egosoft.com

Shehriazad wrote: ↑

Fri, 8. Feb 19, 00:51

STUFF

You did not really address my point of concern, which was the turret balance changes in 2.0.

Whether an AI capital has a Frigate/Bomber on a surface M pad to supplement their own weapons is a bit moot, I still think that is an inadvisable tactic for player piloted capitals for turret control reasons - and no you do not have the same ease of control over the docked ship's turrets as you do over own ship turrets - unless the cockpit UI has been updated appropriately (does not seem to be in the change log).

You can control the turrets of docked M ships via the property menu

Set them to “hold fire” by default to minimise incidents , then to “all enemies” when in a Xenon sector (for example)

Straightforward and effective ^_^

popeye2o1o wrote: ↑

Wed, 6. Feb 19, 13:18

Convert CODEA and MEFOS to X4 - thats it

yes the best mod ever for x3 out standing a mod god I loved this mod

rosssack wrote: ↑

Fri, 8. Mar 19, 13:08

popeye2o1o wrote: ↑

Wed, 6. Feb 19, 13:18

Convert CODEA and MEFOS to X4 - thats it

yes the best mod ever for x3 out standing a mod god I loved this mod

well....right....no more to say about....

caltrop wrote: ↑

Fri, 8. Feb 19, 11:36

You can control the turrets of docked M ships via the property menu

Set them to “hold fire” by default to minimise incidents , then to “all enemies” when in a Xenon sector (for example)

Straightforward and effective ^_^

That is ultimately impractical and is exactly the point I was getting at - the control of turrets on surface docked vessels is anything but quick and easy to control (especially in the context of piloting the larger ships) and is of limited utility in practice if you wish to avoid certain issues or even adjust tactics mid fight.

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: ↑

Fri, 8. Mar 19, 17:57

caltrop wrote: ↑

Fri, 8. Feb 19, 11:36

You can control the turrets of docked M ships via the property menu

Set them to “hold fire” by default to minimise incidents , then to “all enemies” when in a Xenon sector (for example)

Straightforward and effective ^_^

That is ultimately impractical and is exactly the point I was getting at - the control of turrets on surface docked vessels is anything but quick and easy to control (especially in the context of piloting the larger ships) and is of limited utility in practice if you wish to avoid certain issues or even adjust tactics mid fight.

As long as a couple M turrets' effect is significant compared to that of the carrier's there is an issue with capship turret balance imo.
Due to range and dps that shouldn't worth the hassle. Only reason should be for that is increased visuals or fireworks but nothing more..

pref wrote: ↑

Fri, 8. Mar 19, 18:05

As long as a couple M turrets' effect is significant compared to that of the carrier's there is an issue with capship turret balance imo.

This is where I must absolutely disagree.

I think part of the problem with threads like these is that there are at least some people that see a particular label for a given generic ship type then automatically assume that ALL ships of that particular generic type should have a certain level of capability or features (regardless of other considerations). This is far from being true even in the real world when you look at the wider picture and how things change over time.

In X4, carriers are fairly balanced overall especially given their cost relative to other craft. A carrier's main strength in the real world comes from the craft it can carry and the faster they can launch and recover such craft the more effective they are overall - this basic truth seems to be at least part of the guiding principle behind carrier designs in X4. Whether such craft are surface docked, or in flight is moot in the main.

Arguably, feature and balance wise Carriers in X4 are fair and reasonable. The only aspects that may need some work are the AI and C&C elements, which is not exactly a new situation where the vanilla baseline of the X-series games in general is concerned. The revised approach to fleet organisation in X-Rebirth/X4 (hierarchical rather than flat) is a major step forward (arguably it should have always been like this) but the implementation of individual order execution in X4 seems more flawed than in past games. In at least some areas, this has got demonstrably worse in V2.0 with notable issues with incidental/reactive behaviours. It seems that V2.20 is slated to address at least some of the AI/C&C issues.

This thread seems to have restarted after a pause of one month (!)

In the meantime we have moved from 1.6 to 2.0 with 2.2 now in beta...

Certainly turrets are more capable than they were, and it looks like work is underway to improve further carriers’ handling of their space wings ^_^

besides the needed utility, the AI needs to be optimized for caries.
currently we got fighters are launched if the carrier gets attacked, all ate the same target and return after the enemy dies.
I would define 3 ranges: (If you know CODEA you might recognize this)
outer range of interest (maybe 30km) any enemy leaving this area around the carrier is disengaged.
inner range of interest (~15km ) any enemy entering this area is automatically engaged
combatrange (~3km) if an enemy enters the inner range all other enemies within this range of the intruder are engaged, too.
Engagement should always try to be slightly superior e.g. 2vs1, IntercertorvsBomber,...
Carrierpets should be classified:
Plasma/unguided -> Missiles Bomber
Beams/Bulslasers -> Interceptor
mixed -> mixed class
Bombers should prioritize L/XL
Interceptors M/S

ubuntufreakdragon wrote: ↑

Sat, 9. Mar 19, 21:57

besides the needed utility, the AI needs to be optimized for caries.
currently we got fighters are launched if the carrier gets attacked, all ate the same target and return after the enemy dies.
I would define 3 ranges: (If you know CODEA you might recognize this)
outer range of interest (maybe 30km) any enemy leaving this area around the carrier is disengaged.
inner range of interest (~15km ) any enemy entering this area is automatically engaged
combatrange (~3km) if an enemy enters the inner range all other enemies within this range of the intruder are engaged, too.
Engagement should always try to be slightly superior e.g. 2vs1, IntercertorvsBomber,...
Carrierpets should be classified:
Plasma/unguided -> Missiles Bomber
Beams/Bulslasers -> Interceptor
mixed -> mixed class
Bombers should prioritize L/XL
Interceptors M/S

Wonder how all the accumulated knowhow up until X3 has vanished since XR. This also applies for trade scripts.. or explorer command.. or any aiscripts for that matter.

pretty simple, the Egosoft knowhow is completly present, vanilla X4 Carriers act like vanilla X3 Carriers (launch all fighters on attack against the attacker).
vanilla X3 station traders could only buy or sell one ware, so X4 is even an improvement.
and turret comands are on the level of X2 to X3TC only missing the improvements in AP which where externally created.

ubuntufreakdragon wrote: ↑

Sun, 10. Mar 19, 16:50

pretty simple, the Egosoft knowhow is completly present, vanilla X4 Carriers act like vanilla X3 Carriers (launch all fighters on attack against the attacker).
vanilla X3 station traders could only buy or sell one ware, so X4 is even an improvement.
and turret comands are on the level of X2 to X3TC only missing the improvements in AP which where externally created.

At least in X3 Carriers had the jumpdrive, which represented their utility as Carriers.


As for X4, carriers are glorified parking lots with turrets. They don't offer any utility other than keeping fighters warm in their belly. It would be great if they at least have special commands like making fighters under its command with low hp automatically retreat inside it or give some bonus (+1 in Piloting or whatever) to fighters under its command, etc...

Warnoise wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 01:59

It would be great if they at least have special commands like making fighters under its command with low hp automatically retreat inside it...

Can almost do that. It's not a fully automatic 'retreat if low hp', but you can at least give fighters the 'dock & wait' default behaviour, with a carrier set as their destination. Makes it very easy to get damaged fighters to retreat back to their carrier with a single 'remove all orders' command. Have found this to be significantly quicker than using 'dock at' orders then having to select a suitable destination from the map. As an added benefit also means they automatically return to their carrier after completing attack orders etc.

pref wrote: ↑

Sun, 10. Mar 19, 15:22

Wonder how all the accumulated knowhow up until X3 has vanished since XR. This also applies for trade scripts.. or explorer command.. or any aiscripts for that matter.

Short and simple answer - the game engine implementation changed making such know how on the most part moot and irrelevant. From a scripting/modding perspective, the only thing X3/X4 really has in common with X3 is the Mission Director but even that has changed at least a little. Most scripting in X3 and prior was done using a proprietary scripting language which has not been ported to the X-Rebirth/X4 engine.

It may be possible to rewrite some of the X2/X3 scripts for X-Rebirth/X4 but I would not underestimate the effort involved nor presume it would be entirely feasible either.

Warnoise wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 01:59

At least in X3 Carriers had the jumpdrive, which represented their utility as Carriers.

Not really, every ship could fit a Jump Drive, using the carrier may save fuel and allow for some longer jumps when moving a number of ships but it was not an exclusive nor meaningful feature of any substance really.

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 08:58

Warnoise wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 01:59

At least in X3 Carriers had the jumpdrive, which represented their utility as Carriers.

Not really, every ship could fit a Jump Drive, using the carrier may save fuel and allow for some longer jumps when moving a number of ships but it was not an exclusive nor meaningful feature of any substance really.

Well, it was meaningful to me. Instead of paying for 100 jump drives, I only needed to buy one. Refueling one ship with e-cells is also much more convenient.

mr.WHO wrote: ↑

Sat, 2. Feb 19, 21:26

Your Ideas to make Carriers useful

-- Make them sell for more than they cost! Very useful!

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 08:55

pref wrote: ↑

Sun, 10. Mar 19, 15:22

Wonder how all the accumulated knowhow up until X3 has vanished since XR. This also applies for trade scripts.. or explorer command.. or any aiscripts for that matter.

Short and simple answer - the game engine implementation changed making such know how on the most part moot and irrelevant.

I don't mean the actual execution, but the logic/mechanics implemented there. From how a single follow command worked to fleet or trade behaviours.
Also don't mean a rewrite of the same things but lots of ideas there would work well with vanilla, and raise gameplay to a much higher level.
Too much left for modding.

pref wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 19:01

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 08:55

pref wrote: ↑

Sun, 10. Mar 19, 15:22

Wonder how all the accumulated knowhow up until X3 has vanished since XR. This also applies for trade scripts.. or explorer command.. or any aiscripts for that matter.

Short and simple answer - the game engine implementation changed making such know how on the most part moot and irrelevant.

I don't mean the actual execution, but the logic/mechanics implemented there. From how a single follow command worked to fleet or trade behaviours.
Also don't mean a rewrite of the same things but lots of ideas there would work well with vanilla, and raise gameplay to a much higher level.
Too much left for modding.

Ideas are all well and good but it takes time to implement such things properly - X3 had at least the work of 3 previous games to build on for example. X-Rebirth signified a restart from scratch essentially and so it will undoubtedly take time to get things right. X4 has only X-Rebirth to build on by comparison, the concepts may be around but they have to be worked into a solution using current implementation approaches. You can not jump straight from concept to implementation in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

sh1pman wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 10:03

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 08:58

Warnoise wrote: ↑

Mon, 11. Mar 19, 01:59

At least in X3 Carriers had the jumpdrive, which represented their utility as Carriers.

Not really, every ship could fit a Jump Drive, using the carrier may save fuel and allow for some longer jumps when moving a number of ships but it was not an exclusive nor meaningful feature of any substance really.

Well, it was meaningful to me. Instead of paying for 100 jump drives, I only needed to buy one. Refueling one ship with e-cells is also much more convenient.

The current equivalent of that is the travel speed match up. Carried fighters can afford to be cruise/boost focused and their Carrier can focus on maximising travel speed.