Has anyone else noticed...

[carran]

There's been a significant increase in X2 related information available recently...

I hope this doesn't mean X-News is redundant

[P88]

yea i certainly like the new cockpits - alot better than what they were going to be

and now i hear that you can go on planets.....even better!

ROLL ON X2!!!

freelancer? whats freelancer?

[Al]

While there has been quite a lot of posts regarding X2 there hasn't really been that much information released, or at least specific information. X-news will still have its place and hopefully explain in detail some of the other things we have been hearing about.

Steel any ETA on the next X-news?

Al

[Steel]

Steel any ETA on the next X-news?

Al

Soon.......

Actually BurnIt!'s doing the main content this time (with help from Cmdr Handby and myself etc).

Just so you know, basically BurnIt! and I do X-News content and then give it to Bernd for input. Actually, BurnIt! does most of the work

As we both work on the "press" team, we know enough to be able to make decisions on content for forums/X-News/mags/websites etc. X-News still goes out to everyone on the list, so it's important to us.

I've been unable to contribute for a couple of months (reasons I won't bore you with) and my time is still badly limited. But hopefully you have started to see that I am around more.

Working on the press team has been really rewarding (and very frustrating). I always wanted to know how it all clicked together and now I do. Some interesting people in the magazine world

Waffling again........

Steel

[SteveMill]

yea i certainly like the new cockpits - alot better than what they were going to be

and now i hear that you can go on planets.....even better!

ROLL ON X2!!!

freelancer? whats freelancer?

Yes, but what we're not hearing anything about is, as Al says elsewhere, anything about improved trading and combat AI, or the implementation of a dynamic bckground that throws up adventure through the player interaction with the environment. This is something Freelance attempts and seems to some extent to have pulled off, albeit in a cut-down-from-original-promises fashion.

We can all name a hundred games that tantalised with great screenshots but lacked commensurate gameplay.

It's great we are getting more information now but I'd like to hear about under-the-hood improvements too. Like being assured that I cannot pull up onto the tail of an enemy and blast and have them sit there until I actually hit them.

Like being assured that if i start hijacking pirate ships from a base then that base can respond intelligently, attack me and my assets in a strtegically sound fashion, not just disgorge an occasional suicide train of under-equipped fighters towars whatever my nearest installation is. Ditto for races and the Khaak. Triggered scripted responses won't cut it.

For me, a dynamic and intelligently responsive game environment is way more important than all the graphical improvements, welcome as they are, that we have seen.

[pjknibbs]

It's great we are getting more information now but I'd like to hear about under-the-hood improvements too. Like being assured that I cannot pull up onto the tail of an enemy and blast and have them sit there until I actually hit them.

Speaking as a programmer, have you any idea how difficult something like that would be to implement? It might be easy enough for a human to work out your intentions are hostile when you cruise up behind them, but for a computer it's somewhat more difficult--unless you have them turning hostile as soon as you go behind them, even if you're not travelling in the same direction as them!

(NOTE: I'm sure you're about to make some comment about how you can just say someone's hostile if they spend more than a certain amount of time behind you, but in that case all a human player has to do is zig-zag while closing in--that's likely to confuse any algorithm enough that he can get within good firing range without the computer AI suspecting a thing).

[Rogue]

Maybe a Hostility switch?

So you have to declare hostile intentions before firing, or incur a bounty?

Hmmmmm, then again I dunno.

Good point tho Paul.

[Al]

Speaking as a programmer, have you any idea how difficult something like that would be to implement? It might be easy enough for a human to work out your intentions are hostile when you cruise up behind them, but for a computer it's somewhat more difficult--unless you have them turning hostile as soon as you go behind them, even if you're not travelling in the same direction as them!

A fair point but Steve did say when firing at them. Surely the AI should be good enough to detect a ship firing at it and take evasive if not aggressive action. I wouldn't imagine that this would be that hard to implement, simply monitor the proximity of the ship for laser fire, check source for an intercept course and designate hostile. I know this is an over simplification but if the AI is not a great improvement in X2 then there are going to be a lot of disappointed people, myself included.

Al

[SteveMill]

It's great we are getting more information now but I'd like to hear about under-the-hood improvements too. Like being assured that I cannot pull up onto the tail of an enemy and blast and have them sit there until I actually hit them.

Speaking as a programmer, have you any idea how difficult something like that would be to implement? It might be easy enough for a human to work out your intentions are hostile when you cruise up behind them, but for a computer it's somewhat more difficult--unless you have them turning hostile as soon as you go behind them, even if you're not travelling in the same direction as them!

(NOTE: I'm sure you're about to make some comment about how you can just say someone's hostile if they spend more than a certain amount of time behind you, but in that case all a human player has to do is zig-zag while closing in--that's likely to confuse any algorithm enough that he can get within good firing range without the computer AI suspecting a thing).

As someone who has played flight sims since the mid eighties that can do just that do you have a real point to make?

[padre]

alas you will only get this when a cpu can literally think for itself, myfriend.

[Avis]

It's great we are getting more information now but I'd like to hear about under-the-hood improvements too. Like being assured that I cannot pull up onto the tail of an enemy and blast and have them sit there until I actually hit them.

Speaking as a programmer, have you any idea how difficult something like that would be to implement? It might be easy enough for a human to work out your intentions are hostile when you cruise up behind them, but for a computer it's somewhat more difficult--unless you have them turning hostile as soon as you go behind them, even if you're not travelling in the same direction as them!

(NOTE: I'm sure you're about to make some comment about how you can just say someone's hostile if they spend more than a certain amount of time behind you, but in that case all a human player has to do is zig-zag while closing in--that's likely to confuse any algorithm enough that he can get within good firing range without the computer AI suspecting a thing).

Ok simple addition to the game to cover that (and I DO knw what I'm talking about too from a programmer/software engineer point of view).
Wepaons ACTIVE or INACTIVE.. simple enough isn't it ?

safety catch on or off ?
if weapons are hot and you are mooching into rear quarter of a ship they should react as if you are a possible hostile (ie speed up to get away or simply NOT fly in a straight line waiting for death (of course some should fly on because after all there are numpty humans so numpty boron are not unfeasable )

I think weapons should have modes anyway, I've 'accidently' fired at allsorts in my time and in this future world I am pretty certain that a wepaon disable feature would be a MANDITORY feature..

that takes a large chunk of that AI delema of knowing intention away in one swoop

source code

switch(wepaon status in X radious and rear 45degree circular arc)
case
Active then execute 'I DO NOT WANA DIE routine'

case
Inactive 'carry on as normal'

case
Avis in area 'doomed hand over cargo now and eject shield generators'

[crunn]

...Like being assured that I cannot pull up onto the tail of an enemy and blast and have them sit there until I actually hit them.

Even after hitting them (if you're near enough) they still just sit there cruising in a straight line.

I always found this a little odd.
It really knocks some of the realism out of the combat.

I think the distance is about 320m when they start their evasive manoeuvres.
Perhaps the thing that kicks in at 320m could kick in at a smaller distance ?

[Al]

there are some occassions when this isn't true. Sometimes when I've attempted to attack a Xenon L in a either a Piranha or a Discoverer, the L has almost continually performed evasive manouvers and if I've continued the attack, I've ended up dead 100% of the time. Unfortunately its not common although it should be.

Al

[Deleted User]

I've spotted that as well its quite infrequent but the L usually kills me by ramming.

IO

[crunn]

Wepaons ACTIVE or INACTIVE.. simple enough isn't it ?

safety catch on or off ?

I think weapons should have modes anyway,

I am pretty certain that a wepaon disable feature would be a MANDITORY feature

You make an excellant point here.

The armed forces don't run about with active missles/nuclear weapons. They have all sorts of safety features, protocols, procedures, failsafe mechanisms, etc. Even basic guns have safety catches.

How many times have we heard our favorite Captains from B5/Startrek/other say "Arm Weapons" "Raise Shields".
They don't run about with everything active the whole time.

Perhaps in X2 we should have weapons deactivated unless we intend to use them, (explanation for turning weapons off maybe "weapons constantly on cause energy drain, engines run slower, so turn off weapons while not in use")
Also now we have "hull" do we really need shields to be running 24/7. Think of the electric bills. So turn them off too, or reduce them a bit.

Just an idea.

[crunn]

Sometimes when I've attempted to attack a Xenon L in a either a Piranha or a Discoverer, the L has almost continually performed evasive manouvers. Unfortunately its not common although it should be

Now you mention it I do remember this happening (maybe 10 times ever).
You are right, it should happen far more often.

[P88]

or like in real life - our rockets (lasers in this case) have to "lock on" to the ship so you dont have to be facing them to hit them, once you have locked on, the other ship could know that you mean business..and then do what ever it does to respond.

[UncleKnobby]

yea i certainly like the new cockpits - alot better than what they were going to be

and now i hear that you can go on planets.....even better!

ROLL ON X2!!!

freelancer? whats freelancer?

No one official actually said we could go on planet's. I think that was wishful thinking from a few peep's here.
IIRC we have been told we won't be able to goto planet's, but will be able to crash into them.

As regards the Xenon L, Last night I had one do just that. I got close (125meters..ish), fired once, both shot's hit, and off he went. Next thing I know, Honet's, and AHEPT fire coming my way. Got him in the end though, with both guns intact

I tried playing with smaller gun's (BPAC's) to get a few free ship's, and due to the fact that one salvo now didn't kill XN's, they start zig-zagging all over the place.

It seem's the Xenon AI is better for combat, than the others. Most of the time.

I also recall one of the powers that be (Sorry can't remember how) telling us that capturing is not gonna be easy in X2.

[Avis]

Wepaons ACTIVE or INACTIVE.. simple enough isn't it ?

safety catch on or off ?

I think weapons should have modes anyway,

I am pretty certain that a wepaon disable feature would be a MANDITORY feature

You make an excellant point here.

The armed forces don't run about with active missles/nuclear weapons. They have all sorts of safety features, protocols, procedures, failsafe mechanisms, etc. Even basic guns have safety catches.

How many times have we heard our favorite Captains from B5/Startrek/other say "Arm Weapons" "Raise Shields".
They don't run about with everything active the whole time.

Perhaps in X2 we should have weapons deactivated unless we intend to use them, (explanation for turning weapons off maybe "weapons constantly on cause energy drain, engines run slower, so turn off weapons while not in use")
Also now we have "hull" do we really need shields to be running 24/7. Think of the electric bills. So turn them off too, or reduce them a bit.

Just an idea.

which in itself leads to a whole extra avenue of game possibilities, if the shields drain power and weapons drain power then Engine output is compromised, or alternatively let shields degenerate and disable weapons and GET THE HELL OUTA THERE,, or vice versa, drop weapons minimize engine output and ramp shields to hilt to take that pounding while you are pulled up alongside something (mission scripted) and someone is to board your ship shortly so you have to hang around type mission..

[Dutchman]

No one official actually said we could go on planet's. I think that was wishful thinking from a few peep's here.
IIRC we have been told we won't be able to goto planet's, but will be able to crash into them.

It is a statement made on the German website and they got it straight from Bernd Lehahn, check the thread ""Press release (german)" by Steel.

Regarding the arming disarming weapons issue, I think that would be a good idea, also for docking at stations etc. that you would have to disarm weapons-systems before being allowed to dock.

Cheers