Power management wish for X5

[Falcrack]

I kinda dislike how in X4, heat is the limiting factor rather than power for weapons. Also makes little sense that turrets are immune from the heat limits. If I had my way, in X5, power supply and power management would be a thing.

1. Ships have an intrinsic power generation capacity, along with batteries for weapons, shields, and engine to store energy.

2. Power supply can be managed between engines, shields, and weapons, to change the rate that the different batteries are charged. A ship that is stationary but needs shields and weapons (like destroyer sieging a station) might turn down power to engines but increase shield and weapon power (and turn down shields too if it is not receiving return fire). A ship that is fleeing may turn down weapon power and increase shield and engines, etc.

3. Boost power is drawn from the ship's engine battery (not shields), and is very energetically expensive to use. Travel drive might perhaps require 100% power to engines to sustain. Shields might require a certain minimum power level to sustain, otherwise they will start to drop even without incoming fire, etc.

4. You could toggle between different predefined power management profiles to quickly change it, or use a button to incrementally increase or decrease weapon, shield, and engine charge rates. AI controlled ships would use different power profiles depending on their current command.

5. Get rid of the mk1,mk2, mk3 system for shields, weapons, and engines. The main upgrade for ships that make them more or less expensive, aside from equipping the basic shield, weapon, or engines, would be power generators and battery capacities.

[Vovadrik]

In x3 it was like that, ship produced energy and laser spent it. Managing supply between systems sounds exactly like Elite Dangerous, but I think issue is that for bots it is very difficult to code optimal management, or if bots don't use it, then making it only for player's ship is too much.

[Falcrack]

In x3 it was like that, ship produced energy and laser spent it. Managing supply between systems sounds exactly like Elite Dangerous, but I think issue is that for bots it is very difficult to code optimal management, or if bots don't use it, then making it only for player's ship is too much.

That's why I suggested that bots would use different preset power profiles for different commands, so that they don't need to use too much processing power to decide the power levels. Flee would prioritize shield and engines. Travel drive would prioritize engines. Fighter combat would generally use a balanced profile without trying to change during combat. Destroyers attacking stations without maneuvering would prioritize shields and weapons. That's 4 different basic power profiles, maybe a few more could be added for different situations.

It need not be too complex to tell the bots to use a certain power profile in certain situations. They wouldn't be fine tuning the power levels to completely optimal levels, just choosing one of the appropriate presets for their current situation.

[adeine]

This would be a great change, except for point 5.

You can still have tiers of shields and engines with a better power management system, no need to get rid of ship upgrade paths. Power should probably be tied to the ship chassis and not meaningfully upgradeable (as in X3) as that would help design ships with a specific identity/role.

[BitByte]

In Evochron Mercenary had such mechanism you could change power balance between weapons and shields. Moving power max amount to shields also reduced jumpdrive charging period.

To be honest I didn't so much like the idea in long run.
So most probably if that kind of feature would brought back to X series I would stay away from that game.

[flywlyx]

This setup works fine for an FPS game, but with X4’s strong RTS elements, it becomes overly complex from a fleet management perspective. Fighters pursuing enemies should automatically use an aggressive profile, while those on defense should use a defensive profile, it requires an overwhelming amount of micromanagement.
Given that Egosoft seems to believe AI should be stupid, I can't see a feature like this being automated in gameplay. It’s likely to end up as a complex function that few players will actually use.

[adeine]

This setup works fine for an FPS game, but with X4’s strong RTS elements, it becomes overly complex from a fleet management perspective. Fighters pursuing enemies should automatically use an aggressive profile, while those on defense should use a defensive profile, it requires an overwhelming amount of micromanagement.
Given that Egosoft seems to believe AI should be stupid, I can't see a feature like this being automated in gameplay. It’s likely to end up as a complex function that few players will actually use.

Even if AI pilots have the most basic logic for it (along the lines Falcrack suggested) it would be adequate. Keeping it balanced should be fine 90% of the time.

A good example is games like the Freespace series, which have exactly this kind of power management and fairly intricate fleet/wing management systems. There is no overwhelming micro-management (you never interact with their power settings) while it does add tremendously to the depth and skill ceiling of the game. Intelligently redistributing your shield quadrants and adjusting power between engines, primary weapons and shields is rewarding and a lot of fun in combat. It works extremely well.

[flywlyx]

Even if AI pilots have the most basic logic for it (along the lines Falcrack suggested) it would be adequate. Keeping it balanced should be fine 90% of the time.

A good example is games like the Freespace series, which have exactly this kind of power management and fairly intricate fleet/wing management systems. There is no overwhelming micro-management (you never interact with their power settings) while it does add tremendously to the depth and skill ceiling of the game. Intelligently redistributing your shield quadrants and adjusting power between engines, primary weapons and shields is rewarding and a lot of fun in combat. It works extremely well.

If Egosoft decides to incorporate more FPS/RPG elements into the game, a skill tree system would likely be a more popular choice. Instead of just adding a flat increase to DPS, shield, or speed, a skill tree with various special effects would introduce more variety and enable different play styles.

[adeine]

If Egosoft decides to incorporate more FPS/RPG elements into the game, a skill tree system would likely be a more popular choice. Instead of just adding a flat increase to DPS, shield, or speed, a skill tree with various special effects would introduce more variety and enable different play styles.

Power management isn't an FPS/RPG element, though? It's pretty common in space sims.

I'd hate to see Egosoft MMO-ify X5 with skill trees, levelling or 'abilities' or anything like that.

[vvvvvvvv]

I kinda dislike how in X4, heat is the limiting factor rather than power for weapons. Also makes little sense that turrets are immune from the heat limits. If I had my way, in X5, power supply and power management would be a thing.

1. Ships have an intrinsic power generation capacity, along with batteries for weapons, shields, and engine to store energy.

2. Power supply can be managed between engines, shields, and weapons, to change the rate that the different batteries are charged. A ship that is stationary but needs shields and weapons (like destroyer sieging a station) might turn down power to engines but increase shield and weapon power (and turn down shields too if it is not receiving return fire). A ship that is fleeing may turn down weapon power and increase shield and engines, etc.

3. Boost power is drawn from the ship's engine battery (not shields), and is very energetically expensive to use. Travel drive might perhaps require 100% power to engines to sustain. Shields might require a certain minimum power level to sustain, otherwise they will start to drop even without incoming fire, etc.

4. You could toggle between different predefined power management profiles to quickly change it, or use a button to incrementally increase or decrease weapon, shield, and engine charge rates. AI controlled ships would use different power profiles depending on their current command.

5. Get rid of the mk1,mk2, mk3 system for shields, weapons, and engines. The main upgrade for ships that make them more or less expensive, aside from equipping the basic shield, weapon, or engines, would be power generators and battery capacities.

You're largely describing elite dangerous power management system. Which was (poorly) copied into Starfield.

It... is not great in practice. Even in elite, where they mapped power rerouting to D-pad and you can operate it very quickly. Basically it feels like that at all times you're flying an inefficient rust bucket, because your systems never operate at full efficiency. And it doesn't really add any sort of tension or fun, only result in hassle and annoyance.

As mentioned in other threads, it would absolutely make sense to uncouple shields from boost, but power management I'd rather not see. Worth pointing out that Elite also has Heat in addition to power levels, which means weapons can run out of juice AND overheat on top of that.

Worth pointing out if you looked at Elite for inspiration (plausible), then in Elite nearly all equipment has grades, and you're proposing to get rid of them.

For Shields, Engines, Life Support, Sensors, and likely a few other things, there are five grades:

Grade E: Cheapest. Default installation with worst stats.
Crade D: Minimum Mass
Grade C: Allrounder
Grade B: Max Integrity
Grade A: Bleeding edge, stupidly expensive and power hungry.

For weapons situations are a bit different. There is usually 3 variants:
Fixed (point where you shoot). Max Damage
Gimballed (Points forward, slightly adjusts direction). Med Damage
Turret (like X4 turret) Minimum Damage.

Going back to X4, one thing I'd like to change about engine grades is their material cost. Basically higher tier engines devour insane number of components, and they disappear into nothing. Spl S Combat Mk 1: 22 Energy Cells, 5 Engine Parts. Spl S Combat Mk 4: 95 Antimatter Converters, 361 Energy Cells, 710 Engine Parts. Energy Cell is 1 cubic meter large, Engine Part is 15 cubic meters, Antimatter Converter is 10 cubic meters. Engine size is the same and conservation of mass says hi.

That's why I suggested that bots would use different preset power profiles for different commands, so that

A bot that needs to worry about power routing is more complex than the one that doesn't need to. Having routing would also slightly increase processing requirements for all ships. However "Premature optimization is root of all evil" and such things should be decided after profiling the code. Profiling requires source code access which is not available.

The primary concern is that such system does not add fun in practice.

[Jeraal]

...


If Egosoft decides to incorporate more FPS/RPG elements into the game, a skill tree system would likely be a more popular choice. Instead of just adding a flat increase to DPS, shield, or speed, a skill tree with various special effects would introduce more variety and enable different play styles.

That would be a game I would have zero interest in.

[vkerinav]

We currently have four(five) potential engine states; stopped and full power(this one being analogue), boost, and travel drive. (#5 is flight assist off, but maybe that's just somewhere between stopped and full)
We can effectively shut off weapon systems by switching presets on main guns, and disabling turrets.
Shields are basically two states, charging(or down) and charged.

The only thing that makes any difference to power management is boost.

I would think about how we can handle power distribution in a simple but intuitive way, rather than a more complex system. For example; we could have a boost that shunts power from the reactor at the expense of shield recharged, but no/less drain. Stop boosting, and shields recharge as normal. X4's current boost system could exist alongside this, and now you've got a quick one or two pip shift. Travel drive could draw even more power, probably by disabling weapons. Engines off? Shields charge faster.

Same with weapons. If your ship has four guns, disabling some of them could divert that power to shield recharge(potentially counteracting boost). Reactivating them would need a charge-up delay before they could be fired.

If everything is balanced, which it wouldn't be in combat, you get a boost to scanner range(or something else).

For the AI, this system would work the same as the presets suggested by others. Boosting to evade? Weapons power down to keep shield recharge. Boosting to reposition? Keep weapons hot and sacrifice some shields.

And yes, this would make things more complicated for Egosoft, as it would mean balancing several new stats across all components.

[Imperial Good]

Why have batteries at all when you can go all in with generators? This would allow more of your systems to run at a higher percentage all the time at the cost of no burst capabilities.

Diverting power to engines or shields makes for good stories in a scifi series, but does not really make much sense. The ships already have a near limitless energy source, why not have 2 or more of them?

Personally I would prefer to have other aspects to manage, such as crew manpower, or supply.

[vvvvvvvv]

Why have batteries at all when you can go all in with generators?

One idea is that capacitator (and not a battery) allows you to jump above capabilities of generator. For example, your generator runs continuously at one megawatt. But you need 10 megawatts for one second to shoot. You install a capacitator. Charge it for 10 seconds and discharge for one. On other hand, 10 megawatt generator may be too expensive, too heavy, etc. And with 10 megawatt generator you could perform the same trick too.

If you go to wikipedia and read article about FES, there will be examles of such systems in real life, like aircraft launch system.

[adeine]

What’s the difference between earning 1 skill point for defeating an enemy vs earning 1 set of modification parts for the same action?

• As vvvvvvvv pointed out, one is an in-game object, the other is not. Objects that exist within the universe which can be traded, manufactured, used as a resource, or lost are not the same as an abstract player specific tally mark.
• Mod parts are installed into a ship. This ship will perform the same way whether you're flying it or someone else is, distinct from other ships. A skill point is nebulously attached to the player and follows the player into any ship.
• Modification parts scale indefinitely, skill points do not. You can create an infinite number of mods and outfit an infinite number of ships. If you were to do the same thing with skill points, you'd either run out of skill tree, or become omnipotent in a single ship.

Just to name a few of the main ones.

In these games, players can only issue basic, tactical-level commands. In contrast, X4 functions more like an RTS, allowing players to implement complex strategic and tactical commands.
The level of detail and effort required between these two types of command systems is not comparable.

The commands are very comparable.

Freespace in particular actually allows you to be a lot more dynamic in what other ships do. The only real difference is the map interface, which is both a blessing and a curse. For example, unlike in X4 you can seamless use complex commands while taking part in fights yourself as the command interface is quick, keyboard driven, and does not rely on a separate screen. In X4, this is impossible without pausing the game, opening the map, issuing commands, closing the map, and unpausing.

In terms of detail, X4 also loses out in some respects. For instance, how would you get AI ships to target incoming missiles/torpedoes in X4? How would you have them target one specific turret/subsystem of a ship?

Either way, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with power management being a thing or not.

Not because you have a stat increase or skill tree, but because you can be a better pilot with the same resources and equipment available to everyone else

You clearly have a stat advantage over the AI, as it lacks the ability to manage energy efficiently.
The energy system you mentioned isn’t much different from adding mods to all NPC ships in X4. I hadn’t realized this was a popular idea.

No, the stats are exactly the same whether you or the AI pilots the ship. It's more accurate to think of ship stats as a resource (power), and you can manage the same amount of said resource in a more efficient way. This is different from adding mods to ships as mods have no gameplay/skill aspect to them and are just fixed stat modifiers.

Another way to think of it is that power management is more like turning off flight assist: a powerful tool in capable hands when the situation calls for it.

[flywlyx]

I'm not sure what makes you think that...? Either way, none of this addresses what I said.

Sure, if you show me an RPG where both you and NPCs can produce/gather, buy and sell skill points in a simulated economy, carry them as a physical item which may be stolen, lost or equipped to specific AI characters, then yes, you've recreated what a resource based game would do. So what, exactly?

Skill trees being linked to equipment is still player centric, they don't logically transfer to other characters. If you want an equivalent idea in RPGs, what you're looking for is item upgrades.

And yes, there are games that allow infinite skill point investment, allowing your character to become infinitely strong. This is part of the issue with such a system existing in a game like X4. It doesn't scale in a way that works.

In X4, modification parts can't be produced and aren't tied to the game's simulated economy.
As for the difference between an item upgrade tree and a skill tree, both involve investing loot items or experience to enhance a character's abilities; the terminology is a matter of preference. That’s why these systems are broadly referred to as upgrade systems. I called it a skill system to emphasize the “various special effects,” but you're focused on a trivial naming detail, creating a straw man to argue against.
Just so you know, the game I'm referring to with infinite skill points is *Nioh*, where the growth curve follows a logarithmic pattern, setting a natural limit. The issue you're concerned about has already been addressed by other developers long ago.

Except the feature is completely orthogonal to said RTS elements. It's like saying you should not be able to toggle flight assist because the game has a map allowing you to command other ships.

You don't 'micromanage' this for any ships other than your own.

On the tactical command aspect, X4 is not great for RTS style micromanagement in the first place. I think you'd be surprised at just how effective a non-map based system can be. Having it as the only way to issue commands obviously would not work for an X game as the universe is larger than the player's immediate vicinity, but it would honestly be a great addition for engagements that directly involve the player.

The game system is not independent from each other, developers and players only have a limited amount of time. If players don't have time to use this function, investing precious developed time in this function is a waste.
X4 is well-suited for RTS-style micromanagement; here’s a simple example:
https://youtu.be/mfdjfnoZXd8?si=im2OwZR1VDKxNSUR
You simply can’t achieve the same with a "non-map-based system."

I think you're missing the point of what I was trying to say. Here is an example of the difference just limited to X games: Weapon/turret loadouts in X3 vs X4:

In X3, you can carry spare equipment at the cost of credits and cargo space, and switch it out strategically during engagements (some mods like MARS allow you to automate this behaviour to some extent, even for AI ships). As the AI doesn't fully make use of this capability, you have an advantage as a player if you do so. It is an active part of skill-based gameplay.

In X4, equipment is set and can only be changed at docks. You have some control over turret groups and can enable/disable select weapons, but it's fairly limited in comparison.

In much the same way, you cannot swap out modifications in the middle of a fight or get more out of them through skill.

Since the AI can’t adapt settings based on the situation, it treats them all as the same system. Players’ ability to adjust them anytime only increases this advantage.
With the current modification system, skilled players can already defeat the Xenon using a single ship, so I don’t see the point in extending this advantage further. As I mentioned before, adding a skill tree with various special effects would introduce more variety and enable different playstyles, rather than simply boosting the player’s ship with greater firepower, thicker shields, or increased speed.

[adeine]

Just so you know, the game I'm referring to with infinite skill points is *Nioh*, where the growth curve follows a logarithmic pattern, setting a natural limit. The issue you're concerned about has already been addressed by other developers long ago.

In an open-ended game, this just turns it into a finite skill tree. That is, such points would become increasingly irrelevant as the game progresses.

Unless of course you apply these points not to the player entity but individual assets, which is basically what X games have always done (be it via ship mods, cargo bay extensions, equipment tiers, etc.). In that case, using terminology that works within the premise and lore of the game is the better option.

The game system is not independent from each other, developers and players only have a limited amount of time. If players don't have time to use this function, investing precious developed time in this function is a waste.

If you see X4 as a purely RTS game, perhaps (though I'm not sure why you would, it isn't a very good one). One of the strengths of X games is that they are an interesting mix of different genres and gameplay experiences. Yes, there are RTS elements, but equally there are traditional space sim elements.

When you direct a battle from the map screen as in your video, you 'do not have time' to fly a ship or engage in dogfighting mechanics yourself. Does that mean X4 should not have these features? Should you be restricted purely to the map screen? I think it would make for a (significantly) worse game. Adding to the space sim elements and making flying a ship personally more interesting is not a waste of development time in my opinion.

[flywlyx]

In an open-ended game, this just turns it into a finite skill tree. That is, such points would become increasingly irrelevant as the game progresses.

Unless of course you apply these points not to the player entity but individual assets, which is basically what X games have always done (be it via ship mods, cargo bay extensions, equipment tiers, etc.). In that case, using terminology that works within the premise and lore of the game is the better option.

M&B Bannerlord allows players to invest unlimited skill points to improve all units under their command. I’m not sure why you find this less relevant than an energy system that most ships rarely use.

If you see X4 as a purely RTS game, perhaps (though I'm not sure why you would, it isn't a very good one). One of the strengths of X games is that they are an interesting mix of different genres and gameplay experiences. Yes, there are RTS elements, but equally there are traditional space sim elements.

When you direct a battle from the map screen as in your video, you 'do not have time' to fly a ship or engage in dogfighting mechanics yourself. Does that mean X4 should not have these features? Should you be restricted purely to the map screen? I think it would make for a (significantly) worse game. Adding to the space sim elements and making flying a ship personally more interesting is not a waste of development time in my opinion.

I recommend you to ask developers implement ship mods for all ships and enable players to apply these mods in bulk. This system is already present in the game; the only missing feature is the real-time exchange function.
If this feature gains popularity, it will encourage the developers to enhance it further. Otherwise, any assumptions made without this data will lack a solid foundation.
From what I can see, adding mods for all NPCs isn't particularly popular. :https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... dification

[Falcrack]

I asked for higher level power management between shields, engines, and weapons. But I would be happy if Egosoft just went so far as to make weapon firing capacity dependent on energy levels like in X3, rather than what we have now. A straight up return to the X3 system would be an improvement over the heat system we have now, IMO.

[jlehtone]

I asked for higher level power management between shields, engines, and weapons. But I would be happy if Egosoft just went so far as to make weapon firing capacity dependent on energy levels like in X3, rather than what we have now. A straight up return to the X3 system would be an improvement over the heat system we have now, IMO.

If you want to manage power, then you should have the "option" to choose how much power is used for heat management and how much for firing the guns, among other things.

Don't some airplane sims have as "MEC" (manual engine control) with many details, like throttle, propeller pitch, water radiator, oil radiator, fuel mixture, and supercharger? No different from "power management" that is just multiple "knobs" to adjust for "optimizing" for current situation.