance.

This is the core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve—the game world contains many elements that neither follow real-world rules nor enhance gameplay.

Sorry, but I have to call 'nonsense' on this statement. There's absolutely nothing 'Real World' about the X-Universe. Trying to force real world bits into such a fantasy world is just silly. It Is A Game!! And games have their own rules that players have to learn to follow. Do RL knights follow the same patterns as those on a chess board??

Real world comparisons are usually a bad idea (unless the point of the game is to mimic in part or in portion parts of the real world), but... You could say that X4 is quite a counter-intuitive game instead. Probably most of the "real world" statements actually refer to this instead.

There's nothing wrong with games having rules different from the Real World. I doubt most players have any idea what Real World life is like on a Real World naval ship. And unless you actually served on one, I doubt you do, either. And the bit about "enhance gameplay" is just your opinion. In fact, IMO the current system makes gameplay simpler with simple designations for each crew type. Not having those designations would make it more complex. In My Opinion!

To follow up on the claim from above that the game is non-intuitive, the crew systems are actually a very good example. For example, the best way to train up the marines (short of late-game terraforming projects) is to first have them work as service crew to boost their morale, and only then start using them in combat. In fact - for the majority of the game it makes zero sense to have crew assigned as marines on player ships. The best way to train up a pilot if you have the necessary seminars is not to pick up the best pilot you currently have, it is to find the service crew member with the highest morale. The best way to set-up a trading fleet is not to use an actual trading fleet with somewhat highly-ranked pilots, it is to set-up a trading outpost where you assign the trading ships, and bypass the pilot requirements. Heck, pilots "exploring" the sectors (just flying around like muppets) apparently (based on what I have read so far form other players - haven't tried this myself yet) levels them up faster than spending 40 hours hauling the wares around. And that attacker/defender combat strength during boarding, oh boy... And most of these things I had to read up on forums.

The "core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve" is simply because it's a complex game. I believe many of the proposed changes in this topic would increase that complextiy. And let me point out that Real World life is very complex, with a very steep learning curve.

X4 is not a complex game. X4 is a convoluted game. The main reason that it has such a steep learning curve is poorly designed, implemented, and buggy user interface, poorly designed and implemented information presentation, simulation inconsistency (low vs high attention or whatever levels of details are present), hiding of information, poorly explained mechanics (although tutorials have been improved quite a bit), counterintuitive behaviours and mechanics, lack of attention to details in edge cases, a whole slew of balancing issues (not just in terms of combat, but also some of the reward balancing or even story progressions). This is not a definitive list. I understand that it will come off as harsh and rude - but I am really hoping the game gets better in some of these areas, and pretending that things are better than they really are will not drive towards that goal. There have also been some moments which I really enjoyed (the visual scale/feel of ships and stations, Terran storyline, flying around, etc). And for the devs that might make a mistake on reading all this crap - don't take it too much to the heart. So long as people complain that means they still believe in you and trust you. The moment people shut up, though, that means they have lost all trust.

In terms of basic concepts - I really _love_ the premise of X series in general, X4 included. In terms of implementation, there have been many times where I was really going nuts while playing the game. But... We persist, and try to make the most of it I guess, while trying to explain ourselves that it has not been wasted time. Yours truly included in "we" and "ourselves".

[flywlyx]

Sorry, but I have to call 'nonsense' on this statement. There's absolutely nothing 'Real World' about the X-Universe. Trying to force real world bits into such a fantasy world is just silly. It Is A Game!! And games have their own rules that players have to learn to follow. Do RL knights follow the same patterns as those on a chess board??

There's nothing wrong with games having rules different from the Real World. I doubt most players have any idea what Real World life is like on a Real World naval ship. And unless you actually served on one, I doubt you do, either. And the bit about "enhance gameplay" is just your opinion. In fact, IMO the current system makes gameplay simpler with simple designations for each crew type. Not having those designations would make it more complex. In My Opinion!

The "core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve" is simply because it's a complex game. I believe many of the proposed changes in this topic would increase that complextiy. And let me point out that Real World life is very complex, with a very steep learning curve.

Egosoft describes X4 as "our most sophisticated universe SIMULATION ever," clearly referring to a simulation of the real world. I don’t understand why you're comparing it to chess—what kind of chess game is a simulation?

You also didn’t carefully read my explanation. I specifically stated that if a modification improves gameplay, real-world reference shouldn’t be a limitation. A redundant process before boarding adds nothing to gameplay, making it an unnecessary feature that Egosoft initially planned but never fully implemented. After six years, it’s highly unlikely they’ll ever allow NPCs to board player ships, so they should at least clean up these redundant mechanics that serve no purpose and only confuse players.

My proposal simplifies the system by replacing two types with a single, unified approach, streamlining the boarding process and removing unnecessary steps.

X4 may seem more complex than simpler games because it has more systems, but those systems are shallow. I often compare it to Mount & Blade, which is more complex than X4 in every aspect—combat, economy, and diplomacy—yet much easier to learn and play. This isn’t just because Mount & Blade has a solid tutorial and clear explanations for all its mechanics, but also because it simplifies and organizes its systems properly. For example, party roles allow assigning characters to improve attributes, much like crews in X4. However, Mount & Blade explains these roles clearly and doesn’t burden the player with unnecessary micromanagement before combat because that aspect isn’t critical to gameplay.

This is why many players feel that Egosoft doesn’t even play their own games. Without reading the game’s scripts, no one would know that service crew affects things like target selection in low attention mode. Hidden mechanics like these, which make no logical sense, are a major reason X4 has such a steep learning curve.

Real world comparisons are usually a bad idea (unless the point of the game is to mimic in part or in portion parts of the real world), but... You could say that X4 is quite a counter-intuitive game instead. Probably most of the "real world" statements actually refer to this instead.

Comparing to the real world is always a good approach since it contains far more details than any game. These unknown details can make game design much easier than creating a system from scratch.

Take the crew function design as an example—there are countless reasons, often unknown to designers, why marines also perform sailors' duties in reality. If those details were properly integrated into the game, the absence of NPC boarding wouldn’t make the pre-boarding process feel so redundant.

[vvvvvvvv]

I understand that it will come off as harsh and rude - but

It is more likely to come off as a form of cherry-picking. Software is made by humans and humans err. Morale training through construction is an example where the system has unintended consequences due to oversight. Whether this will be ever addressed is another story.

Here's an example of similar glitch, though not in games.

In some editions of D&D strength stat increases jumping distance.
Elephants are among strongest animals with highest strength.
That makes them the best at jumping.
Their skill would allow them to climb trees and jump onto their unsuspecting prey from tree tops.
Which is why dwarves are short and hate forests.

[azaghal]

I understand that it will come off as harsh and rude - but

It is more likely to come off as a form of cherry-picking. Software is made by humans and humans err. Morale training through construction is an example where the system has unintended consequences due to oversight. Whether this will be ever addressed is another story.

Cherry-picking would be picking on some small flaws or very focused parts of the game. But there are some pretty big, fundamental, core parts of the game that I have mentioned in the list. Erring is perfectly fine, the only question is what you do when you err. This is not just about straightforward bugs - those are somewhat straightforward to handle - but also about the design and processes.

Here's an example of similar glitch, though not in games.

In some editions of D&D strength stat increases jumping distance.
Elephants are among strongest animals with highest strength.
That makes them the best at jumping.
Their skill would allow them to climb trees and jump onto their unsuspecting prey from tree tops.
Which is why dwarves are short and hate forests.

The key difference here is that you have the dungeon master that can easily recognise this, and do something to address it on the spot. Most of the role-playing games are even based around this. Unfortunately, you do not have that kind of flexibility in computer games. So the cornerstone of every game is how you handle such special cases. The crew training examples discussed here are also not nearly as convoluted application of logic as your D&D example - they are fairly straightforward, especially if you take a look at it from a new player's perspective.

[vvvvvvvv]

The key difference here is that you have the dungeon master that can easily recognise this,

The other example was dwarf fortress.

Preposition:
Swimming increases athletics.
Fish swim in rivers.
Fish wants to eat.

Consequence:
All fish are god-like athletes.

Result:
River carps jump out of the river, wrestle dwarven fishers, and drag them into the water to be devoured.

All steps are logical.

---

Regarding "what will you do", the game has a lot of things that could be improved, and devs will have to assign priorities. Some of the things you listed are not an issue for me. For example, I have no problems with UI, and I do not recall encountered a lot of actual bugs in it.

[CBJ]

This has drifted way off-topic. Back to what people think of the OP's suggestion, please, and take discussion of how you think game development should be undertaken somewhere else.

[Nanook]

... I specifically stated that if a modification improves gameplay, real-world reference shouldn’t be a limitation. A redundant process before boarding adds nothing to gameplay, making it an unnecessary feature that Egosoft initially planned but never fully implemented.

What "redundant process"? If you're referring to changing service crew to marines, that has a very simple explanation. The 'crew' are putting on their combat gear and preparing to board. And when they return, they change back to their work clothes. Not very hard to understand, really. Just like in the Real World.

After six years, it’s highly unlikely they’ll ever allow NPCs to board player ships, so they should at least clean up these redundant mechanics that serve no purpose and only confuse players....

So you thought that Egosoft originally intended to use the crew distinctions as part of NPC boarding. Did Egosoft tell you this? Because if they did intend that, why didn't they introduce it with v1.0 when they first introduced the different crew types? Perhaps they intended it to work as it is now all along.

P.S. I did a quicky google search and could find no reference to any dev even intimating such a thing, only a few where players wished/hoped it would happen. Perhaps that's what you remember?

[azaghal]

... I specifically stated that if a modification improves gameplay, real-world reference shouldn’t be a limitation. A redundant process before boarding adds nothing to gameplay, making it an unnecessary feature that Egosoft initially planned but never fully implemented.

What "redundant process"? If you're referring to changing service crew to marines, that has a very simple explanation. The 'crew' are putting on their combat gear and preparing to board. And when they return, they change back to their work clothes. Not very hard to understand, really. Just like in the Real World.

The (game) reality is that players keep switching marines into service crew and vice-versa. And this just devolves into moving the sliders left and right, without any deeper thinking nor mechanics behind it once you become aware of this mechanic/loophole/exploit/workaround (depending on your viewpoint). The only challenging thing is to actually realise you can do this - which nowadays probably means reading existing forum posts after getting somewhat frustrated with crew skill progression or boarding strength numbers.

And no - they are not putting on their combat gear, they are not preparing to board, they are not changing back to their work clothes. I understand that you are trying to role-play your way around this, but in-game the profession changes are instantaneous. Now... If switching the crew to different profession was to come with some kind of penalty (time or morale), then it would start to make some sense. Or - maybe you would have ability to launch service crew alongside marines so they can start fixing up the ship as soon as it has been captured, while the marines on-board the captured ship would still be preoccupied removing booby traps etc (as a post-takeover operation), so that player has to keep them in that role for longer period of time. This is just me trying to throw in an example of how to reflect your thinking on putting on combat gear etc - make it a tangible game mechanic/consequence. _That_ then will actually start to make some sense to _everyone_ (by which I of course mean everyone who thinks like myself, which is not even close to actual everyone ).

After six years, it’s highly unlikely they’ll ever allow NPCs to board player ships, so they should at least clean up these redundant mechanics that serve no purpose and only confuse players....

So you thought that Egosoft originally intended to use the crew distinctions as part of NPC boarding. Did Egosoft tell you this? Because if they did intend that, why didn't they introduce it with v1.0 when they first introduced the different crew types? Perhaps they intended it to work as it is now all along.

Even if they did intend it to work as it is now - should that lock out any kind of possible changes to the system, particularly once you have had players basically take it all apart? Personally, I think the original proposition is super simple, and simply reflects the reality of how players are currently dealing with the whole marine/boarding mechanic. It is simply a nice QoL addition at this point.

[Raptor34]

... I specifically stated that if a modification improves gameplay, real-world reference shouldn’t be a limitation. A redundant process before boarding adds nothing to gameplay, making it an unnecessary feature that Egosoft initially planned but never fully implemented.

What "redundant process"? If you're referring to changing service crew to marines, that has a very simple explanation. The 'crew' are putting on their combat gear and preparing to board. And when they return, they change back to their work clothes. Not very hard to understand, really. Just like in the Real World.

In the real world that time would be part of the boarding process and not going around playing with sliders. Or to put it another way, the boarding screen and timers around there is where this should be instead.
As is, under the current system we just have this added complexity for no good reason.
Frankly considering you noted that the devs have never intended for player ships to be boarded, and therefore not needing active marines, this service crew/marine distinction seems like a leftover from previous games instead when we had marines as the only "crew" and so we still have "marines only" now.

[jlehtone]

In the current system, if you do nothing, then marines stay marines and engineers stay engineers. That is the "intuitive" baseline. We can reassign one to the other and for that action we do receive bonus. (Optional) Player action yields a benefit. Is that not how games should inspire the player to do something?

Granted, "elevating" spirited builders into cutthroats is perhaps gaming the system (since single-player games have no exploits?).

(You can naturally point to the Boron-Khaak story, where you get best result by doing absolutely nothing and all actions have most likely a worse outcome. How intuitive was that?)


We do not know whether NPC boarding was considered. However, if it was, somebody probably came up with scenario:
Player has got first Freighter. Crew of noobs, most likely not even a full one. Captain of Phoenix goes: "Me like your ship. Me take ship!" Pirates, some even Elite murderers, pour in and slaughter player's crew. How to complete such boarding op? (Automatic escape pods were not in 1.0.) How would player react?

"Lets not have it" is an "easy" way to answer that.

[Raptor34]

In the current system, if you do nothing, then marines stay marines and engineers stay engineers. That is the "intuitive" baseline. We can reassign one to the other and for that action we do receive bonus. (Optional) Player action yields a benefit. Is that not how games should inspire the player to do something?

Granted, "elevating" spirited builders into cutthroats is perhaps gaming the system (since single-player games have no exploits?).

(You can naturally point to the Boron-Khaak story, where you get best result by doing absolutely nothing and all actions have most likely a worse outcome. How intuitive was that?)


We do not know whether NPC boarding was considered. However, if it was, somebody probably came up with scenario:
Player has got first Freighter. Crew of noobs, most likely not even a full one. Captain of Phoenix goes: "Me like your ship. Me take ship!" Pirates, some even Elite murderers, pour in and slaughter player's crew. How to complete such boarding op? (Automatic escape pods were not in 1.0.) How would player react?

"Lets not have it" is an "easy" way to answer that.

Otoh inspiring the player to move sliders... I think even idle games aren't that bad, not the good one's at least.
It's like how devs nerfed crystal mining, because that was a boring way of doing things, yet also required active participation at the same time.

Although speaking of boarding player ships, I wonder if the other consideration is that there is no fps mode, so they don't want the oddity of you being on a boarded ship.
Which makes me wonder if anyone has every docked at a ship first and then ordered their fleet to commence boarding on it. Does making them an enemy trigger an instant game over? Which seems unlikely since you can sneak on civilian ships onto hostile stations, or would it just turn them all red and it looks odd that they are ignoring you.

[flywlyx]

What "redundant process"? If you're referring to changing service crew to marines, that has a very simple explanation. The 'crew' are putting on their combat gear and preparing to board. And when they return, they change back to their work clothes. Not very hard to understand, really. Just like in the Real World.

So you thought that Egosoft originally intended to use the crew distinctions as part of NPC boarding. Did Egosoft tell you this? Because if they did intend that, why didn't they introduce it with v1.0 when they first introduced the different crew types? Perhaps they intended it to work as it is now all along.

P.S. I did a quicky google search and could find no reference to any dev even intimating such a thing, only a few where players wished/hoped it would happen. Perhaps that's what you remember?

In X4, service crews still contribute to boarding resistance based on their skill. In reality, marines aren’t fully equipped at all times—just like no reasonable person carries a fully loaded weapon all day.
Your statements don’t hold true in either X4 or the real world.

I’d like to believe Egosoft is better than implementing a feature solely to inconvenience players, but if that’s how you see it, you’re free to think so.

Preposition:
Swimming increases athletics.
Fish swim in rivers.
Fish wants to eat.
Consequence:
All fish are god-like athletes.
All steps are logical.

You're assuming that all fish can turn into god-like athletes. I’d question in which game that would actually be the case. Most games impose skill level limits, and given their roles, fish likely have a pretty low skill cap.

In the current system, if you do nothing, then marines stay marines and engineers stay engineers. That is the "intuitive" baseline. We can reassign one to the other and for that action we do receive bonus. (Optional) Player action yields a benefit. Is that not how games should inspire the player to do something?

Players gain nothing from switching engineers to marines—it’s merely a requirement with no real benefit. And you seem to understand that this isn’t how games should inspire the player to do something.

[vvvvvvvv]

You're assuming that

I'm not assuming, I'm describing situation that happened. In Dwarf fortress. "Computers do what they're told, not what you want them to do". So "swimming increases athletics" means "for all creatures". Dwarf fortress also simulates the world, to the greater extent than x4 does, meaning there is no skill cap. Or weapons do not have damage stat, it is calculated based on weapon material and shape.

However, few posts ago CBJ suggested go back to the topic, so would be probably best to do just that.

[Nanook]

Sorry, but I have to call 'nonsense' on this statement. There's absolutely nothing 'Real World' about the X-Universe. Trying to force real world bits into such a fantasy world is just silly. It Is A Game!! And games have their own rules that players have to learn to follow. Do RL knights follow the same patterns as those on a chess board??

There's nothing wrong with games having rules different from the Real World. I doubt most players have any idea what Real World life is like on a Real World naval ship. And unless you actually served on one, I doubt you do, either. And the bit about "enhance gameplay" is just your opinion. In fact, IMO the current system makes gameplay simpler with simple designations for each crew type. Not having those designations would make it more complex. In My Opinion!

The "core reason why X4 has such a steep learning curve" is simply because it's a complex game. I believe many of the proposed changes in this topic would increase that complextiy. And let me point out that Real World life is very complex, with a very steep learning curve.

Egosoft describes X4 as "our most sophisticated universe SIMULATION ever," clearly referring to a simulation of the real world....

Not "clearly" at all. Fantasy worlds are 'simulated' by many, many games and they lay no claim to the Real World. And neither did Egosoft, from what I've read. They're simulating a world which doesn't really exist, not the Real World. You're drawing a conclusion from no data.

[flywlyx]

Not "clearly" at all. Fantasy worlds are 'simulated' by many, many games and they lay no claim to the Real World. And neither did Egosoft, from what I've read. They're simulating a world which doesn't really exist, not the Real World. You're drawing a conclusion from no data.

Despite the existence of Earth, the Moon, and Japan, the fact that service crews provide boarding resistance is enough evidence that X4 aligns more with reality than your imagination.

You're the one who needs to provide evidence that X4 simulates the real world in your imagination.

[CBJ]

This has drifted way off-topic. Back to what people think of the OP's suggestion, please, and take discussion of how you think game development should be undertaken somewhere else.

I don't know which part of this wasn't clear, but what is clear that people seem to be intent on discussing everything but the OP's proposal in here. I have neither the time nor the patience to unpick this thread, so if the OP wishes to repost a new thread on the same topic then they are welcome to do so, but if it devolves into another argument over whose opinion is valid then those responsible will get formal warnings.