Time for some bloody automation ALRIGHT?

[wolvern]

My experience is limited to X3TC and AP. I am naturally inclined to say "But, that was in X3TC" or "you could do that in X3TC if you did this and this and this, sort of..."
I want some "natural" automation in X4, much like was done with X3TC.
-------------------
Factorio does well with automation and so does modded minecraft while making it extremely complex and fun... It allows me to spend 10+ hours automating something because it's not just menu automation but built automation where i need to program pathing, set up channels and groupings, also have item limitations and filters. This is what makes it fun, being able to automate something and when trash enters the automation process, figuring out what went wrong and finding out that little issue to solve. We all know the X series automation has been lacking for years from what i feel and i guess many others?
==========

However, what I want more is not some "canned" automation process the game "does for me" that will eventually end up being NOT what I wanted it to do!
We don't need any more embedded "automagical" asset behavior thingies. That's not what X4 needs.
--------------
No it doesn't need canned stuff, as said, factorio and other games like big pharma or such give you a challenge at management of routes and also where everything goes, filters and all.
============

I don't want ships to automatically call for help when they're fired upon, only to have the tiny fleet I was building respond to an empty, old, merchant ship being pounded in the thruster by a Xenon Migration event.
NO!
--------------
This could be managed easily by having certain ships under WATCH as such, having the squads respond to specific fleets of ships, ships patrolling certain regions could respond first. The empty old merchant ship gives me an amazing idea... upkeep, ships don't age and it seems they should, engines should fail time to time and problems should appear. I would welcome adding a fund cut from stations for their maintenance on ships.
==========

How many crazy automagic behaviors result in a player's ships becoming scrap metal and their pilots ending up as paint for the nearby TL that just jumped into the sector or target practice for the Xenon Q that suddenly took an interest?
-------------------
This is why blockades would be good, the laser towers for sector control so basically all the defence you put in place if you're going to set up a large operation, it's best to set up protection.
==============


Instead, what I want are deep tools to work with to construct my own automation schemes. I want "logic fiddly bits" to piece together, a multitude of behavior options, command sets that can be tweaked and stored and the ability to change and improve whatever I, myself, as the "game player", construct with the sandbox that Egosoft gives me.

I want a full Construction Set of commands and behaviors that I can use to "make things do stuffs I wants them to dooos."
------------------
As mentioned factorio and other games do this really well and the tools are exactly what i'm asking for as well.
============

[BigBANGtheory]

I think the trick to making automation a success is assigning these features to NPC abilities which the player can hire or not at their discretion. One player might for example want an automated trading empire so they can focus on combat or strategic gameplay where as another player may want to automate the defenses of their company assets as they go off and engage with trading themselves.

Any task that is repative is a good candidate for automatic but it doesn't mean everyone universally wants it in their gameplay experience. Somehow you need a layer that separates the feature from the gameplay with the player actions bridging the two.

Then of course you have QoL automation where the game logic and interface is doing tedious and unnecessary work for you. I think ES mentioned we will be getting ship templates which is a good example. This area just has to be play tested and predicted as part of the game design.

[wolvern]

I think the trick to making automation a success is assigning these features to NPC abilities which the player can hire or not at their discretion. One player might for example want an automated trading empire so they can focus on combat or strategic gameplay where as another player may want to automate the defenses of their company assets as they go off and engage with trading themselves.

Any task that is repative is a good candidate for automatic but it doesn't mean everyone universally wants it in their gameplay experience. Somehow you need a layer that separates the feature from the gameplay with the player actions bridging the two.

Then of course you have QoL automation where the game logic and interface is doing tedious and unnecessary work for you. I think ES mentioned we will be getting ship templates which is a good example. This area just has to be play tested and predicted as part of the game design.

You're right with this, as with x rebirth they allow you to hire managers and architects but also allow you to tell them if you want to manage it yourself or for them to do it... as such there's also a mid ground where they can manage themselves but you can still help them along but this isn't really useful since you still need to micro manage pathways that ships should take to bypass hostile systems.

I never found the free trading option for my ships which should be a thing.. but i've not seen anything that allows my 20+ extra cap ships to trade openly like that.

[carran]

Picking up on one point...

I would rather Egosoft focus on developing the core engine and delivering capabilities for modders to implement scripts which the community can either use or ignore thereby leveraging the (largely) untapped skills which abound on this forum

[Kitty]

Too much automation could also kill the game.
If we want to have all automatic, we just watch a movie.

btw and for example, automatic refuel of Marines is rally not the sort of thing I would be found of. Marines should never become an expandable. Now, as long as I'm still allowed to hire them manually !

As said, best thing would be a sims style system where you could limit the automation based on preferences. Going through a tonne of menu's for every ship is a pain in the butt tho... They need some sort of grouping policy or such.

Yes.

I would add that, like in previous games, automations should have a cost (SW cost, pilot fees, etc), and not using them should be rewarded. That is to say, the average automation should not be too good.

[wolvern]

Too much automation could also kill the game.
If we want to have all automatic, we just watch a movie.

btw and for example, automatic refuel of Marines is rally not the sort of thing I would be found of. Marines should never become an expandable. Now, as long as I'm still allowed to hire them manually !

As said, best thing would be a sims style system where you could limit the automation based on preferences. Going through a tonne of menu's for every ship is a pain in the butt tho... They need some sort of grouping policy or such.

Yes.

I would add that, like in previous games, automations should have a cost (SW cost, pilot fees, etc), and not using them should be rewarded. That is to say, the average automation should not be too good.

Actually if going by another thread of working like an NPC... the fees would be part of the trade itself, every job back and forth incurs a cost and as such gets taken out of your profits from the trade like paying a truck driver as is.

Same goes for managers and otherwise, depending on their experience they get a cut, also would be good if you could hire a HR person to filter the bad npc's out for you and hire them based on a contract you desire. As they work and get attacked due to your relaxed or stern efforts at border patrol it'd cause them to dislike the job more and more until they quit and rarely cause them to become disgruntled into leaving the ship at a random dock along the route if it came to them quitting during a job. They'd be replaced in time but your ship would remain in that dock and without a pilot and thus able to be hijacked during such downtime but also would mean your patrols may be redirected to that ship to retrieve it and thus add it to their own squad for a limited time to bring it home the next time they come down close to the station.

[RAVEN.myst]

Picking up on one point...

I would rather Egosoft focus on developing the core engine and delivering capabilities for modders to implement scripts which the community can either use or ignore thereby leveraging the (largely) untapped skills which abound on this forum

I'm afraid I have to *strongly* disagree with this - the game has to be complete "out the box", and not rely on third parties (ie. modders) to put in needed features, in order for me to even consider buying it. Then again, I consider user-configurable automation to be an essential part of the "core engine" in any case - XR errs on both sides of the spectrum, offering zero automation of some aspects, while others are rigidly automated among predefined and unchangeable rules/behaviours, thereby denying the player the ability to tailor his/her empire (and this applies to BOTH economy AND military assets/pursuits - fail on both counts, which I'm hoping not to see a repeat of.)

Furthermore, modders' skills are highly variable (no denying that there is some excellent talent out there - but there's also a ton of crap, too, and I have no desire to waste time and effort sifting between them), but even more than that, modders have their own visions/perspectives, which often cut against the grain of the spirit of the game. For example, there are a couple of excellent thematic TCs for TC/AP, but while they add features/dimensions that the games can benefit from, they also mess with a lot of stuff that does NOT require fiddling with.

[Skeeter]

I agree, i never use mods just the stock game so i hope features or what not are done by egosoft and they dont just do the bare mechanics like they often do, i hope they flesh out the game more than they have in the past so it has more stuff in from release.

[wolvern]

Picking up on one point...

I would rather Egosoft focus on developing the core engine and delivering capabilities for modders to implement scripts which the community can either use or ignore thereby leveraging the (largely) untapped skills which abound on this forum

I'm afraid I have to *strongly* disagree with this - the game has to be complete "out the box", and not rely on third parties (ie. modders) to put in needed features, in order for me to even consider buying it.

The main issue with Egosoft atm is that they lean extremely too much on the community to fill the holes that shouldn't of been there in a game that has a HEAVY focus on management either of stations or fleets....

They don't expect you to be solo forever and give you tools as such to not be solo in EVERY game yet they build very self destructive menus that don't give us a real chance to ever really control our fleets in any meaningful or management type way. The menus are clunky and have been for a FEW GAMES... Every time they have AI issues people come in to XR / TC / X3 / AP with AI overhaul scripts to help manage them better and the fact this is really needed EVERY game shows a major issue with the AI development.

I've been looking into mapping tools to show how automation should work so that if needed it could be programmed in following the pathway set out.

[carran]

In a perfect world everything would be delivered perfectly functioning - regardless of discipline

But we live in an imperfect world - every project has a scope, timeline and resources, typically two of the three are met, one or two (almost) always slip. Many software project fail, I recall a Gartner report several years ago stated between 66% and 83% of all IT projects fail, 25 years personal experience of consulting for companies bears this out, and no, I am not a jinx

I don't offer the above as an excuse, simply a healthy dose of realism

So I will accept whatever Egosoft deliver, wait patiently for the patches, and at some point in the future enjoy X4. I also hope plenty of people create mods too, not losing sight of the fact that X4 is a game and not real life

[Morkonan]

..EDIT: OMG, ninjad by Morkonan with pretty much the same sentiment. Again.

And lots of :lol:s at the giant rose-bearing torpedoes!

I've noticed we have a lot of the same ideas and suggestions, usually tending to agree with each other very closely.

So, I've begun checking new threads to see if you've posted on them, first, before I do... No need in me saying the exact same thing as you, but taking far too many words to say it.

And, if I'm going to bloviate all over the place, I might as well attempt to give anyone who actually reads it a bit of entertainment along the way.

And, I really do want GIANT EXPLODEY TORPEDO delivery missions. The roses are a nice option, though. I certainly want to send them a "Get Well Soon" card or something, though... No need to be rude, right?

[Custom_Script_name](Player_name)"Special Delivery"
{on enter_sector}
command: Scan_for_enemy
{on_detect_enemy_pirate}
set_target(enemy_pirate)
command:move_to(current_target)[weaponrange=GIANT_EXPLODEY_TORPEDO]
broadcast_general_channel_1 "SPECIAL DELIVERY FOR MISTER PIRATE!"
command:launch(GIANT_EXPLODEY_TORPEDO)
broadcast_general_channel_1 "GET WELL SOON!"


Or... whatever. Everything necessary to create, using options, drop-downs, plugged in scripts, etc, should be available to me so that, if I wish, I can make this happen.

And, it'd be very, very, nice if scripts could be easily exchanged between players, like a "plug-in" system. The game would have its own, basic, command scripts and they'd be simplified, allowing novice players to fully complete the game with all sorts of basic logistics scripts. But, if they wished, they could create their own to tailor behaviors to their specific needs. And, if they happened to create one that was really interesting or if they created a whole set of behaviors for all assets associated with a particular game process, they could upload the set of scripts so that others could use them, too. All they'd need to do is select the appropriate ships and variables and they'd be off and running someone's custom script.

Heck, if there were no custom elements necessary, one may be able to just plug/play custom scripts as "mods", much like what is already done in X3TC, at least. And, because it's just scripts, it could be done "non-destructively", without ruining a save. (though, there'd have to be some background ruleset that prevented assets from being orphaned if they loaded without their generating script present.)

PS - I'm no codemonkey. I haven't written anything since BASIC, if one doesn't include MS Access junk, which is hardly "coding."

....As mentioned factorio and other games do this really well and the tools are exactly what i'm asking for as well....

Then, that's exactly the sort of thing that we need.

Lots of games provide the player with the ability to customize a game's assets in terms of behaviors and the like. What we need are a basic set of scripts that a player can use, without much more modification than CLS script takes, that the player can actually "finish the game with." But, paired with that would be a very deep logic system that more adventurous players, or those looking to do very complex things, could easily access in order to create very detailed behavior and decision-point scripts, some that could activate other scripts based on a set of variables and trigger events.

That's pretty much what X3TC's scripts can do, but there have been things that were nearly impossible to do with the functions that were exposed. Often complex workarounds were needed for things that one would think should be easy to do. (resupplying a carrier's fighters, for instance, had quirks that had to be dealt with, when there should have been a function available to do that, easily. developing a template for mass-producing fighters was also difficult, requiring complex resupplyl workarounds to get them all equipped the same, etc..)

Those sorts of things need to be built in and "touchable" by scripts and customizations.

[wolvern]

That's pretty much what X3TC's scripts can do, but there have been things that were nearly impossible to do with the functions that were exposed. Often complex workarounds were needed for things that one would think should be easy to do. (resupplying a carrier's fighters, for instance, had quirks that had to be dealt with, when there should have been a function available to do that, easily. developing a template for mass-producing fighters was also difficult, requiring complex resupplyl workarounds to get them all equipped the same, etc..)

Those sorts of things need to be built in and "touchable" by scripts and customizations.

I've been thinking to get a little group together to run through a command flowchart idea that's a little too complex for just typing out, i'd rather those bubbles with strings to connect everything as many loop back on themselves.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

For any general AI to be useful, it needs to expose a number of variables to be
configured by the player.

Let us take as an example fleeing when under fire / retreat. (XRebirth)

A very simple function may use just two variables, with a switch to choose between them.

A) Level of Shields remaining.
or
B) Level of Hull remaining.

So in the UI we could have a couple of sliders and some radio buttons.
To select whether we want to use shields or hull and the %age remaining
before the captain of the ship starts his retreat.

A more complex function might also take account of the morale of the
captain 1-5 stars, the number of usable turrets remaining on the ship, the state of
the ships engines. With no jump drive the only way to flee will be to boost away
so the engines are going to be important.

Then also add in the race of the captain as yet another factor.

Now each of these additional factors may have a level of sensitivity that can also be
tweaked by the player. Some of these factors may have a random chance of occurring
if the ship is under fire.

So for Captains Morale a value of 0.1 to 0.5 say.
So the values could be tweaked to be between

1 Star 0.1 to 1.5 -- Likely to lose his nerve and flee despite other selections made (possibly random chance)
2 Star 1.6 to 2.5
3 Star 2.6 to 3.5
4 Star 3.6 to 4.5
5 Star 4.6 to 5.5 -- A berserker likely to stay and die despite any other settings.

Now we have targetable sub-systems such as turrets, we may want to be able to specify
how many undestroyed turrets are left as another variable to be considered for a fleeing mechanism.

So we could add another slider to the UI to cater for %age turrets still usable.

Remember the engines, we need those to be operational if we are to boost, so another UI
element to cater for the engines coming under fire and %age available.

So quite a lot of work to control the AI when under fire, just to make a decision on whether to flee.

---------------------------------------------------

Now comes the hard part performing the actual manoeuvre (a movement or series of moves requiring skill and care.)

So the captain has to align the ship as quick as possible and then boost away to allow his ship to recover.

Then we have the skills of the engineer and the number of repair drones to consider.
The order in which each of the sub-systems is repaired, how much of each sub-system to
repair before starting the next in the sequence.

The captain then has the decision of when to return to combat. At what level of repair for each
of the sub-systems is going to be acceptable before he is ready to return to the fray.

If we expose all of these things to the player we could end up with quite a lot of UI elements to
control these behaviours. Something that could be quite confusing for players just starting the game.
So now we need to have some sensible defaults. This is were it gets tricky because nobody is going
to be happy with these.

A code monkey: A term for a computer programmer, sometimes considered an insulting or derogatory oversimplification of their skill set.

As someone who works as a professional software developer I find this insulting.

[wolvern]

If we expose all of these things to the player we could end up with quite a lot of UI elements to
control these behaviours. Something that could be quite confusing for players just starting the game.
So now we need to have some sensible defaults. This is were it gets tricky because nobody is going
to be happy with these.

A code monkey: A term for a computer programmer, sometimes considered an insulting or derogatory oversimplification of their skill set.

As someone who works as a professional software developer I find this insulting.

Actually we don't need to expose a lot of UI elements to the player at all for every variable, as said, taking into account modules left along with shield and hull levels. I would never need to setup the fleets response, i don't need to tell them to hold it at all costs, they'd either decide to play it safe because they're in charge of a ship full of 50+ people or they'd risk their own life based on everything going on.

A ship has lost engines and ability to do nearly anything but shoot, as such other ships would cover them using a heavy warship to do so as possible if repairs are able to be conducted under a winnable situation. If not they'd state they're evacuating the ship and scuttle it thus no UI options needed.

I don't need to tell every ship to pull out when X items or things are at stake, i just need a few words in terms of their stance.

=============
Options for all ships in detail for specific ships / class or size menu (M1/M2/M3/Any) / groups or fleets (do not confuse them as the same as group 1 traders may be free traders and group 2 traders might be personal station traders):

Ship state options in details menu:
-------------
Careful (runs from fights they can't win or when damaged up to a certain point depending on stars of morale / modules left / fighting capacity of enemy compared). This would also allow my fleets to call in support if needed to defeat a group i've told them to fight, like npcs do quite often. They know the numbers and what they're up against so they should know to play it safe and try to have overwhelming force to take such target out.

Aggressive (Fights for a longer time and is expected to perform under WARTIME conditions where fleeing is not expected)

Defensive (Will fight to protect but will not try to put ships in danger, depending on the ship it'll either die trying to protect the target / station but may still flee if outnumbered or a higher status target is under attack)
-i'll note that with grouping you could also add priority to ships so they are treated as higher value targets and as such come first. This would mean that defensive would tell smaller ships like a missile boat to distract or take the targets attention as much as it can so the command ship can leave.

Avoid conflict: (tells the ship to keep going no matter what and if needed fly somewhere else to escape)

==============
Avoidance policy in details menu:
Avoid these types of enemies based on group setting / size / ship type / other. Also tells ships to avoid sectors but applies to whatever group you suggest it to. Battleships might not need to avoid the same sectors as trade ships, same with faster ships may easily break through enemy areas.
==============

Fight tactics details menu:

Dealing with ships
===
Kill modules first / engines first?

Board the ship?

Force Surrender?

Kill and salvage?

Hit and run?
---
Formations (yes somehow this was lost when going to XR which could of helped with combat and moving multiple ships at once)

Loose formation / x / v / star / wall / line
These are good for moving ships without them colliding all the time, keeps them able to engage enemy at the same time or cover each other depending on the formation and priority of the ship. I consider this area of formations also mostly for storing ships and nothing else too much. Line being the best formation for moving many ship at once.

Protection formation:
Will always keep the highest value ships and ones with least firepower covered by ones with the most, depending on their role they'll also take up the best firing angles to maximise damage on enemies.

There's a few ideas here but basically it's not entirely well thought out right now, if i worked with a mind map program i could easily sort out everything i need.


================

Main combat commands for ships (these could have submenus as needed)
------------------------------
Defensive (area / sector group): Try hold the position at all costs and do not chase far. This doesn't let the ship move unlike patrol / guard / protect menu option because in that one it lets them fly around more. This is good for blockades or holding a gate.

Offensive: hunt down and kill enemies, give chase

Patrol / Guard / Protect (area / ships): patrol these sectors / zones / areas in list in a circular pattern if able. Can select a group or specific ships to guard and head towards if they are in danger.

Passive: Flee all attackers towards stations or larger allied / neutral ships for aid. The ship will not try and protect or aid others but only look after itself.
=================

Trade commands for ships
------------------------------
Free trade:
Open trade with all types and races with no limits other than the sector avoidance list (Also covers enemy sectors by default / avoid and fly around any shoot on sight enemy if possible)

Trade (My stations):
No longer would you need to assign ships to stations specifically or have them wait around, they'd trade with all your stations and help move supplies away or to them based on how close they are from the needed supplies or station (This would also follow the priority list which can be set to work on stock levels of imports or exports needed, can be set to have higher import priority or export priority tho)

Import (My stations / Other stations)
This will turn the ship into a supply ship for all stations under it's group selected or specific stations chosen / sectors chosen.

Export: Same as above but outbound only

--
-The new trade menu frees up ships and stops them all being confined and listed under specific stations only, it would stop massive menu issues as i could name a ship Rahanas C&E export 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 and keep them all under the same group but also tell them to all work within the confines of 1 area within 5-10 zones and thus like in XR or otherwise have like a home of light group, cold star group, OL / AL / DV group that work within that area of sectors.

The new defence menu and grouping means i can have specific zones for specific fleets to patrol and also defend so i could have a DV army / OL army and so on. My combat ships won't go and get blown up for no reason and i can setup their own avoidance menu.
--

=================

Good part about grouping:

-Grouping can have specific list names

-Each group can cover numbers of sectors / ships / stations

-You can have many as groups as you wish

-You can specifically select stations / sectors / ships to work with instead but this is more in depth and takes more time to setup

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

@wolvern

Actually we don't need to expose a lot of UI elements to the player at all for every variable, as said, taking into account modules left along with shield and hull levels. I would never need to setup the fleets response, i don't need to tell them to hold it at all costs, they'd either decide to play it safe because they're in charge of a ship full of 50+ people or they'd risk their own life based on everything going on.

You are putting human value judgements on to an AI.
You are expecting an AI to show human like behaviour.
You want this behaviour to be the way you would do these things.

I gave the previous as an example of how simple or complicated an easy
seeming piece of AI behaviour could be. This is not the actual calculation in Rebirth.

However when this AI behaviour was introduced to X-Rebirth is caused an uproar.
Why? Well nobody really knew what factors were controlling it.

So for some people the ships were running away far to frequently and
this made for a poor battle. For others they did not flee sufficiently quickly
and their manoeuvring was poor and they got destroyed before they could
get away.

Whenever the AI does something that does not conform to that persons
expectations, they usually end up calling it dumb.

When they know what factors have an effect on AI (life) and they have some control
over it, then they are generally happier.

[Cabrelbeuk]

Well we might not need everything listed, but there is definitly some good ideas here.

Micro management in all 4X is a pain to adjust as at some point you get an empire to manage, but still need to put the early-mid game interesting.
Even if X series is different in a lot of way, it is still 4X with still this idea of building your own empire.

Anyway, I will see what will actually be in the final release. My first wish is the game to be free of bugs and fully playable at release.

[wolvern]

You are putting human value judgements on to an AI.
You are expecting an AI to show human like behaviour.
You want this behaviour to be the way you would do these things.

I gave the previous as an example of how simple or complicated an easy
seeming piece of AI behaviour could be. This is not the actual calculation in Rebirth.

However when this AI behaviour was introduced to X-Rebirth is caused an uproar.
Why? Well nobody really knew what factors were controlling it.

Not enough information can be a bad thing and yes without giving people an idea of what's going on will cause such uproar but the reason i give these menu options is to show more behaviour and give people a little more of an informed choice in how the ships react. In many RTS games you have such behaviour options and people generally know what they mean. Using a standard style format that follows through many other games would help people understand at a glance what might happen.

"You are putting human value judgements on to an AI."

Actually i'm telling them to follow a numbered priority order in terms of what to do first in terms of defence.

[Morkonan]

I've been thinking to get a little group together to run through a command flowchart idea that's a little too complex for just typing out, i'd rather those bubbles with strings to connect everything as many loop back on themselves.

https://www.draw.io/

Egosoft has a devnet, if you're the tech type. The above can save to popular doc spaces or your device. (I used to use Smardraw, but this seems to be a decent free solution.)

[Morkonan]

...As someone who works as a professional software developer I find this insulting.

I use it as a term of endearment and one that also emphasizes my ignorance-of-coding as well as a bit of respect for those who "do coding." It hearkens back to the Codemonkey song, a bit of sympathy for those who have worked their hard way up the coder-latter, which is often filled at the lower rungs with young people who are viewed as disposable by senior management.

No offense was intended at all.

...If we expose all of these things to the player we could end up with quite a lot of UI elements to control these behaviours. Something that could be quite confusing for players just starting the game. So now we need to have some sensible defaults. This is were it gets tricky because nobody is going to be happy with these.

I agree with the underlying premise, but disagree a bit with a player's eventual, once they have learned the "rules" happiness with their general ability to use either the default behavior sets or their own tweaked versions.

Eventually, the additional scripts and editing functions available to the player in X3TC made constructing your logistics network a very valuable "meta-game." I'd have to say that it becomes much more than a meta-game, as its intrinsic to so many sorts of playthroughs engaged in by players in this sandbox game.

Many similar sandbox games have the same gaming elements in terms of logistics and planning or using customized behavior sets in order to accomplish a goal.

Part of a player's own satisfaction with a game comes from their experience with the game's rules, how those work in practical use, and their own manipulation of those rules in order to accomplish a goal. Mastering those rules gives a player great satisfaction. A simple game of "Space Invaders", where the player learns to time their shots at the precise moment the invaders advance to the next rank and speed up their pace gives just as much of a feeling of "mastering the game" as an X game player who has finally managed to complete a complex chain of logistics that will, eventually, enable them to deliver a few things to some strange Boron who has far too much warehouse space...

The forums are full of questions, interesting comments, lots of claims of victory, many discussions surrounding strategy, long pages of discussions regarding construction... all about the in-game behaviors of player assets and the scripts that drive them.

It's a huge part of X3TC/AP and we're now discussing the possibilities, across the board, of an "X4" title. Not "XR", but "X4."

So, when thinking about what one may wish to expand or improve upon in a title in a series, what does one try to focus on? Well, one thing a developer should focus on is something that players liked about previous games in the series. This means that X4 must have, if it's to be a sensible continuation of the series, expanded and improved upon scripted behaviors.

No, it's not easy. It's going to take some planning, to be sure. There will be instances during development when it will have to be changed as new elements are introduced. But, it has to be done.

Examples of the sort of "basic" scripts that, for some reason, you say nobody will be happy with are already in X3TC. Why were players ever not happy with those? The primary reason was the same reason that some players get frustrated with any other game - They haven't yet learned the "rules." That's a gameplay element, so you can't overcome it by... removing it. Players have to learn the rules, else they'll never have the satisfaction of learning to use them.

There is little one can't accomplish, with some workarounds using one's advanced knowledge of the game's rules, in X3TC that is meaningful to gameplay. There were a few "advanced complaints" regarding certain behavior sets or the shortcomings of others. Those are the sorts of things that need to be addressed for X4.

Could we have even deeper control? Sure, I think that's possible. Could that control horribly screw up someone's game? Perhaps it could. But, any low-level control over a game's mechanics could do that. How many games have warning popups advising the player that "Here be dragons" when they press the "Edit" button?

A player can play through X3TC without creating the complexity of logistics and ambitious manipulation of script variables that truly advanced players are capable of. If they understand the basics, they can get product x to place y with a few keystrokes. They can automate that, too, with just a little bit more effort. They can eventually progress, if they wish, to more complex, automated, logistics, only occasionally needing player input for obvious tasks.

All I "want" is a few features and behaviors that weren't available to us in X3TC and who's absence was often lamented on the forums. I'd "like" an increased ability for deeper customization of behaviors for advanced players. I'd also like a better UI, one that is a little bit more informative and one that doesn't require me, for instance, to run a separate command and view a text file in order to figure out why a particular set of nested commands is screwing up my CLS's behavior.

[wolvern]

...If we expose all of these things to the player we could end up with quite a lot of UI elements to control these behaviours. Something that could be quite confusing for players just starting the game. So now we need to have some sensible defaults. This is were it gets tricky because nobody is going to be happy with these.

I agree with the underlying premise, but disagree a bit with a player's eventual, once they have learned the "rules" happiness with their general ability to use either the default behavior sets or their own tweaked versions.

Actually there's a way to fix this issue entirely...

As mentioned before, with sims like full automation to no automation or even at the least very minimal. We could give users the ability to see more than one interface type, each one being extensive or basic depending on choice of how they want to manage the universe.

So imagine they select advanced rather than basic in the gameplay menu for management? different option for universe management as is but you could tell everything to manage itself but then override parts with manual input using this advanced menu.

Thus you have a semi-automatic system where you can go ahead and play the game but come back later and if you don't like what ships are doing with automatic management you can override them and use the advanced menu to manually set them up.

A mod in X3 actually expanded the menus into a much deeper management system which had all the avoidance options and other things

https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=246767

This is actually a little into what i'm expecting, even tho this is just for defence.