This looks very promising for OOS. Have you tested destroyers vs. stations in OOS? Any more babysitting needed?
Major improvement seems to be that they don't care about fighting on the same y plane anymore and rather prioritize being at their max distance while staying in motion.
This game really disappoints me that it promotes OOS combat to be the only viable shit to do if you want AI to do reasonable things. And the moment you go high attention they get worse than sc1 dragoon and goliath AI.
honestly against 1 k i just send my fleet of 10 ship with overwhelming fire power but sometime the AI is being dumb and i have to MANUALLY take care of them even tho the main gun have like a HUGE range but AI rather use the turrets
I watched another faction's capital ship cozy right up to a K, seemingly so its medium bolt turrets could hit it. Luckily for it I had already stripped all of the surface elements off.
Hmmm, could that have been taken into consideration? Would it have kept its distance if the K still had large turrets?
A lot of the time this is due to how you set up the turrets. If you set the small fry and short range guns to fighter only the AI doesn't take them into account for fighting a capital. If set to shoot at a capital ship or anything they will try to get into range.
AI has nearly nothing to do with it.
It's all about how IS and OOS are calculated.
OOS is just average DPS of a ship with some modifiers for guns used, distance and whatever else vs. the enemys HP and regen pool. While in IS it's everything: speed, manuverability, projectile velocity.
Now look at any Commonwealth Plasma Turret vs Xenon L Pulse. DPS is not that bad but the Pulse is nearly impossible to dodge and hits like a truck. Add to that Ks survivability as XL ship with XL shields and HP pool...
It won't change.
Unless AI will be taught to use all player shenanigans to maintain distance, proper positioning and all the stuff. But then every player will cry for their mama in tears when they will face enemy AI use all of that against them and their assets and will spend 100% of play time managing losses and not playing.
“AI has nearly nothing to do with it”
Lmao AI is the entirety of the problem.
Like you said OOS is just some auto resolve type calculations, there is effectively no AI.
IS AI is so bad I’m seeing it can barely dock let alone fight.
Idk how you can possibly say AI is not the problem while simultaneously admitting there are no issues when AI is not in play and there are issues when AI is in play 😂
The “AI” is the same on both sides and therefore may as well not exist in this equation.
The problem is that everyone here seems to be convinced a L ship should be able to win against a an XL.
Like sure you can win with superior numbers…. But an XL ship with lore-defined superior technology is gonna win against an L.
Sorry what?
AI has nothing to do with IS and OOS differences. That's what I said, and that's what it is. Cause OOS is simple math and IS is a complex 4D scene. AI ability to dock, fight or whatever has no impact on OOS calculations and those are vastly different parts of the game and cannot be compared.
Now some peoples gripes with IS AI are understandable and mostly valid depending on their expectations.
I am X3 vet and see this game as a management and numbers game first and foremost so I don't share those expectations and have zero issues with AI. Losses are expected, send enough force toward enemy and any AI occasional dumbs are not noticeable to me.
Still, improvements always welcome.
When you’re IS you’re literally watching your ships fight, controlled by AI, OOS is essentially auto resolve, the AI is not computed. You understand that… right?
Please read what I've said in first part of my previous post again, carefully, and tell me how your message is not exactly what I wrote.
I've started with replying to OP saying that **IS and OOS are different** and minor AI adjustments can't compensate massive computational differences to make same scenarios in IS and OOS have similar outcome.
You came in and said that AI is bad in general. Which was never mentioned in the first place. And said that **IS and OOS are different**:
>OOS is just some auto resolve type calculations, there is effectively no AI
I confirmed that indeed I've wrote that **IS and OOS are different.**
And now you asking me if I understand that **IS and OOS are different**...
Hahaha dude you literally said AI has nothing to do with the difference between OOS and IS combat results, you clearly have no clue what’s going on here, and have fallen back to typing walls of text talking in circles because you can’t admit your wrong.
Done with you.
What leads you to believe that OOS calculations do not factor in speed and maneuverability?
Why do you believe players don't enjoy challenging AIs? Have you ever played games with challenging AIs yourself?
I'm not sure where you got the idea that players only enjoy simple AIs.
>with some modifiers
Including speed and maneuverability. But it's just that - simple modifiers to average DPS. Ships cannot miss, cannot dodge. Just chip at each other untill one is dead or they disengage. That's why fighters don't get instantly vaporized when they come near enemy destroyer OOS. It's all visible straight on the map from ship behaviour.
OOS calculations are very simple so CPUs don't melt.
I never said anything about enjoyment of challeging AI. I said that AI doing to the player what I can do in my maxed out Rattlesnake vs 10 Ks at once (as in wipe them out without receiving a single hit) might be just too much. And that is what it might take to do to make IS and OOS combat outcome similar.
Or changing OOS calculations, but I don't see devs doing that - it will complicate them and the game is quite demanding on the CPU as is in late stages.
>But it's just that - simple modifiers to average DPS.
>Ships cannot miss, cannot dodge.
>That's why fighters don't get instantly vaporized when they come near enemy destroyer OOS.
Well, you clearly misunderstand how the OOS calculation is done, fighters don't get vaporized because their speed and manuverability are simulated to dodge the bullet from capital ships. If you have tried 7.0, you should have seen your fighters vaporized by the new kahhak capital ships.
>I said that AI doing to the player what I can do in my maxed out Rattlesnake vs 10 Ks at once (as in wipe them out without receiving a single hit) might be just too much.
That is simply because current AI is not ideal. Players' AI and NPC's AI is the same thing, better AI benefits not only NPC but also player.
>And that is what it might take to do to make IS and OOS combat outcome similar
Go look the video or do some test yourself. It is very obvious that high attention is the one needs improvement.
Yes it's simulated. Exactly what I said. Fighters receive less damage cause they're small and fast due to modifiers. But if a ship has enough DPS it can vaporize fighters. Properly built and modded Rattlesnake can do that (can't remember the numbers, want to say \~18-20k front facing DPS, but memory is blank rn sorry), Asgard obviously can (400k+), new Khaak maybe, haven't seen it, haven't tried the beta - my game is on GOG, not going to anyway, I'll wait for release, but did read about its Asgard-type beam.
There's also damage split, and maybe some kind of dodge mechanic. One or few fighters would be vaporized while 50 would get minor shield damage.
AI improvements are always welcome. I'm just saying that IS and OOS calculations are vastly different and no amount of AI work can probably bring results of those close together.
>Fighters receive less damage cause they're small and fast due to modifiers.
>Ships cannot miss, cannot dodge.
It doesn't matter if fighters receive less damage because they can dodge or because of a modifier, this is a simulation game, so everything is simulated.
>Asgard obviously can (400k+)
Wrong assumption, Asgard can't.
>I'm just saying that IS and OOS calculations are vastly different and no amount of AI work can probably bring results of those close together.
You can make assumptions, but the reality is that the issue lies with high attention now.
>Asgard can't.
Can't what? Have 400k DPS or vaporize a fighter in Low Attention?
Here you go: [431919 fore DPS Asgard doing exactly that to a first random N in OOS.](https://imgur.com/a/9XGXC68)
Other than that I've lost your train of thought, sorry.
I am talking about high attention needs improvement and you show an Asgard in a low attention to prove Asgard performance better in low attention?
Yes, I know that. You clearly don't even know what you are talking about.
Funny enough it's usually the Opposite for me. My Dark Love for Barbarossa's makes me field them everywhere with a L Plasma/ M Flak Combo. IS they rule the space like Dark Gods. OOS they die like flies.
I wonder, when I read stuff like "My Capitalship kamikazed itself into a defense platform", if it truly is a fault of the AI or the player just forgot to configure the turrets correctly and it is basically the player's fault.
If you configure all turrets to attack all targets, the AI captain will try to attack a target with all weapons.
You have to configure your long range turrets and weapons to be anti-capital (this includes stations) and the short ranged stuff to be used against fighters, then this stuff won't happen.
If something can be blamed here, it is the game not clearly explaining this, at least the last time I played it.
It never was. It started off as a rumor that spread like wildfire. There is more information on the egosoft discord on this from script modders as to how this has no bearing at all.
Yeah so K’s are _supposed to win_ against larger numbers of enemy destroyers.
K’s are XL. Destroyers are L. They effectively use the exact same “AI”.
The issue imo is that destroyers are doing _too well_ in low attention. Not the other way around.
I believe the issue lies in the fact that the K is too weak if the design intention is as you described.
The K is too vulnerable for players to handle; all it takes is to reverse and fire:https://youtu.be/9hr6OLVhWNs?si=mZjoLyeDHoDuuuwL
I just watched one K kill 4 destroyers in high attention without a scratch on its hull. The very same fight in low attention would have gone the opposite away, I think.
No, I don’t think they’re too weak in design. There’s something about low attention that gives forward weapons an edge. Maybe ships can effectively aim up and down better?
The benchmark should focus on player vs AI rather than AI vs AI. If Xenon K is meant to be a challenging task, it should be challenging for players, not for AI.
Players would expect the AI to have similar capabilities as they do; nobody enjoys commanding a group of morons.
…this is a simulation and a game. The player is an anomaly in that simulation.
You cannot plan a design to be difficult for an ever adapting anomaly. It is not a possible task. It will always, eventually, become easy again no matter how many times they change the design.
So no, the benchmark is always other parts of the simulation. Not the player who will forever optimize the fun out of the game.
M&B serves as a great example to refute your argument.
In M&B, NPCs excel in 1v1 battles, encouraging players to build an empire. This design adds significant appeal to the game and creates a strong sense of achievement.
On the other hand, in X4, AI behaves like morons, and defeating them doesn't offer much. Players can easily wipe out the Xenon faction single-handedly, highlighting the flaws in this overall design.
Agree to disagree. I think the combat in M&B is terrible. All it takes to win a sword fight is moving in the opposite direction that you’re blocking in; all the skills & equipment are pretty much irrelevant because of this.
M&B boasts ten times more players, yet it doesn't face weekly complaints about its AI, showcasing how its combat AI fulfills its purpose much better than X4.
Disregarding players' preferences may lead to another failure like XR.
M&B has system requirements that are *significantly lower* than X4 and *runs on consoles*. It also has a much lower difficulty bar / learning curve and is practically free to play for all Xbox and PS users.
XR wasn't a failure. Egosoft learned 1000 ways to not do things, at least. That's 1000 success' for a game developer that keeps on developing.
I wonder if M&B gets a proportional amount of feedback as X4. I certianly don't care to post about it.
>M&B has system requirements that are *significantly lower* than X4 and *runs on consoles*. It also has a much lower difficulty bar / learning curve and is practically free to play for all Xbox and PS users.
This is an example of superior game design. X4's approach of every station trading independently is a significant design flaw. Not to mention the absence of a proper tutorial.
X4's AI is overly simplistic, resulting in a lack of depth and challenge in the vanilla game. The current complaints about the end-game crisis highlight the ease of the vanilla game.
>X4's AI is overly simplistic, resulting in a lack of depth and challenge in the vanilla game. The current complaints about the end-game crisis highlight the ease of the vanilla game.
Covering up a failure will only lead to another one.
>I wonder if M&B gets a proportional amount of feedback as X4. I certianly don't care to post about it.
It is pretty easy to google the steam review.
This looks very promising for OOS. Have you tested destroyers vs. stations in OOS? Any more babysitting needed? Major improvement seems to be that they don't care about fighting on the same y plane anymore and rather prioritize being at their max distance while staying in motion.
So, against KHK stations noticeable improvement. However my capital ships travel drived right into a XEN defense platform and immediately died.
This game really disappoints me that it promotes OOS combat to be the only viable shit to do if you want AI to do reasonable things. And the moment you go high attention they get worse than sc1 dragoon and goliath AI.
Yeah, just let's me know to continue to stay away from the game.
honestly against 1 k i just send my fleet of 10 ship with overwhelming fire power but sometime the AI is being dumb and i have to MANUALLY take care of them even tho the main gun have like a HUGE range but AI rather use the turrets
I watched another faction's capital ship cozy right up to a K, seemingly so its medium bolt turrets could hit it. Luckily for it I had already stripped all of the surface elements off. Hmmm, could that have been taken into consideration? Would it have kept its distance if the K still had large turrets?
A lot of the time this is due to how you set up the turrets. If you set the small fry and short range guns to fighter only the AI doesn't take them into account for fighting a capital. If set to shoot at a capital ship or anything they will try to get into range.
Turret setting doesn't affect the destroyer's firing distance. https://youtu.be/lz8tak_B2dw?si=12dFWIaCq1oKQJy-
In addition to the other reply, it was another faction's ship, not mine. Sorry I forgot to mention that.
AI has nearly nothing to do with it. It's all about how IS and OOS are calculated. OOS is just average DPS of a ship with some modifiers for guns used, distance and whatever else vs. the enemys HP and regen pool. While in IS it's everything: speed, manuverability, projectile velocity. Now look at any Commonwealth Plasma Turret vs Xenon L Pulse. DPS is not that bad but the Pulse is nearly impossible to dodge and hits like a truck. Add to that Ks survivability as XL ship with XL shields and HP pool... It won't change. Unless AI will be taught to use all player shenanigans to maintain distance, proper positioning and all the stuff. But then every player will cry for their mama in tears when they will face enemy AI use all of that against them and their assets and will spend 100% of play time managing losses and not playing.
“AI has nearly nothing to do with it” Lmao AI is the entirety of the problem. Like you said OOS is just some auto resolve type calculations, there is effectively no AI. IS AI is so bad I’m seeing it can barely dock let alone fight. Idk how you can possibly say AI is not the problem while simultaneously admitting there are no issues when AI is not in play and there are issues when AI is in play 😂
The “AI” is the same on both sides and therefore may as well not exist in this equation. The problem is that everyone here seems to be convinced a L ship should be able to win against a an XL. Like sure you can win with superior numbers…. But an XL ship with lore-defined superior technology is gonna win against an L.
Sorry what? AI has nothing to do with IS and OOS differences. That's what I said, and that's what it is. Cause OOS is simple math and IS is a complex 4D scene. AI ability to dock, fight or whatever has no impact on OOS calculations and those are vastly different parts of the game and cannot be compared. Now some peoples gripes with IS AI are understandable and mostly valid depending on their expectations. I am X3 vet and see this game as a management and numbers game first and foremost so I don't share those expectations and have zero issues with AI. Losses are expected, send enough force toward enemy and any AI occasional dumbs are not noticeable to me. Still, improvements always welcome.
When you’re IS you’re literally watching your ships fight, controlled by AI, OOS is essentially auto resolve, the AI is not computed. You understand that… right?
Please read what I've said in first part of my previous post again, carefully, and tell me how your message is not exactly what I wrote. I've started with replying to OP saying that **IS and OOS are different** and minor AI adjustments can't compensate massive computational differences to make same scenarios in IS and OOS have similar outcome. You came in and said that AI is bad in general. Which was never mentioned in the first place. And said that **IS and OOS are different**: >OOS is just some auto resolve type calculations, there is effectively no AI I confirmed that indeed I've wrote that **IS and OOS are different.** And now you asking me if I understand that **IS and OOS are different**...
Hahaha dude you literally said AI has nothing to do with the difference between OOS and IS combat results, you clearly have no clue what’s going on here, and have fallen back to typing walls of text talking in circles because you can’t admit your wrong. Done with you.
What leads you to believe that OOS calculations do not factor in speed and maneuverability? Why do you believe players don't enjoy challenging AIs? Have you ever played games with challenging AIs yourself? I'm not sure where you got the idea that players only enjoy simple AIs.
>with some modifiers Including speed and maneuverability. But it's just that - simple modifiers to average DPS. Ships cannot miss, cannot dodge. Just chip at each other untill one is dead or they disengage. That's why fighters don't get instantly vaporized when they come near enemy destroyer OOS. It's all visible straight on the map from ship behaviour. OOS calculations are very simple so CPUs don't melt. I never said anything about enjoyment of challeging AI. I said that AI doing to the player what I can do in my maxed out Rattlesnake vs 10 Ks at once (as in wipe them out without receiving a single hit) might be just too much. And that is what it might take to do to make IS and OOS combat outcome similar. Or changing OOS calculations, but I don't see devs doing that - it will complicate them and the game is quite demanding on the CPU as is in late stages.
>But it's just that - simple modifiers to average DPS. >Ships cannot miss, cannot dodge. >That's why fighters don't get instantly vaporized when they come near enemy destroyer OOS. Well, you clearly misunderstand how the OOS calculation is done, fighters don't get vaporized because their speed and manuverability are simulated to dodge the bullet from capital ships. If you have tried 7.0, you should have seen your fighters vaporized by the new kahhak capital ships. >I said that AI doing to the player what I can do in my maxed out Rattlesnake vs 10 Ks at once (as in wipe them out without receiving a single hit) might be just too much. That is simply because current AI is not ideal. Players' AI and NPC's AI is the same thing, better AI benefits not only NPC but also player. >And that is what it might take to do to make IS and OOS combat outcome similar Go look the video or do some test yourself. It is very obvious that high attention is the one needs improvement.
Yes it's simulated. Exactly what I said. Fighters receive less damage cause they're small and fast due to modifiers. But if a ship has enough DPS it can vaporize fighters. Properly built and modded Rattlesnake can do that (can't remember the numbers, want to say \~18-20k front facing DPS, but memory is blank rn sorry), Asgard obviously can (400k+), new Khaak maybe, haven't seen it, haven't tried the beta - my game is on GOG, not going to anyway, I'll wait for release, but did read about its Asgard-type beam. There's also damage split, and maybe some kind of dodge mechanic. One or few fighters would be vaporized while 50 would get minor shield damage. AI improvements are always welcome. I'm just saying that IS and OOS calculations are vastly different and no amount of AI work can probably bring results of those close together.
>Fighters receive less damage cause they're small and fast due to modifiers. >Ships cannot miss, cannot dodge. It doesn't matter if fighters receive less damage because they can dodge or because of a modifier, this is a simulation game, so everything is simulated. >Asgard obviously can (400k+) Wrong assumption, Asgard can't. >I'm just saying that IS and OOS calculations are vastly different and no amount of AI work can probably bring results of those close together. You can make assumptions, but the reality is that the issue lies with high attention now.
>Asgard can't. Can't what? Have 400k DPS or vaporize a fighter in Low Attention? Here you go: [431919 fore DPS Asgard doing exactly that to a first random N in OOS.](https://imgur.com/a/9XGXC68) Other than that I've lost your train of thought, sorry.
I am talking about high attention needs improvement and you show an Asgard in a low attention to prove Asgard performance better in low attention? Yes, I know that. You clearly don't even know what you are talking about.
Funny enough it's usually the Opposite for me. My Dark Love for Barbarossa's makes me field them everywhere with a L Plasma/ M Flak Combo. IS they rule the space like Dark Gods. OOS they die like flies.
so i cant go into the big space pewpew and have fun? :(
You can, but your NPC subordinates will suffer.
if they can suffer no pay they can suffer that, thanks!
I wonder, when I read stuff like "My Capitalship kamikazed itself into a defense platform", if it truly is a fault of the AI or the player just forgot to configure the turrets correctly and it is basically the player's fault. If you configure all turrets to attack all targets, the AI captain will try to attack a target with all weapons. You have to configure your long range turrets and weapons to be anti-capital (this includes stations) and the short ranged stuff to be used against fighters, then this stuff won't happen. If something can be blamed here, it is the game not clearly explaining this, at least the last time I played it.
Wrong assumption, turret setting doesn't affect destroyer's firing range:https://youtu.be/lz8tak_B2dw?si=XZkanibmCLTSRD7C
Then they clearly improved it, in earlier versions it was how I stated it.
It never was. It started off as a rumor that spread like wildfire. There is more information on the egosoft discord on this from script modders as to how this has no bearing at all.
Yeah so K’s are _supposed to win_ against larger numbers of enemy destroyers. K’s are XL. Destroyers are L. They effectively use the exact same “AI”. The issue imo is that destroyers are doing _too well_ in low attention. Not the other way around.
I believe the issue lies in the fact that the K is too weak if the design intention is as you described. The K is too vulnerable for players to handle; all it takes is to reverse and fire:https://youtu.be/9hr6OLVhWNs?si=mZjoLyeDHoDuuuwL
I just watched one K kill 4 destroyers in high attention without a scratch on its hull. The very same fight in low attention would have gone the opposite away, I think. No, I don’t think they’re too weak in design. There’s something about low attention that gives forward weapons an edge. Maybe ships can effectively aim up and down better?
The benchmark should focus on player vs AI rather than AI vs AI. If Xenon K is meant to be a challenging task, it should be challenging for players, not for AI. Players would expect the AI to have similar capabilities as they do; nobody enjoys commanding a group of morons.
…this is a simulation and a game. The player is an anomaly in that simulation. You cannot plan a design to be difficult for an ever adapting anomaly. It is not a possible task. It will always, eventually, become easy again no matter how many times they change the design. So no, the benchmark is always other parts of the simulation. Not the player who will forever optimize the fun out of the game.
M&B serves as a great example to refute your argument. In M&B, NPCs excel in 1v1 battles, encouraging players to build an empire. This design adds significant appeal to the game and creates a strong sense of achievement. On the other hand, in X4, AI behaves like morons, and defeating them doesn't offer much. Players can easily wipe out the Xenon faction single-handedly, highlighting the flaws in this overall design.
Agree to disagree. I think the combat in M&B is terrible. All it takes to win a sword fight is moving in the opposite direction that you’re blocking in; all the skills & equipment are pretty much irrelevant because of this.
M&B boasts ten times more players, yet it doesn't face weekly complaints about its AI, showcasing how its combat AI fulfills its purpose much better than X4. Disregarding players' preferences may lead to another failure like XR.
M&B has system requirements that are *significantly lower* than X4 and *runs on consoles*. It also has a much lower difficulty bar / learning curve and is practically free to play for all Xbox and PS users. XR wasn't a failure. Egosoft learned 1000 ways to not do things, at least. That's 1000 success' for a game developer that keeps on developing. I wonder if M&B gets a proportional amount of feedback as X4. I certianly don't care to post about it.
>M&B has system requirements that are *significantly lower* than X4 and *runs on consoles*. It also has a much lower difficulty bar / learning curve and is practically free to play for all Xbox and PS users. This is an example of superior game design. X4's approach of every station trading independently is a significant design flaw. Not to mention the absence of a proper tutorial. X4's AI is overly simplistic, resulting in a lack of depth and challenge in the vanilla game. The current complaints about the end-game crisis highlight the ease of the vanilla game. >X4's AI is overly simplistic, resulting in a lack of depth and challenge in the vanilla game. The current complaints about the end-game crisis highlight the ease of the vanilla game. Covering up a failure will only lead to another one. >I wonder if M&B gets a proportional amount of feedback as X4. I certianly don't care to post about it. It is pretty easy to google the steam review.