Open AI Question

[RAVEN.myst]

... that time and money is necessary due to the variability of the various set-ups).

This sounds very tantalizing indeed! Best luck with it - I very much look forward to seeing it when it's done.

there are a lot of options for every behavior that you can define if you're inclined to, but plan is that you should be able to play the game without having to.

I think this is a key aspect - playable without fiddling, but the fine-tuning allows playing well. This paradigm should satisfy both the serious player who wants to keep "taking things to the next level", and the more casual player who just wants it to work intuitively - some people like to tune their car engines and what-not (well, less so with modern engines and fuel-injection and what-not...), while others are happy driving an automatic.


Again, best wishes!

[Killjaeden]

my reply was more meant in general against this "all-soving" magic"solution" to turn literally everything into an Option.

I understand that. But if we react on principle for every situation, the game would be without options and called X: the cookie clicker. If the option provides very meaningfull positive impact to the game then the necessary "evil" of interface space and additional tests will be worth the additional functionality. Especially in an area that is most requested for better features (AI behaviour and controll possibilities).

and you again dodged the question asked with options

A vague question can only be vaguely answered, because the details are what makes all the difference. Garbage input -> garbage output.
This "magic" ship beeing told to engage and flying away from target - if the function is not clear to the player then yes it certainly 1ooks stupid the first times the player uses it. If the function is very clear and properly communicated then no, it will appear working as explained, or if the player figured out himself how it works (that would be bad design i might add). However does it make sense for the ship to move away, and would the player have reason to not have it act like this? Again, details. But most assuredly, yes there will be reasons to not have it fly away in uncontrolled manners. Especially in chaotic multi target environments where enemies could come in from every direction

Should AI opponents try to stay out of weapon range? Again, no definite answer possible because details. If this a fast and maneuverable ship with incredible range then most definitely no. Base principles of unit balancing have to be remembered (scissor stone paper) and enabled in AI behaviour. When the archer is charging in with the spearman then he could get cut down from other spearmen. If he stays at range, he can be picked of by horsemen. To judge what to do you need to assess the entire situation. Numbers and positions of friendly and hostile troups. Is spearmen count vs theirs in favor of us? Are enemy horsemen more numerous? Are some enemy horsemen close to hurt me, are friendly spearman close enough to protect me? There can be no generally applicable answer what to do in this without assessing and processing all the information. If you want generally applicaple answers you would have to reduce complexity drastically (Endless space "combat"... BARF).

WITH option to define ai engagement range, you can vary it up randomly for hostile targets. Thus not every enemy of the same type will behave exactly the same. So you couldn't use a scout ship to have AI "engage" it by moving away from it in a predictable direction right into the arms of a heavy hitter of yours. This also highlights that in multi target environment, the most easy implementation of this behaviour (moving away directly from the target) will be easy to abuse. Also, what if you switch targets in different direction multiple times? The ship will constantly move distances in the magnitudes of maximum weapon range.

[Zetoss]

I'm certainly no expert but it looks like there are way too many suggestions in this thread that would either pile a year of extra work on X4 with little noticeable gain or end up demanding only the most extreme of computers for the game to work.

That said, there is a bare minimum of "situational awareness" needed for an AI to qualify as good: attacking its target in a way that actually works. Right this moment I'm looking at my Fulmekron circling a Xenon I, the Fulmekron has half of its weapons left but none along its edges, the XeI has almost no weapons left at all and 20% hull. They have been staring each other down for 20 minutes, my Fulmekron can take it out in seconds by going in for the kill but it refuses to get close and steers too far away for the remaining weapons to do more than halt the XeI's self repair. This isn't how a battle with only two participants should look if the AI is aware of its own capability and its enemy.

[Sandalpocalypse]

i think an attack command should always be an attack command, and some other behavior should be classed as something else.

[mr.WHO]

Let's assume that:

- it has no long-ranged weaponry, so it can't shoot at the target from the range that it's trying to maintain,
- that it can affect things as long as it can see them,
- but that what it can do might not be immediately apparent.

Sorry for being vague. Not sure how much of this is going to make it in.

So you give an attack order, and what you see is that it moves away, and stops.

Thanks, everyone, for participating, by the way.

Does drones or fighter count as long range weaponry?

Because what you described fit perfectly the Carrier behaviour. I point the target (attack command). Carrier launch it's attack wing and stay away from target keping distance waiting for dammaged fighters to return from combat.
Something like that would be perfect albeit there would be the need for player to give "real attack (charge)" command too if situation require direct attack.