Will do...Gimbutz wrote: ↑Wed, 20. Jan 21, 12:43Give us further specific examples of old mission mechanics you liked (ideally in a separate thread) and we'll add them to our ever-growing brainstorming session. You'll find that acting in good faith will yield better results than repeating "X4 will never have good missions" over and over again. You might even inspire others to share and discuss their thoughts instead of quenching feedback with the notion that nothing's going to change anyway.
BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
Ha ha! Dude I call BS ..Instead of gaslighting your fans here with reasons of why their criticism annoys you, maybe try running with clarification the old fashion way ...like... "HOW can I make this game better?". Many of us already paid the money... That's how WE support... Get it? There ARE many problems with this game. You should be thankful....If you are a dev or producer, then man-up and own it. The fact that you guys create a module with specific bells and whistles, simply because you can, doesn't mean its necessarily an improvement to the game. So, Before you get all tricky and cryptic with your plots, etc... , how about meeting some basic fundamentals first? Like, Fix the damn idiot pilots... A seasoned pilot should NEVER be destroyed on account of a stupid AI decision... And what's up with that unattended, unintended BS station attack business...? It does NOTHING for the game in terms of strategy or evolution for any of the plots or sub-plots. As far as I can tell These problems continue to exists so, yeah... 'nothing's going to change anyway' until you guys decide to fix those things .. . On the brighter side The game has tremendous potential... Its not there yet...Gimbutz wrote: ↑Wed, 20. Jan 21, 12:43Give us further specific examples of old mission mechanics you liked (ideally in a separate thread) and we'll add them to our ever-growing brainstorming session. You'll find that acting in good faith will yield better results than repeating "X4 will never have good missions" over and over again. You might even inspire others to share and discuss their thoughts instead of quenching feedback with the notion that nothing's going to change anyway.
Rant Over.
PaperDog
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
Glad you got it out of your system. I appreciate the sentiment that the game needs a solid foundation first and foremost, but the issues you mentioned are beyond mine and the rest of the mission team's jurisdiction. The AI in particular is constantly improved upon.
What AI and missions have in common is that general statements don't help with improving them. For missions, however, there's a major advantage: You don't have to treat them like a black box and upload a save so that a developer can debug it. Your experience itself can already be specific enough to constitute workable feedback. Give us examples for what works for you and what doesn't, which mechanics you like, and, more to the point of the discussion, which mechanics worked well in the past.
dtpsprt has created a new thread to collect things that missions did right in previous games. Drop by if you want to share some memories.
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
Well I must say, I appreciate your civil response to my rant. So, here is my understanding of AI: It necessarily requires a driving motif to be the seed of convention. Translation: You have to pre-define the orientation, bias and ultimate end game to get the AI to learn something meaningful. So, in real life, an 'excellent' pilot must comply with exacting standards of performance, which MUST come from a consensus of acceptable practices and predictable outcomes. Current AI operates on an infinite number of gradients to get from A to Z... If left to its own devices, it MAY or MAY NOT ever reach 'our' expected behaviors. As I have stated in other threads; AI is vastly overrated or misunderstood. AI is only as good as the objectives(s) of conventions , dictated by the developers. People in the throes of learning are the same way in real life. The purpose of specific education is actually to filter out the gradients (aka distractions) and keep focus to a narrow path of objectives. Currently, This game's AI is subject to various distractions, which your developers should examine and mitigate. It is very reasonable to expect that an AI for a specific universe of conventions, should match or at least parallel the real life expectations of that universe. IMHOGimbutz wrote: ↑Thu, 21. Jan 21, 13:13Glad you got it out of your system. I appreciate the sentiment that the game needs a solid foundation first and foremost, but the issues you mentioned are beyond mine and the rest of the mission team's jurisdiction. The AI in particular is constantly improved upon.
What AI and missions have in common is that general statements don't help with improving them. For missions, however, there's a major advantage: You don't have to treat them like a black box and upload a save so that a developer can debug it. Your experience itself can already be specific enough to constitute workable feedback. Give us examples for what works for you and what doesn't, which mechanics you like, and, more to the point of the discussion, which mechanics worked well in the past.
dtpsprt has created a new thread to collect things that missions did right in previous games. Drop by if you want to share some memories.
PaperDog
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
+1 for the last part.PaperDog wrote: ↑Thu, 21. Jan 21, 17:23Well I must say, I appreciate your civil response to my rant. So, here is my understanding of AI: It necessarily requires a driving motif to be the seed of convention. Translation: You have to pre-define the orientation, bias and ultimate end game to get the AI to learn something meaningful.
As I have stated in other threads; AI is vastly overrated or misunderstood.
There is "AI" as in predetermined logic that dictates actions in various conditions.
Simple example: binary search from ordered set. You pick value from middle.
IF it is too big, THEN repeat search in the first half of the set
ELSE IF it is too small, THEN repeat search in the second half of the set
A human wrote that logic and those conditions.
Then there is "AI" and in "machine learning". A program (of the previous type "AI") is given set of inputs and "correct" answer for each input.
Once the "search" is complete, the result is essentially program code: logic and conditions, but in less readable format.
Now you can give new input to this computer generated "program" and it will give some answer. If the new input is "close enough" to the samples that the program was created with and there are no anomalies in the dataset, then the answer is close to what one expects.
You can write "simple AI" for combat: IF ship is hit, THEN break left
You can shovel plenty of recorded combat into machine learner and it might come up with solution that will break left when ship is hit.
In neither case the "AI" in the game will learn nothing while you play. The code does not change. If there were a background process that continuously re-evaluates with new data (but what is the "correct" answer?) that you generate, and the tuned logic would be saved in the savegame, then you would have "learning". The Xenon in your game would gradually start to behave differently from how they behave in my game. (I wonder how many hours it takes to reach RSLG logic?)
Note though that the "learning" is heavy. Google probably ran a month in huge supercomputer to get code that can tell in millisecond whether photo has a puppy. Luckily, X4 does not need CPU for other things ...
Goner Pancake Protector X
Insanity included at no extra charge.
There is no Box. I am the sand.
Insanity included at no extra charge.
There is no Box. I am the sand.
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
indeed, so my point was that the AI on pilots (combat) should have its basis in real life combat scenarios. As a former U.S Naval Surface ship warrior (anti-submarine warfare) , we practiced specific combat and evasive maneuvers to minimize any grave threat and damage in combat. Patterns included "Crazy Ivan" (for example) to dodge wake-homing torpedoes. However, in order to be appropriate and effective, there had to be a host of conditions prevalent for that context. Without the luxury of AI decision trees or matrixes, "close enough" was not typically adequate enough. (The Irony is that Naval technology uses AI to train under) . To illustrate the necessity of qualified battle decisions in the game, I have had situations in the game, where if I issued a command to a squadron or fleet to attack a specific target, and if that target should jump-gate into an enemy sector, then should my squad still follow and chase that target? In my case, that actually happened; where a Xenon M drew my squad of corvettes into a Xenon sector. Waiting on the other side, of course, was a full enemy fleet , which annihilated my squad. (On the flip side of that; The Xenon AI apparently registered my squads presence in that sector as a significant incursion, and thus responded by sending an I class and 2 K classes. My gate defense system dispatched them in short work. In real life, a squadron would never arbitrarily stray into enemy space. ( I think there is a setting in the game , which prevents that?) But in terms of AI, its just not a viable or completely qualified decision.jlehtone wrote: ↑Fri, 22. Jan 21, 15:08+1 for the last part.PaperDog wrote: ↑Thu, 21. Jan 21, 17:23Well I must say, I appreciate your civil response to my rant. So, here is my understanding of AI: It necessarily requires a driving motif to be the seed of convention. Translation: You have to pre-define the orientation, bias and ultimate end game to get the AI to learn something meaningful.
As I have stated in other threads; AI is vastly overrated or misunderstood.
There is "AI" as in predetermined logic that dictates actions in various conditions.
Simple example: binary search from ordered set. You pick value from middle.
IF it is too big, THEN repeat search in the first half of the set
ELSE IF it is too small, THEN repeat search in the second half of the set
A human wrote that logic and those conditions.
Then there is "AI" and in "machine learning". A program (of the previous type "AI") is given set of inputs and "correct" answer for each input.
Once the "search" is complete, the result is essentially program code: logic and conditions, but in less readable format.
Now you can give new input to this computer generated "program" and it will give some answer. If the new input is "close enough" to the samples that the program was created with and there are no anomalies in the dataset, then the answer is close to what one expects.
You can write "simple AI" for combat: IF ship is hit, THEN break left
You can shovel plenty of recorded combat into machine learner and it might come up with solution that will break left when ship is hit.
In neither case the "AI" in the game will learn nothing while you play. The code does not change. If there were a background process that continuously re-evaluates with new data (but what is the "correct" answer?) that you generate, and the tuned logic would be saved in the savegame, then you would have "learning". The Xenon in your game would gradually start to behave differently from how they behave in my game. (I wonder how many hours it takes to reach RSLG logic?)
Note though that the "learning" is heavy. Google probably ran a month in huge supercomputer to get code that can tell in millisecond whether photo has a puppy. Luckily, X4 does not need CPU for other things ...
PaperDog
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
In answer to the OP
Go searching for Sedatives first (and keep hold of them for a mission requirement if you haven't done that bit yet), that will make searching for Crystals seem like a breeze afterwards
Heretics End is a good place to find Crystals, or at least in my current game its been the place with the most often occurring.
Go searching for Sedatives first (and keep hold of them for a mission requirement if you haven't done that bit yet), that will make searching for Crystals seem like a breeze afterwards
Heretics End is a good place to find Crystals, or at least in my current game its been the place with the most often occurring.
Laptop Dell G15 5510 : Win 11 x64
CPU - 10th Gen' Core I7 10870H 2.2-5.0ghz, GPU - NVidia Geforce RTX 3060, VRAM 6gb GDDR5,
RAM - 32gb (2x16gb, Dual Channel mode set in BIOS) DDR4 2933mhz Kingston Fury Impact,
SSD - Kioxia M.2 NVME 512gb (System), + Samsung M.2 NVME 970 Evo Plus 1tb (Games)
Long live Queen Polypheides and may her tentacles always be supple.
Seeker of Sohnen.
CPU - 10th Gen' Core I7 10870H 2.2-5.0ghz, GPU - NVidia Geforce RTX 3060, VRAM 6gb GDDR5,
RAM - 32gb (2x16gb, Dual Channel mode set in BIOS) DDR4 2933mhz Kingston Fury Impact,
SSD - Kioxia M.2 NVME 512gb (System), + Samsung M.2 NVME 970 Evo Plus 1tb (Games)
Long live Queen Polypheides and may her tentacles always be supple.
Seeker of Sohnen.
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
I'm doing this paranid mission now and the crystal drop rates are truly awful. Has anyone finished these missions post-4.0?
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
Yep!!! Edited the save file!!! Life is too short to worry if and when Ventures will come back and what they will entail... Besides... both Split and Paranid plots are just time crunchers (trying to make the game take longer for no apparent reason).
Re: BOREDOM OF MINING FOR CRYSTALS
This is what I did in the end. Thanks for posting this. The quest seems near-impossible without save-game editing. The worst part is that
Spoiler
Show
after the quest ends, you're told the pontifices disappeared and thus all that work was for nothing.