The most important thing for you in an X game

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Tali$
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu, 5. Jan 12, 15:55
x4

Post by Tali$ » Sun, 12. Nov 17, 12:52

I'd say the most important thing is actually living up to the promises given.

"Dynamic Universe" and "Complex Economy" are what they're offering.

They offered that with X Rebirth and still haven't delivered...

That was the huge draw to X2/X3 (even though the AI was pretty rough, the supply/demand thing was simple and worked).

A universe that you can actually effect. (Was promised, but not delivered as of yet). So wipe out an area, the opposing faction takes notice and doesn't magically rebuild the second you're back.

User avatar
Nikola515
Posts: 3187
Joined: Fri, 4. May 12, 07:40
x4

Post by Nikola515 » Wed, 15. Nov 17, 13:07

Working AI and changing universe where player can make difference....
Last edited by Nikola515 on Wed, 15. Nov 17, 15:12, edited 1 time in total.
It's not world hunger because we can't feed poor,it's because there will never be enough to feed the rich .....

Riccardoman
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu, 9. Nov 17, 18:57
x4

Post by Riccardoman » Wed, 15. Nov 17, 13:23

-decent AI and collisions
-the VASTNESS of space (not emptiness), the idea that there is always something new to discover

grayx
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun, 2. Oct 05, 02:46

Post by grayx » Sun, 19. Nov 17, 15:43

Some nice ideas here. Being a nice read.

Yeah...
- Once upon the time, there was a game called Nexus - The Jupiter Incident. It’s a shame Egosoft was so vain and haven’t used some nice ideas about camera use while narrating, but also game mechanic during capturing, disabling ships and ship’s subsystems and boarding it. Not to mention other examples/games, I'm aware It’s probably not the best use of those things ever, but, that would be the great start. Damn shame.

That said, I hope someone at the Egosoft will read this because it will be one more futile attempt on my part to “help” with my 2c. So, indeed things that should be important are:

- AI (logistical, combat, pathfinding, dynamic quests and the rest what falls under that category)
- intuitive UI (I'm putting this upfront, because of X history and complex multiple-level menus which are a pain in theass to use)
- ability to mod the game, tools and appropriate libs (maybe this should be the first in the list:) )
- dynamic and (as much as possible) non-scripted universe. So, in the essence a Universe simulation light.
- immersion in the world and the story (damn people, I know you love the whole bookish X story, but, compared to the world’s literature peaks, I think we agree it’s slightly above the sea level tbh. Let it go, use it as a scaffolding, but let the game’s X universe evolve his own story and stories. I’ve seen a lot of stories written by members of this forum, which are far more immersive than those sprites in the main game, so ask people here to send you their stories and the reward could be that they will be put in the game and, I dunno, a T-shirt? Kidding aside, I’m dead sure a lot of people will answer that call).
- As for the story (and side-quest stories, prescripted or procedural) as a glue that binds everything, please don’t invent a lightbulb, use the damn “The Seven basic plots”. Or, for those with ADHD here is a short version from YT narrated by Kurt Vonnegut about the Shapes of Stories
- feel of progression and accomplishment.
- Oh, yes, cockpits should be optional. Don’t hide the universe from me. I don’t care about useless placeholders. At all. Actually, hate them.
- interesting prescripted quest-lines,
- interesting but not overly repetitive mini-games like:
- hacking ship for asteroids, sectors, stations and other data or simply for stealing money.
- capturing ships and/or even stations (in some special cases),
- blueprint R&D,
- R&D technology trees for stations size and its efficiency,
- finding and looting old derelict stations or ships,
- chasing comets and anomalies (solar flares, wormholes, super-novae remnants etc...) for scientific side-quests,
- diplomacy (shifting attitudes of some “races” toward war or peace among each other)
- mining (finding high-yield asteroids with specific ore, specific equipment requirements, booring transporting asteroids to different position might be sub-quests related to the mining itself)
- various treasure hunting, NPC interactions ets...
- Give “explore” the real meaning. For example, a satisfaction of finding "things" in the vastness of the Universe (tuning thingies, strange bases with even stranger unique equipment, unique side-quests). I think that “unfocused jump” in the X3 was totally overlooked uncut gem in the terms of exploration gameplay. That part of the game gives you a chance to play with procedurally generated sectors with crazy realities: places where time and space are different than the “normal” one, i.e. where gravity, inertia, and even laws of physics are different, where some ship’s systems don’t work, popping out near neutron star or in the center of some body. Why not, by using “unfocused jump” all bets are off and you probably gonna die anyway and in most cases you should:) No, really, a shame that part of the game wasn’t been exploited way more... It could be the game in itself tbh because only an imagination is a limit)

Oh, there are so many other small and big things, maybe another time... ;)
Last edited by grayx on Mon, 20. Nov 17, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

monster.zero
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue, 16. Feb 16, 22:11
x4

Post by monster.zero » Sun, 19. Nov 17, 23:48

I've never considered the X-series a space game. it's really just a village simulator with a set number of skyboxes. So I'd like to see them finally make it a space game.

I don't care about landing on planets but I'd like the ability to orbit them! And maybe if the space highways circled the planet?..... That would make more sense. ((( The galaxy is moving, the stars are moving, the planets are moving, As someone pointed out: how do the highway keep connected!?!? They would be ripped apart. )))

I'd move the x-series OUT of the Milky Way galaxy and put it in a small globular cluster...maybe a million or so procedural generated systems.

Get the FOUNDATION correct then make a game.
DEC BC ; Decrease the counter
LD A, B ; Load one byte of the counter into the accumulator
OR C ; Bitwise OR with the other byte
JR NZ, Loop

Snafu_X3
Posts: 4472
Joined: Wed, 28. Jan 09, 15:14
x3tc

Post by Snafu_X3 » Mon, 20. Nov 17, 01:55

IMO the 'space highways' are simply restricted areas where local traffic control is enforced, hence leading to faster movementwithin those 'lanes'

Admitedly the X:R 'tunnel' system was gauche from the outside, with its (too) obvious higlighting, but it made a certain amount of sense (albeit not for one-way traffic)

'Highways' need to be made obvious for inter-system traffic, but what's wrong with planting some radar beacons/other structures (beacon lights maybe?) along the fringes at intervals?

To avoid <player> predation these structures could be given the X3 gate orders: attack these & everyone IS goes hostile to you (you're attacking a trade lifeline!), with accompanying rep drop

This way they retain the useability (for S/M traffic) without being /too/ visually obtrusive.. thoughts?
Wiki X:R 1st Tit capping
Wiki X3:TC vanilla: Guide to generic missions, Guide to finding & capping Aran
Never played AP; all X3 advice is based on vanilla+bonus pack TC or before: AP has not changed much WRT general advice.

I know how to spell teladiuminumiumium, I just don't know when to stop!

Dom (Wiki Moderator) 8-) DxDiag

GVariance
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue, 21. Nov 17, 15:41

Post by GVariance » Tue, 21. Nov 17, 15:52

My guess is that a lot of the problem with flight AI is just that the X games are already very CPU intensive. It's probably hard to implement expensive pathfinding algorithms when the rest of the Universe is running in the background. That said maybe modern machines have enough cpu power to muscle past this issue these days?

For me a very simple (partial) fix would have just been to turn off collision damage in the X3-era games. I'm not sure if collision damage was a thing in Rebirth?

The one thing that tends to make/break a game for me is the sound design. I really liked the music/ambience in the older X games. Particularly when it lined up with the strong visual themes of different races/sectors.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon, 10. Apr 06, 20:35
x4

Post by ZaphodBeeblebrox » Tue, 21. Nov 17, 22:26

A lot of pathing issues could be solved very easily. All it needs is for the stations and asteroids to be placed above or below the ecliptic and let the ships have a clear path across the sector.

Why would any intelligent race place stations and gates and everything else inside an asteroid field?

In a real asteroid field, rotating about a star, this would be an incredibly dangerous and stupid thing to do.

Putting a path through an asteroid field so that ships play ping pong with the rocks is dumb looking and ruins the game.

Have the ships fly on a path that avoid rocks. Don't make the game and the AI look stupid.
It was a woman who drove me to drink... you know I never went back and thanked her.

Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.

Snafu_X3
Posts: 4472
Joined: Wed, 28. Jan 09, 15:14
x3tc

Post by Snafu_X3 » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 03:13

ZaphodBeeblebrox wrote:A lot of pathing issues could be solved very easily. All it needs is for the stations and asteroids to be placed above or below the ecliptic and let the ships have a clear path across the sector.
That sounds reasonable & intelligent, but AI pathing in 3D (for /every/ moving object in the X-verse)? We've seen ES' efforts previously & they don't inspire confidence :(
In a real asteroid field, rotating about a star, this would be an incredibly dangerous and stupid thing to do.
In a RL 'roid field you'll be going so slowly you have plenty of time to maneuver; IG (X:R & previous) tho the 'roid fields are too dense & necessary ship speed too high to give the impression that this isn't a choreographed movie with a little player interaction :(
Putting a path through an asteroid field so that ships play ping pong with the rocks is dumb looking and ruins the game.
Umm.. in RL 'roids /do/ move (& often break up into smaller fragments) in unpredictable directions & velocities when they collide with each other, let alone some external entity's interaction! Tracking this chaos is insurmountable for RL astronomers; why shouldn't it be at least difficult for planet/station-bound observers, let alone ship 'scanner' operators?
GVariance wrote:For me a very simple (partial) fix would have just been to turn off collision damage in the X3-era games. I'm not sure if collision damage was a thing in Rebirth?
Heh! It was turned off (reduced to shield dmg only) in early (pre-v2 IIRC) X:R releases for issues to do with pathing + hitbox navigation (or lack thereof). Made for a generally poorer game experience IMO, altho I didn't miss the 'stuck inside station/ship/roid' instadeath part..:(
Wiki X:R 1st Tit capping
Wiki X3:TC vanilla: Guide to generic missions, Guide to finding & capping Aran
Never played AP; all X3 advice is based on vanilla+bonus pack TC or before: AP has not changed much WRT general advice.

I know how to spell teladiuminumiumium, I just don't know when to stop!

Dom (Wiki Moderator) 8-) DxDiag

ZaphodBeeblebrox
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon, 10. Apr 06, 20:35
x4

Post by ZaphodBeeblebrox » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 10:18

An asteroid has an average orbital speed (how fast an object orbits the sun) of 25 kilometers per second. However, asteroids orbiting closer to a sun will move faster than asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter and beyond.

The Teladi Kestrel has a top speed of about 0.6 Km / s.

So yes of course you will have a lot (not) of time to manoeuvre.

So obviously stationary asteroid fields are a game artifact and as such can be placed anywhere.

The real point here is sector design. Would a sector look strange, if all of the rocks were above or below the ecliptic, or would that seem a sensible arrangement? Keep traffic and stations away from dangerous rocks.

Makes pathing a lot simpler
It was a woman who drove me to drink... you know I never went back and thanked her.

Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.

grayx
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun, 2. Oct 05, 02:46

Post by grayx » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 12:11

ZaphodBeeblebrox wrote:A lot of pathing issues could be solved very easily. All it needs is for the stations and asteroids to be placed above or below the ecliptic and let the ships have a clear path across the sector.
[..snippy..]
I agree regarding moving stations out of main pathways through a sector, it's logical and generally it should be done always as a "good practice", but that's, at best, a band-aid for the problem. We are still stuck with probably broken path-finding algorithm, and you can bet it will be an endless source of frustration for the player, whenever s/he is just slightly off into the less beaten paths, which means 99.9% of the game's universe. Being there, done that. Not fun. At all.

I haven't played XR that much to say something definitive about pathfinding, but in X3 I was often *very* annoyed then my (mostly capital) ships start heading in a different direction from I need them to be. I confess, there was some cursing involved, because it was often "important" for them to be where I told them to be...

Yes, a path-finding is not an easy problem, especially in 3D, but I was watching CPU usage for X3 game, and it's obvious it's not the (main) problem. The pathfinding simply hasn't been done properly, period. Terran sectors were a story for itself...

As for the those "tubes, aka Hightways" in XR, it's said a lot about it so no need to beat a dead horse, but I don't understand why Devs persist in using them and it's... strange to me. They simply don't have any logical sense, even if built by type 2 civ under Kardashev Scale (type 3+ Civs. don't need them to start with), or if you think more seriously about it (I could elaborate if need be) and they are braking immersion for me on so many levels.

While I'm at immersion, and the technological level of Civilizations present in the X4:F game, Imo, I think it's more reasonable that majority of factories and GENERALLY, installations of all types (Sancutaries, Equipment and Military bases) were build inside asteroids, comets or some "natural" body that was towed somehow to the desired position , than to be built from the ground up as a standalone installation. I'm aware it's a great change from the present attitude toward "stations" but, it must be said - standalone object not built inside already present object in the universe, must have some special reason to exist at that position and as such. The good example could be EC factories, that require to be as close to the star as possible for obvious reasons, but even they could be built form some asteroid which has been towed somehow to that position...

*My issue with stations and station's interiors*
As we all know Egosoft has finite resources in money an manpower to say the least, I honestly think "walking in station" and station interiors in general are a pure and undiluted waste of time and above-mentioned resources, which could have being used in so much more pressing issues then designing awkward animations for mostly (let be honest) useless NPCs. Those npcs that COULD be useful could have been reached by intercom equally efficiently and most certainly faster. It's not that I like it or not, don't take me wrong, I like all additional "features" of the game, but this is a pure cost-benefit issue for me.

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Post by CBJ » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 14:16

grayx wrote:Yes, a path-finding is not an easy problem, especially in 3D, but I was watching CPU usage for X3 game, and it's obvious it's not the (main) problem. The pathfinding simply hasn't been done properly, period. Terran sectors were a story for itself...
There wasn't any path-finding in X3, period. Ships flew in a straight line towards their target. If something got in the way they'd fly away from it for a bit then resume flying towards their target. Anything more than that was impractical in a single-threaded game.

As various people have already pointed out, the problem with path-finding is not just that it's "hard", it's that it's expensive in CPU time. Remember that this is not a "normal" game which only has to deal with the objects in a particular area; everything, everywhere is being simulated. Some shortcuts can be taken when the player isn't around, but even that doesn't solve everything. Threading also helps, but again it's not a magic bullet.

grayx
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun, 2. Oct 05, 02:46

Post by grayx » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 15:38

CBJ wrote:There wasn't any path-finding in X3, period. Ships flew in a straight line towards their target. If something got in the way they'd fly away from it for a bit then resume flying towards their target.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it falls under the definition of path-finding [algorithms], however trivial it was?
Anything more than that was impractical in a single-threaded game.
Even by your admission, close to non-existant path-finding is not the job done good. Even for a single-threaded game. Close to not having a pathfinding in a simulation game in which path-finding is one of the important elements is not a best thing, to say the least. I think the job should (and could) have being done better, that's all.
As various people have already pointed out, the problem with path-finding is not just that it's "hard", it's that it's expensive in CPU time. Remember that this is not a "normal" game which only has to deal with the objects in a particular area; everything everywhere is being simulated. Some shortcuts can be taken when the player isn't around, but even that doesn't solve everything. Threading also helps, but again it's not a magic bullet.
Let just say, I've done some similar stuff not long time ago, so I'm more than aware about a complexity of the problem. If it was trivial, we wouldn't had this issue. That's why we have a path-finding discussion here, right?

As for 'shortcuts', regarding immersion in the game, if the good path-finding is so taxing on a CPU, I would gladly rather accept collision ignorance in some limited scale (it world be "Oh, it's a game's way to solve the hard problem") than to have a WTF moment looking a stupid ship heading in a wrong way, because it detected something on its path and couldn't properly to handle it.

To cut long story short, I don't know how this... issue will be solved in the X4F, but I would like to see it solved way better than in previous games.

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Post by CBJ » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 16:05

Path-finding means planning a route. There was no planning, and therefore no path-finding. And no, if there was no processing time available to do it at all, it couldn't really have been done "better".

Regarding X4, nobody is going to disagree that improving path-finding is always a good thing, least of all the developers. However I think you'll find less of a consensus than you think among players regarding whether having things just not collide, or collide without damage, is an acceptable alternative.

Edit: Just to clarify one thing, X3 did have path-finding at the galaxy level (a standard A* algorithm used to work out which sectors a ship needed to pass through to get to its destination sector) but not at the sector level.

UniTrader
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Posts: 14571
Joined: Sun, 20. Nov 05, 22:45
x4

Post by UniTrader » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 17:06

CBJ wrote:Edit: Just to clarify one thing, X3 did have path-finding at the galaxy level (a standard A* algorithm used to work out which sectors a ship needed to pass through to get to its destination sector) but not at the sector level.
may i also add that A* is not suited for finding a Path through empty space because it uses Nodes and their Connections to find a path. To make it work the each Zone would have to be filled with thousands if not Millions of Nodes, which would need even more Connections. Just saying because using A* is often suggested for this, even though it makes no sense at all...
if not stated otherwise everything i post is licensed under WTFPL

Ich mache keine S&M-Auftragsarbeiten, aber wenn es fragen gibt wie man etwas umsetzen kann helfe ich gerne weiter ;)

I wont do Script&Mod Request work, but if there are questions how to do something i will GLaDly help ;)

GVariance
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue, 21. Nov 17, 15:41

Post by GVariance » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 20:29

Snafu_X3 wrote:
GVariance wrote:For me a very simple (partial) fix would have just been to turn off collision damage in the X3-era games. I'm not sure if collision damage was a thing in Rebirth?
Heh! It was turned off (reduced to shield dmg only) in early (pre-v2 IIRC) X:R releases for issues to do with pathing + hitbox navigation (or lack thereof). Made for a generally poorer game experience IMO, altho I didn't miss the 'stuck inside station/ship/roid' instadeath part..:(
Maybe it would be a good idea for a menu option then. So you can turn off collision damage for those moments when you're trying to coax your 100-strong fleet through a jump gate, that kind of thing.

Or maybe just turn off damage between two AI objects, but keep it for the player. It's always going to be a trade off against immersion though I guess.

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30368
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Post by Alan Phipps » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 21:24

@ GVariance: The 'make it optional' suggestion is never that easy though. It would perhaps mean needing two different pathing and object-avoidance algorithms + sets of scripts/MD code for with and without collision detection and avoidance. Just turning off collision damage would not change the navigational issues, in my opinion.

That is without even considering the needs of bullets, missiles and even ramming tactics.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

Kitty
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon, 5. Sep 05, 19:59
x3tc

Post by Kitty » Wed, 22. Nov 17, 22:29

UniTrader wrote:may i also add that A* is not suited for finding a Path through empty space because it uses Nodes and their Connections to find a path. To make it work the each Zone would have to be filled with thousands if not Millions of Nodes, which would need even more Connections. Just saying because using A* is often suggested for this, even though it makes no sense at all...
Sure.
To run an A*, adding thousands of nodes looks like foolish and stupid. You need to have 6 points per obstacle, plus source and destination. For line building, something like Voronoy should give you a way to choose which point to link to which ones. This is suboptimal, but should work, with much less nodes ! :D (and still kill your CPU)
Anyway, there are far better algorithms. :P

For each complex problem, ther is a simple solution... that does not work... But, be happy ! There are also complex ones !

gbjbaanb
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat, 25. Dec 10, 23:07
x3tc

Post by gbjbaanb » Fri, 24. Nov 17, 00:15

A* on a very large data set is not foolish and stupid - we use it 9or something very like it) every day if you use Google maps directions. The UK road network is massive - we have so many tiny bits of road with roundabouts and junctions that it is millions of nodes).

So a route plotting system that handled a few million nodes isn't impractical at all. A* I think wouldn't suffice, but more modern route-finding algorithms exist such as hub labelling that can compute a path across the entire USA in a "fraction of a microsecond" (I didn't read what CPU they used for that statement!), or Contraction Hierarchies that reduce long-range pathfinding to really fast routing.

So the biggest problem for ES is not the algorithm speed but the ability to route between moving objects, though if you restrict this to stationary objects such as stations, gates (ahem!) and the like, then it should work brilliantly. For other elements, such as moving ships like trade or casino or pirate bases, then simply route to the closest object and then use a 'follow' style system.

As for obstacles, I can't see the problem there either - surely every object has a bouncing sphere around it, when you notice your ship is going to intersect that bounding area, redirect the path to the edge of the sphere. Then ships will happily pass by obstacles. That should also help with closely packed obstacles like asteroids - AI ships won;t fly between them as the bounding box will be big enough for the asteroids to effectively become a single large entity that can be bypassed entirely.

Kitty
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon, 5. Sep 05, 19:59
x3tc

Post by Kitty » Fri, 24. Nov 17, 19:34

gbjbaanb wrote:A* on a very large data set is not foolish and stupid - we use it 9or something very like it) every day if you use Google maps directions. The UK road network is massive - we have so many tiny bits of road with roundabouts and junctions that it is millions of nodes).
These sw use optimized versions for 2D sparse graphs where roads usually won't cross.

X games have to find routes for thousands of ships, in 3D continuous space, update them, and still continue to run the economy and still be able to display your screen at 80fps. Well. That's hardly comparable.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”