What is Egosoft's vision for X5?

[GCU Grey Area]

So what are you using instead if you don't mind sharing?

HOTAS - can't enjoy a fight sim properly without full analogue control over yaw, pitch, roll & throttle. Have occasionally encountered games where they neglected to include joysticks as a control option (Starfield's a recent example) & have always found mouse & keyboard inadequate for these sort of games.

[SirLosealot]

So what are you using instead if you don't mind sharing?

HOTAS - can't enjoy a fight sim properly without full analogue control over yaw, pitch, roll & throttle. Have occasionally encountered games where they neglected to include joysticks as a control option (Starfield's a recent example) & have always found mouse & keyboard inadequate for these sort of games.

Have not used it myself so don't quote me on this but yeah, that would require some extra work when the main gun is a turret. Although back in the days when I played War Thunder, I had seen some videos about people who use HOTAS for tanks.

What we have now is simpler for the player but not (yet) for the AI.

[Flippi]

Starsector is different than this game but I gotta say, they did fleet combat well. Is it perfect? No, but consider the variety of ships and the combinations of weapons on such ships, the AI is quite competent.

Well, a 2d environment certainly makes it quite a bit easier for the AI to be competent. But in general StarSector does have good concepts and ideas that could also work in X4.

If they make some ships that way, those would be the ships I build for the AI . That is unnless they fix the AI and make them reliably use their fixed gun in a fleet battle.

I'm pretty sure that broadsiders would work in X4. There's a better margin of error for those than with main guns. In fact, quite a few concepts could work in X4. Like Battlecruisers (the Erlking is kinda one).

Have not used it myself so don't quote me on this but yeah, that would require some extra work when the main gun is a turret. Although back in the days when I played War Thunder, I had seen some videos about people who use HOTAS for tanks.

What we have now is simpler for the player but not (yet) for the AI.

I personally don't mind if the AI cannot use every ship perfectly. So there's no reason to not have some ships with main guns. I just believe X4 and X5 would benefit from getting some ships that the AI can actually use. So ships with less focus on main guns, and more focus on turrets would be the best here.

[GCU Grey Area]

What we have now is simpler for the player but not (yet) for the AI.

Main issue with the destroyer AI is that Xenon capitals don't have main guns. Means they'll always prefer to do a berserker rush into the middle of an enemy fleet to bring as many of it's turrets to bear as possible. If the Xenon had been given main guns of their own they'd perform in the same manner as Commonwealth destroyers do when they face each other - stay at range & have a nice civilised artillery duel. Wouldn't mind that for X5 - Xenon destroyers with an Asgard style death beam perhaps, they do have Terran origins after all.

[SirLosealot]

Starsector is different than this game but I gotta say, they did fleet combat well. Is it perfect? No, but consider the variety of ships and the combinations of weapons on such ships, the AI is quite competent.

Well, a 2d environment certainly makes it quite a bit easier for the AI to be competent. But in general StarSector does have good concepts and ideas that could also work in X4.

If they make some ships that way, those would be the ships I build for the AI . That is unnless they fix the AI and make them reliably use their fixed gun in a fleet battle.

I'm pretty sure that broadsiders would work in X4. There's a better margin of error for those than with main guns. In fact, quite a few concepts could work in X4. Like Battlecruisers (the Erlking is kinda one).

Have not used it myself so don't quote me on this but yeah, that would require some extra work when the main gun is a turret. Although back in the days when I played War Thunder, I had seen some videos about people who use HOTAS for tanks.

What we have now is simpler for the player but not (yet) for the AI.

I personally don't mind if the AI cannot use every ship perfectly. So there's no reason to not have some ships with main guns. I just believe X4 and X5 would benefit from getting some ships that the AI can actually use. So ships with less focus on main guns, and more focus on turrets would be the best here.

You know what, how about combining both fixed main gun and turrets onto the same ship as options? For example, if a ship is equipped with main turret, it will deal less damage than a fixed main gun but it can hit and run. Likewise, if a ship is equipped with a fixed gun it can only reverse and shoot but it will deal more damage. And we are still talking about the same ship, just with different equipment. The AI would prefer to build turrets for fleet combat, only some ships with fixed guns for sieges.

But then again, none of this would be a big problem if the AI learn how to use the main gun effectively for fleet combat in the first place . I heard that the devs are focusing on this aspect specifically in 7.0 beta but I wouldn't cross my fingers.

[SirLosealot]

What we have now is simpler for the player but not (yet) for the AI.

Main issue with the destroyer AI is that Xenon capitals don't have main guns. Means they'll always prefer to do a berserker rush into the middle of an enemy fleet to bring as many of it's turrets to bear as possible. If the Xenon had been given main guns of their own they'd perform in the same manner as Commonwealth destroyers do when they face each other - stay at range & have a nice civilised artillery duel. Wouldn't mind that for X5 - Xenon destroyers with an Asgard style death beam perhaps, they do have Terran origins after all.

My point of view is a bit different, it is not the Xenon's fault that their weapons are short range. it is the other AI's fault for not knowing how to deal with this situation.
As a player, I would reverse and keep shooting to make sure that I deal as much damage as possible. The best defense is a good offense after all. As an AI, it would turn around and flee to regain the distance, even when it is slow, maybe slower than the Xenon which make this impossible. They could solve this by making the AI reverse and keep shooting.

Correct me if I am wrong since I have not looked into the script but I think I know why the AI act this way. I think they use the same script when destroyers go against the station as well as other capital ships. When I parked my destroyer a bit too close to a station and then delegated it to the AI, it acted the same way by turning around and flee. Although if this is the case, reversing is still a good compromise for both situations imo.

[Flippi]

Main issue with the destroyer AI is that Xenon capitals don't have main guns. Means they'll always prefer to do a berserker rush into the middle of an enemy fleet to bring as many of it's turrets to bear as possible. If the Xenon had been given main guns of their own they'd perform in the same manner as Commonwealth destroyers do when they face each other - stay at range & have a nice civilised artillery duel. Wouldn't mind that for X5 - Xenon destroyers with an Asgard style death beam perhaps, they do have Terran origins after all.

This is an issue for sure, but I think not the main one. The main issue first and foremost is, the Xenon do not have any L sized ship (as of version 6.20). Both the K and I are XL sized, and outclass any destroyer the Commonwealth or the Terrans produce. The K itself already has 6 L turrets, while the Behemoth and Phoenix have a whopping two. Combine that with the better XL shields, and you got a disaster in the waiting. The I is completely outclassing anything the other factions have. Bar the Erlking and Asgard maybe (if they are player piloted or at least directed).

But then again, none of this would be a big problem if the AI learn how to use the main gun effectively for fleet combat in the first place . I heard that the devs are focusing on this aspect specifically in 7.0 beta but I wouldn't cross my fingers.

Even if the AI would use main guns better, the entire concept of main gun capital ships is still too punishing. Any L-sized destroyer is screwed once a Xenon K manages to get into range. And the AI probably never will be able to do advanced manoeuvres to stay out of range like a Player would. That is simply asking too much in my book. Not that it would help much if the destroyer in question is as fast or slower than the incoming K....

They could solve this by making the AI reverse and keep shooting.

Not sure if Egosoft could make the AI do that. But even then, this would only work in a 1 vs. 1. Once you have other ships in the area, things wouldn't work out well.

[SirLosealot]

They could solve this by making the AI reverse and keep shooting.

Not sure if Egosoft could make the AI do that. But even then, this would only work in a 1 vs. 1. Once you have other ships in the area, things wouldn't work out well.

Do they AI capital ships even care about other ships other than their target? From what I have seen it looks like they are fixated on their target most if not all of the time. If their target move a bit closer (around 5km I think), they will flip out and try to flee.

[SpaceCadet11864]

Hopefully it will be a step away from playing the game from the map, and a step toward more immersion.

[mr.WHO]

Hopefully it will be a step away from playing the game from the map, and a step toward more immersion.

There was such step already, called X-Rebirth.
It was a failure.

[SpaceCadet11864]

Hopefully it will be a step away from playing the game from the map, and a step toward more immersion.

There was such step already, called X-Rebirth.
It was a failure.

I don't think that's a fair assessment, at worst its a bad-faith argument. There are many different ways you can move away from playing only the map and going for more immersion that would be much different than rebirth. One thing I think drew a lot of criticism was only being able to fly the skunk, for example.

furthermore, that was a step from.. what, x3? I'm talking about a step from x4..

[mr.WHO]

I guess you don't read what you write - you wanted an experience that is not based around the map and that's what X-Rebirth is.
X4 without the map would be the very same cursed design, no matter how many ships you can fly.

It's like saying EVE would be better experince without spreadheets.

[Good Wizard]

No idea, what they envision for X5, but a lot of hope

1) Multiplayer things (Ventures or more)
I hope, they drop Ventures completely and make a single player game, but I fear it will be the opposite...
I know, players here are divided on this, and I belong to the 'strictly single player' faction. If the the new game (may it be called X5 or different) has multiplayer optional or online demand, count me out. I accepted Ventures before I purchased X4 and started with the X-Series games (X4 Version 4.0), I did research before purchase and accepted Ventures. But this is as far as it goes. Online demand, single player 'optional' and anything like this and I am out. I had this with Elite Dangerous and I will never again do something like this.

2) Modding support
To be honest, modding support does not exist in X4. I know that there are very talented modders for X4 and I am grateful. But there is a total lack of tools, the NPCs are in a state of 2004-2008 and no modding is possible. The scripting is awful, the scripts are in the XML form barely readable and I admire all modders who manage to script something for X4. I am fairly experienced in scripting (PHP, Perl, a special script language for a UO server), i can write C++, but this format I would not want to touch - even if I had the time for serious modding. I even modded (in a very small way) Fallout 3/Oblivion/Skyrim including scripting, but the scripts in these games are at least readable. The advantage of a good scripting system and good modding tools are obvious, just look at Bethesda's games. So I hope they see the light and make good modding tools and a more accessible scripting system. A lot of bugs and not optimal implemented features simply would not exist, if more gifted players had easier access to modding tools. Not to mention the look of NPCs, if they could be modded.
With the notoriously bugged Bethesda games there are very good 'bug fixing mods', which make the games significantly better. We would need something like that in X4 too, obviously. But the lack of modding support tools hinders any effort to do this, IMHO. And lets be honest: X4 has several bugs which are not fixed for years now, and it has even more inconveniences and half implemented things which should be fixed. If the small Egosoft team cannot do it, why not help players to do it?

3) Automation and 'AI' for a lot of things
This has to work much better. It is as simple as that, and is connected to 2). I do not know how the Egosoft team manages the scripting, but it is obviously very time consuming or a lot of problems would have been squashed long since.

4) Immersion
We have to talk about teleport. It is a convenience thing, and not very logical. And it is needed in X4 even to fix bugs. Example: While building a station I saw a certain faction ship which delivered needed materials. The ship took extremely long to arrive and all was stopped. So I went to look for it and it was here, besides the building storage, but obviously could not dock for some reason. It kept moving around a bit, but no luck. It was a M ship and other had docked there without problems. The 'solution' was to teleport out of the sector. Teleport in part even ruins the game and the immersion. But yes, it is very convenient...
The game has now state of the art graphics, NPCs, stations and so on - but how is this all based in the Galaxy? It is obviously the Milky Way (Earth and all the planets present). So where are the sectors located? How far do we jump with gates. Where live the Teladi, the Split, the Paranids? These things should be better explained, maybe even a slight difference to 'long' jumps far away. So a bit more astrophysics please, even if they are only in the background.
Communication instant over the entire galaxy, Boso can call me everywhere. But to talk to certain NPCs I have to travel there and land on a station. To buy blueprints I have to travel to the station (or teleport with very good standing). Why can I teleport to any station (if they allow it), others obviously cannot do that. It is a pure plot instrument, and very illogical. IMHO teleport should be limited to a sector and its neighboring sectors, it would require a bit of thinking and planning, but in the end we could have nearly the same thing, but more believable. And it should be obvious, if and when NPCs can do it too.
The graphics, the feeling of 'being in space' is good enough, but a lot of things are missing. Distances should be greater. Or at least 'feel greater'. But to pack this all in a playable game is not easy.
Communication should have some limits, especially for very far distances. The 'map' as it is now is very convenient for both the player and the developer. But it does not reflect the huge distances. All this with the different races and their planets and sectors should be better displayed. If I journey to the Split systems - how far away is it? Probably 1000s of light years. Okay, there a jump portals, but I still would like to know and 'feel' it.

5) Simulated Economy - or not?
I like the X4 economy simulation, and I hope they will keep it. I also hope, they do more 'realistic' things in a way the game is still enjoyable. With 'realistic' I mean things like trading with planets, and as a moderating factor a fixed cost for every NPC and for every ship working/belonging to the player. Absurd huge fleets would be moderated a bit by a cost factor for the workers/pilots/managers costs for ship maintenance. A trading/mining ship has no running cost, this should be changed in a way, that small fleets are easily manageable, but huge fleets have and stations have a maintenance cost factor which cannot be ignored (but not forbidding too).

So - I will wait and see, hope dies last

[Falcrack]

I hope with the simulated economy, Egosoft takes it one step further than they have, with factions needing to manage credits like the player does, instead of unlimited credits like it has now. Factions could earn credits by taxing the planetary populations in owned sectors, or by selling excess wares to other friendly factions. They would also have additional costs such as ship/station maintenance.

Why bother with stuff like this which would largely be underneath the hood and invisible to the player? It is because it makes the game that much more dynamic, where the galaxy state it influenced by player actions in a realistic way. The requirement for wares to produce ships in station was a big step in the right direction from X3 to X4. Adding a more realistic financial simulation would take the game in a more compelling, more truly dynamic direction.

[SpaceCadet11864]

I guess you don't read what you write - you wanted an experience that is not based around the map and that's what X-Rebirth is.
X4 without the map would be the very same cursed design, no matter how many ships you can fly.

It's like saying EVE would be better experince without spreadheets.

I was using a bit more imagination then this black & white X4 without the map. A step away from the map and a step toward more immersion is not the same thing as "completely remove the map and make it like x-rebirth"

But hey, I'm also not a fan of the late game anyway, I enjoy the early game much more where I'm actively flying a ship and doing things, so yeah I'd like more of that (immersion) - but with more simulation and more logistics, etc.

[eedden]

Main issue with the destroyer AI ...

The "main issue" is that the AI in general so bad on all fronts that it's really hard to talk about it without falling into an incoherent rant.
How often does the autopilot slam your ship into an asteroid? It's a plotted path for a single ship with a constant speed. It does not get much easier than that.
Have you tried using wing-men for your ship? They lag so far behind that they will never be of any help in a fight.
The list goes on and on.

Sure there are many band-aids that might help in certain situations but they are likely to cause three new problems for every one they fix.

Now from all I've seen, Egosoft would have fixed this long ago if there was any reasonable way to do it in the current game, so I can only hope that a functional AI and a game designed around the limitations of that AI will be among the top priorities for a new title.

[flywlyx]

But hey, I'm also not a fan of the late game anyway, I enjoy the early game much more where I'm actively flying a ship and doing things, so yeah I'd like more of that (immersion) - but with more simulation and more logistics, etc.

For a logistics simulation like X4, I don't think it would be feasible without a heavily map-oriented game design.
Do you have any specific game in mind when you mention moving away from playing the game through the map?

Even if the AI would use main guns better, the entire concept of main gun capital ships is still too punishing. Any L-sized destroyer is screwed once a Xenon K manages to get into range. And the AI probably never will be able to do advanced manoeuvres to stay out of range like a Player would. That is simply asking too much in my book. Not that it would help much if the destroyer in question is as fast or slower than the incoming K....

All the AI needs to do is reverse and aim at the K., example: "https://youtu.be/9hr6OLVhWNs".
I certainly wouldn't say this is too much to ask.

[eedden]

For a logistics simulation like X4, I don't think it would be feasible without a heavily map-oriented game design.
Do you have any specific game in mind when you mention moving away from playing the game through the map?

X games absolutly have to be map heavy. Completely moving away from that would betray the core identity and the most loyal fanbase of X games. There is no denying that.

Still there is a lot of room to improve the more hands-on parts of the game. Like ordering your wingmen to attack specific targets from the first person view, recalling them to your side with the press of a button. Sending out distress calls to whoever is closeby and willing to help.
Some of this is actually already in the game, but burried in layers of dropdown menus so it ruins the effect or, due to how in sector ship combat is designed, orders have significant delay before taking effict. So the wing leader fantasy never materializes.

I think there is a lot of room there that could be explored without taking away from the whole logistics layer of the game.

[SpaceCadet11864]

For a logistics simulation like X4, I don't think it would be feasible without a heavily map-oriented game design.
Do you have any specific game in mind when you mention moving away from playing the game through the map?

Lemme just clarify that using tools like maps is perfectly fine, but I envision a more immersive execution that seamlessly integrates with the game world. Imagine a game where the map tool is physically present in the game, with each ship having its own unique interface like in a flight simulator. While this might be an ambitious idea, it’s not exactly what I’m looking for.

What I truly want is:

1. Limited Visibility: Players should only see what their ship's sensors can detect. To see beyond this range, players need to build the necessary infrastructure or architecture. No satellites. One compromise could be allowing players to "see" as far as their teleportation ability allows. When in "all-seeing mode," the ship becomes vulnerable, but they can hide in their HQ base for protection.

2. Personalized Factions and Relations: Relationships should be more personal, rather than just standings with large factions. Independent stations and individuals should have access to resources the player doesn't, unless they build strong relationships. Think of a mix between Star Traders: Frontiers and X4. You can’t trade certain goods without the right contacts, and different houses, even under the same banner, have their own objectives and missions. Every choice has consequences, creating both enemies and powerful allies. While Star Traders: Frontiers excels in this aspect, it lacks the economic simulation of X4. Combining these elements would be ideal.

3. Delayed Communication: Long-distance communication should take time. You shouldn’t be able to instantly command units several light-years away without the necessary technology. This would align better with how NPCs operate, as they don't have an omniscient view like the player. The player can eventually get this technology but there should be some trade-off, or risk/reward type of thing, at least in the first play through. New Game + could just turn it on I guess.

4. A more indepth sensor / detection system. One game I played called highfleet had a cool mechanic where the more sensors you used to "see further" the more noise you were sending out and thus the easier it was for you to be detected. If you wanted to be stealthy, you had to turn off sensors too.

So yes, a map would still be used, but primarily for planning. You plan with the map, but execute with other tools. Make the map a more integral and visually appealing part of the game, and it would be perfect. X4's marketing doesn’t sell the map – the game hooks you because it’s well-crafted.

Lastly, I have to say, simulation can be very complex and player can be none the wiser. you dont have to see everything and watch the literal marionettes to know the simulation is there, but still I wouldnt shy away from an option to see all to help with debugging and to prove how awesome the simulation is. The logistics would need to be as is or even better, where everything bought, sold, plundered and invented comes from raw materials that are mined and refined.

[Crimsonraziel]

3. Delayed Communication: Long-distance communication should take time. You shouldn’t be able to instantly command units several light-years away without the necessary technology. This would align better with how NPCs operate, as they don't have an omniscient view like the player. The player can eventually get this technology but there should be some trade-off, or risk/reward type of thing, at least in the first play through. New Game + could just turn it on I guess.

You definitely lost me here.