[FEEDBACK] [7.5B7+] A problem: Stations, combat balance, and faction response

[Buzz2005]

how it's not an issue if npc factions lose stations to one destroyer, its a balance issue that i really don't like

[LameFox]

how it's not an issue if npc factions lose stations to one destroyer, its a balance issue that i really don't like

Right but it's not one you have to deal with as a player. I mean I'm not a fan of the current situation as I've outlined earlier; I think there's a lot that could be better about how stations and ships interact. But it's a problem for the devs. We really don't have issues defending against lone destroyers (I hope), whether it's our own property or keeping other factions alive. And while it might (potentially—I mean they do have other ships kicking around) make their lines more fluid, I don't think it likely changes the balance between them a whole lot, since it applies to most of them. Split being an exception but they were already not very competitive without help.

[adeine]

Well you could also do it by buffing L turret range or nerfing destroyer main gun range. However in that case the sheer volume of the relevant L turrets is going to make strategically destroying them harder. There are so many of them to target. You'd just end up with a game world where all destroyers are in the same situation as Rattlesnakes are, and stations pretty much counter everything except raw numbers or player intervention (hacking, personal turret removal).

The idea behind adding a new module is that it's limited to one role, and with only a few big turrets it's more realistic for AI controlled ships to kill them. Like maybe your average defence platform has only 8 of these turrets in total. With fewer L turrets on top of that, you create a more exploitable weakness for fighters or players intentionally flying "under" the big guns due to low tracking. Currently if you want to send fighters against a station, even with good surface-clearing weapons, it always seems to be a massacre.

This is kind of the situation in prior versions of the game, since destroyers just flew into range, and has always been the case for Xenon vs other factions (since they cannot outrange at all). So if you gave stations the range to engage capital ships and changed nothing else, it'd be similar to what it used to be.

Stripping turrets and surface elements is another one of those things that has seen wild swings in OOS combat - there were versions of the game where destroyers were completely ineffective and would circle endlessly OOS because stripping turrets was so effective essentially everything was disarmed instantly. Right now it doesn't really seem to happen at all. I think there's at least an opportunity to get balancing right.

For what it's worth I think it's fine that attacking fortified installations incurs losses, especially for AI factions. More than being about numbers, it'd make the simulation a lot more believable if AI factions attacked stations in such a way (sending in bombers/fighters to disarm turrets, attacking with destroyers).

Tend to agree. Wasn't as though it was difficult to mitigate over-enthusiastic destroyers, simply by paying close attention to the siege, giving new move & attack orders at appropriate intervals to ensure they wouldn't fly too close. Thoroughly doing enjoyed that, felt I had an important command & control role in the fleet. It was satisfying to demolish stations without casualties knowing that without my intervention that may not have been the case. However the mob demanded fire & forget station demolition without risk & this is where we ended up.

I felt it was very painful to do so, and I think most people felt that way. Wrangling the quirks of the AI is not particularly fun gameplay.

It'd be a lot more fun to have defence modules that are balanced such that they have an actual purpose and require a more immersive challenge to destroy without casualties.

[LameFox]

This is kind of the situation in prior versions of the game, since destroyers just flew into range, and has always been the case for Xenon vs other factions (since they cannot outrange at all). So if you gave stations the range to engage capital ships and changed nothing else, it'd be similar to what it used to be.

Stripping turrets and surface elements is another one of those things that has seen wild swings in OOS combat - there were versions of the game where destroyers were completely ineffective and would circle endlessly OOS because stripping turrets was so effective essentially everything was disarmed instantly. Right now it doesn't really seem to happen at all. I think there's at least an opportunity to get balancing right.

For what it's worth I think it's fine that attacking fortified installations incurs losses, especially for AI factions. More than being about numbers, it'd make the simulation a lot more believable if AI factions attacked stations in such a way (sending in bombers/fighters to disarm turrets, attacking with destroyers).

Was the old state actually good, though? I always thought ships going into range to fight a station felt a bit like a WWI bayonet charge into barbed wire and machinegun fire. Not in a cinematic way, just in the sense that it's very costly and achieves very little (and the combatants keep getting stuck on obstacles).

I suspect that's why the focus was always on destroyers to begin with: they at least *could* stay at range, and people were just frustrated they had to babysit them to say "actually, don't fly into certain death for no reason, thanks". Meanwhile S and M ships performed so badly, I think most people just tried it a few times and wrote them off as not close enough to decent to be fixable.

[adeine]

Was the old state actually good, though? I always thought ships going into range to fight a station felt a bit like a WWI bayonet charge into barbed wire and machinegun fire. Not in a cinematic way, just in the sense that it's very costly and achieves very little (and the combatants keep getting stuck on obstacles).

I suspect that's why the focus was always on destroyers to begin with: they at least *could* stay at range, and people were just frustrated they had to babysit them to say "actually, don't fly into certain death for no reason, thanks". Meanwhile S and M ships performed so badly, I think most people just tried it a few times and wrote them off as not close enough to decent to be fixable.

No, as I said in the OP it's been a fundamental issue with station vs ship balancing from the beginning of X4.

I think the best solution is something along the lines of:

• Station L/XL turrets outrange ship turrets
• AI can use wings of bombers/fighters to try and disarm L/XL turrets with some success and attempts to do so first when attacking stations (this can also be offered as missions for the player which would then make more sense)
• Destroyers prioritise shooting at L/XL turrets that are firing on them when attacking installations

[jlehtone]

how it's not an issue if npc factions lose stations to one destroyer, its a balance issue that i really don't like

Right but it's not one you have to deal with as a player. I mean I'm not a fan of the current situation as I've outlined earlier; I think there's a lot that could be better about how stations and ships interact. But it's a problem for the devs. We really don't have issues defending against lone destroyers (I hope), whether it's our own property or keeping other factions alive. And while it might (potentially—I mean they do have other ships kicking around) make their lines more fluid, I don't think it likely changes the balance between them a whole lot, since it applies to most of them. Split being an exception but they were already not very competitive without help.

Even on current 7.10 a lone NPC Destroyer can wipe out a Xenon station. You say that 7.5 will be much "worse"?

If we have just NPC Galaxy with no player, there is a "state of equilibrium", where the "simulation" drifts to.
If stations are invulnerable, then ships die and we are at state where stations exist and ships are produced and destroyed constantly. There is "life".
If single ships kill stations, then stations die out, "economy" with them, and attrition takes the rest of ships. Void remains. A very "stable" state.

Actions of player affect where/what the equilibrium is. If the Galaxy is prone to suicide, then player is forced to keep it alive (unless dead/green is the goal).

It is partly a design decision.
Should player be so important that everything crashes with less than maximum effort from player?
Or should the Galaxy be so robust that almost nothing changes whether player does nothing or a lot? (The previous games we more on that side.)

While I like that I can affect things, I don't like if I have to.

[adeine]

Even on current 7.10 a lone NPC Destroyer can wipe out a Xenon station. You say that 7.5 will be much "worse"?

If we have just NPC Galaxy with no player, there is a "state of equilibrium", where the "simulation" drifts to.
If stations are invulnerable, then ships die and we are at state where stations exist and ships are produced and destroyed constantly. There is "life".
If single ships kill stations, then stations die out, "economy" with them, and attrition takes the rest of ships. Void remains. A very "stable" state.

Actions of player affect where/what the equilibrium is. If the Galaxy is prone to suicide, then player is forced to keep it alive (unless dead/green is the goal).

It is partly a design decision.
Should player be so important that everything crashes with less than maximum effort from player?
Or should the Galaxy be so robust that almost nothing changes whether player does nothing or a lot? (The previous games we more on that side.)

While I like that I can affect things, I don't like if I have to.

Case in point:

I decided to create TEM in my main game, and PAR have been doing pretty well fighting on both fronts. TEM were not making much headway before 7.5 with the bulk of their fleet distracted elsewhere but were certainly holding their own.

In 7.5 what happens is PAR have single destroyers flying through TEM territory and systematically dismantling every single one of their stations unopposed. I kept babysitting the Haven for some time, manually boarding the PAR ship parked next to it every couple hours, but it got so tedious I gave up. TEM are completely eradicated now except for their fleet which is still wandering around somewhere.

The same thing is happening with SCA and their headquarters.

Previously these stray destroyers just suicided into turret fire without doing any damage.

[LameFox]

Was the old state actually good, though? I always thought ships going into range to fight a station felt a bit like a WWI bayonet charge into barbed wire and machinegun fire. Not in a cinematic way, just in the sense that it's very costly and achieves very little (and the combatants keep getting stuck on obstacles).

I suspect that's why the focus was always on destroyers to begin with: they at least *could* stay at range, and people were just frustrated they had to babysit them to say "actually, don't fly into certain death for no reason, thanks". Meanwhile S and M ships performed so badly, I think most people just tried it a few times and wrote them off as not close enough to decent to be fixable.

No, as I said in the OP it's been a fundamental issue with station vs ship balancing from the beginning of X4.

I think the best solution is something along the lines of:

• Station L/XL turrets outrange ship turrets
• AI can use wings of bombers/fighters to try and disarm L/XL turrets with some success and attempts to do so first when attacking stations (this can also be offered as missions for the player which would then make more sense)
• Destroyers prioritise shooting at L/XL turrets that are firing on them when attacking installations

I mean it's worth a shot, but my suspicion is that the S/M ships wouldn't add much without other changes to make their lives easier. Even in custom starts where I've sent large max-skilled groups of bombers at a station, just to see if it would help, the results were horrible. But I guess it's something they could try out incrementally.

Ships/turrets prioritizing surface elements more intelligently would definitely be a welcome change in any case.

[Buzz2005]

Even on current 7.10 a lone NPC Destroyer can wipe out a Xenon station. You say that 7.5 will be much "worse"?

If we have just NPC Galaxy with no player, there is a "state of equilibrium", where the "simulation" drifts to.
If stations are invulnerable, then ships die and we are at state where stations exist and ships are produced and destroyed constantly. There is "life".
If single ships kill stations, then stations die out, "economy" with them, and attrition takes the rest of ships. Void remains. A very "stable" state.

Actions of player affect where/what the equilibrium is. If the Galaxy is prone to suicide, then player is forced to keep it alive (unless dead/green is the goal).

It is partly a design decision.
Should player be so important that everything crashes with less than maximum effort from player?
Or should the Galaxy be so robust that almost nothing changes whether player does nothing or a lot? (The previous games we more on that side.)

While I like that I can affect things, I don't like if I have to.

Case in point:

I decided to create TEM in my main game, and PAR have been doing pretty well fighting on both fronts. TEM were not making much headway before 7.5 with the bulk of their fleet distracted elsewhere but were certainly holding their own.

In 7.5 what happens is PAR have single destroyers flying through TEM territory and systematically dismantling every single one of their stations unopposed. I kept babysitting the Haven for some time, manually boarding the PAR ship parked next to it every couple hours, but it got so tedious I gave up. TEM are completely eradicated now except for their fleet which is still wandering around somewhere.

The same thing is happening with SCA and their headquarters.

Previously these stray destroyers just suicided into turret fire without doing any damage.

exactly the bad balance im talking about, I dont see how its not something I as a player will not bother with? I would rather have ships get killed OOS vs stations and have an economy running producing them, and have high attention with all kinds of outcomes (npc or player), now it seems they just stay in range IS and OOS

[magitsu]

It is partly a design decision.
Should player be so important that everything crashes with less than maximum effort from player?
Or should the Galaxy be so robust that almost nothing changes whether player does nothing or a lot? (The previous games we more on that side.)

While I like that I can affect things, I don't like if I have to.

Good point.

Progression from spacesuit to terraforming suggests that player is very important. Terraforming probably should not exist, the time scale is one of the weird things compared to headcanon of living a few years of single characters adult life. But terraforming is not something that is ultimately necessary to do. Saving the Split is not necessary as well if we just settle with the idea that it maybe is intended.

Hopefully the diplomacy patch leads to something which further improves that "While I like that I can affect things, I don't like if I have to.".

[flywlyx]

I think the best solution is something along the lines of:

• Station L/XL turrets outrange ship turrets
• AI can use wings of bombers/fighters to try and disarm L/XL turrets with some success and attempts to do so first when attacking stations (this can also be offered as missions for the player which would then make more sense)
• Destroyers prioritise shooting at L/XL turrets that are firing on them when attacking installations

I believe this is more of an AI issue rather than a station or ship balance issue. AI faction patrol fleets should actively engage any threats in their territories instead of waiting for a distress signal and slowly crawling toward a station under siege.
Ideally, the game should encourage active strategies—if it promotes passive play, players will just build a defense station and call it a day. In fact, many players are already doing this; I’ve seen countless players recommending a four-disc defense station to completely shut down the Xenon threat.
Fixing AI issues by pushing passive gameplay isn’t a good solution.

I mean it's worth a shot, but my suspicion is that the S/M ships wouldn't add much without other changes to make their lives easier. Even in custom starts where I've sent large max-skilled groups of bombers at a station, just to see if it would help, the results were horrible. But I guess it's something they could try out incrementally.

Ships/turrets prioritizing surface elements more intelligently would definitely be a welcome change in any case.

I once saw a video showing torpedo bombers being amazing at station sieges. Have you ever tried using the torpedo bombers?

[Raptor34]

I think the best solution is something along the lines of:

• Station L/XL turrets outrange ship turrets
• AI can use wings of bombers/fighters to try and disarm L/XL turrets with some success and attempts to do so first when attacking stations (this can also be offered as missions for the player which would then make more sense)
• Destroyers prioritise shooting at L/XL turrets that are firing on them when attacking installations

I believe this is more of an AI issue rather than a station or ship balance issue. AI faction patrol fleets should actively engage any threats in their territories instead of waiting for a distress signal and slowly crawling toward a station under siege.
Ideally, the game should encourage active strategies—if it promotes passive play, players will just build a defense station and call it a day. In fact, many players are already doing this; I’ve seen countless players recommending a four-disc defense station to completely shut down the Xenon threat.
Fixing AI issues by pushing passive gameplay isn’t a good solution.

I mean it's worth a shot, but my suspicion is that the S/M ships wouldn't add much without other changes to make their lives easier. Even in custom starts where I've sent large max-skilled groups of bombers at a station, just to see if it would help, the results were horrible. But I guess it's something they could try out incrementally.

Ships/turrets prioritizing surface elements more intelligently would definitely be a welcome change in any case.

I once saw a video showing torpedo bombers being amazing at station sieges. Have you ever tried using the torpedo bombers?

I agree that faction AI should well... exist. It really feels like it doesn't really, at least in respect to warfare atm.
Like I don't know how it works atm, but it seemingly doesn't. If a HOP destroyer fleet of 7 destroyers can completely skip the frontlines and start sieging the wharf in Argon Prime, something is very wrong.
Otoh the fact that factions can expand does mess things up a bit. If borders are fixed then scripting it out is a little easier. You can just preposition QRFs and it'll work. Well, it can still work, but where would you position them? Though it's not worth thinking about unless Egosoft actually shows that they are going to revamp it, like one of those polls.

For active vs. passive. Players naturally want to automate more and more, which is well, passive. Unless you meant something else?
Like Xenon raids are really annoying one way or another and it being easy to suppress is a feature not a bug. Whether the late game Xenon works or not is a separate thing. The crisis needs to be revamped at least.

As for torpedo bombers, how old were those videos? I was given to understand that fighters against stations was basically neutered heavily with the AOE deathplosion.

[flywlyx]

I agree that faction AI should well... exist. It really feels like it doesn't really, at least in respect to warfare atm.
Like I don't know how it works atm, but it seemingly doesn't. If a HOP destroyer fleet of 7 destroyers can completely skip the frontlines and start sieging the wharf in Argon Prime, something is very wrong.
Otoh the fact that factions can expand does mess things up a bit. If borders are fixed then scripting it out is a little easier. You can just preposition QRFs and it'll work. Well, it can still work, but where would you position them? Though it's not worth thinking about unless Egosoft actually shows that they are going to revamp it, like one of those polls.

For active vs. passive. Players naturally want to automate more and more, which is well, passive. Unless you meant something else?
Like Xenon raids are really annoying one way or another and it being easy to suppress is a feature not a bug. Whether the late game Xenon works or not is a separate thing. The crisis needs to be revamped at least.

As for torpedo bombers, how old were those videos? I was given to understand that fighters against stations was basically neutered heavily with the AOE deathplosion.

The biggest issue is that NPC factions are completely unresponsive. Not only do they lack tactical and strategic capabilities, but they also fail to react to obvious threats—like seeing 1I and 3K at a gate and immediately sending their defense fleets to that sector. This seems to be part of a broader lack of situational awareness.

Automation doesn’t mean being passive. For example, if the Xenon changed their fleet composition, forcing players to adjust their defense station setups, the game would still be automated since players don’t directly control stations. However, it would feel more dynamic and engaging. This ties into the "think" aspect of the game—the harder it is to find a universal solution, the more active and strategic the gameplay becomes.

I believe the bomber video was about 7.1, but I’m not entirely sure—probably in one of the 7.1 beta versions.

[Raptor34]

I agree that faction AI should well... exist. It really feels like it doesn't really, at least in respect to warfare atm.
Like I don't know how it works atm, but it seemingly doesn't. If a HOP destroyer fleet of 7 destroyers can completely skip the frontlines and start sieging the wharf in Argon Prime, something is very wrong.
Otoh the fact that factions can expand does mess things up a bit. If borders are fixed then scripting it out is a little easier. You can just preposition QRFs and it'll work. Well, it can still work, but where would you position them? Though it's not worth thinking about unless Egosoft actually shows that they are going to revamp it, like one of those polls.

For active vs. passive. Players naturally want to automate more and more, which is well, passive. Unless you meant something else?
Like Xenon raids are really annoying one way or another and it being easy to suppress is a feature not a bug. Whether the late game Xenon works or not is a separate thing. The crisis needs to be revamped at least.

As for torpedo bombers, how old were those videos? I was given to understand that fighters against stations was basically neutered heavily with the AOE deathplosion.

The biggest issue is that NPC factions are completely unresponsive. Not only do they lack tactical and strategic capabilities, but they also fail to react to obvious threats—like seeing 1I and 3K at a gate and immediately sending their defense fleets to that sector. This seems to be part of a broader lack of situational awareness.

Automation doesn’t mean being passive. For example, if the Xenon changed their fleet composition, forcing players to adjust their defense station setups, the game would still be automated since players don’t directly control stations. However, it would feel more dynamic and engaging. This ties into the "think" aspect of the game—the harder it is to find a universal solution, the more active and strategic the gameplay becomes.

I believe the bomber video was about 7.1, but I’m not entirely sure—probably in one of the 7.1 beta versions.

So a lack of a war AI then.
Because while I agree with ships lacking situational awareness, we need to be able to actually play the game after all, factions lacking them is really inexcusable. An overall AI shouldn't be too taxing to the system. I can imagine an offshoot of the Intercept Bombard system, excepting the detection range is around the gates. So something simple like enemy enter through gate, send ships over.
Or maybe they do lol but it's like a couple fighters and they die quickly and their destroyers are messing around with some other threat somewhere else.

[adeine]

I think the best solution is something along the lines of:

• Station L/XL turrets outrange ship turrets
• AI can use wings of bombers/fighters to try and disarm L/XL turrets with some success and attempts to do so first when attacking stations (this can also be offered as missions for the player which would then make more sense)
• Destroyers prioritise shooting at L/XL turrets that are firing on them when attacking installations

I believe this is more of an AI issue rather than a station or ship balance issue. AI faction patrol fleets should actively engage any threats in their territories instead of waiting for a distress signal and slowly crawling toward a station under siege.
Ideally, the game should encourage active strategies—if it promotes passive play, players will just build a defense station and call it a day. In fact, many players are already doing this; I’ve seen countless players recommending a four-disc defense station to completely shut down the Xenon threat.
Fixing AI issues by pushing passive gameplay isn’t a good solution.

It's not an AI issue. The problem is that if the ships attacking stations outrange them and will just sit at a distance, then there is no point to defence modules existing in the first place. One of the ways to make it work could be to reimagine defence stations as staging points (see option 1 in the OP).

My personal preference would be that stations do have some defensive capabilities so any attack on one would require a concerted effort by the AI or the player alike. Improving fleet response is good and should happen when an actual attack is taking place, but similarly, I think a ship that got lost should not single-handedly be able to destroy a shipyard.

[LameFox]

I once saw a video showing torpedo bombers being amazing at station sieges. Have you ever tried using the torpedo bombers?

During the last beta when torpedoes were changed I tried a few different configurations of them vs some Xenon stations. The torpedoes do more damage obviously but they still took heavy losses, mostly concerning the station itself (there was an improbably large number of interceptors and destroyers there to keep other things away).

[LameFox]

In terms of factions' strategic AI, I do think there is room for improvement, but still would prefer the actual process of successfully attacking a defence platform had a bit more nuance to it.

You may have to be careful with defence fleets re-arranging themselves, though. On one hand it's frustrating to see a faction getting obliterated while it has the means to protect itself and they're just idling somewhere else, but it also seems like something that if overtuned could lead to their ships being wasted in a chain of transits to-and-fro instead, or in some cases accidentally baited to their deaths across hostile space (Xenon and Split especially seem like they'd be vulnerable to this).

[flywlyx]

So a lack of a war AI then.
Because while I agree with ships lacking situational awareness, we need to be able to actually play the game after all, factions lacking them is really inexcusable. An overall AI shouldn't be too taxing to the system. I can imagine an offshoot of the Intercept Bombard system, excepting the detection range is around the gates. So something simple like enemy enter through gate, send ships over.
Or maybe they do lol but it's like a couple fighters and they die quickly and their destroyers are messing around with some other threat somewhere else.

An overall AI system could be a good approach. I doubt players would mind if the AI exchanged information through satellites or a background channel.
However, Egosoft tends to overcomplicate AI behavior, avoiding direct access to background data.

It's not an AI issue. The problem is that if the ships attacking stations outrange them and will just sit at a distance, then there is no point to defence modules existing in the first place. One of the ways to make it work could be to reimagine defence stations as staging points (see option 1 in the OP).

My personal preference would be that stations do have some defensive capabilities so any attack on one would require a concerted effort by the AI or the player alike. Improving fleet response is good and should happen when an actual attack is taking place, but similarly, I think a ship that got lost should not single-handedly be able to destroy a shipyard.

In my view, if defense stations could handle enemies on their own, it would encourage passive gameplay—players could just build stronger stations at the gates and let them solve all the problems.
On the other hand, if the AI were improved and patrol fleets became more effective, players would have to carefully plan their actions when caught by a patrol, considering their next move. That creates a much more engaging and active gameplay experience compared to just relying on stronger stations.

During the last beta when torpedoes were changed I tried a few different configurations of them vs some Xenon stations. The torpedoes do more damage obviously but they still took heavy losses, mostly concerning the station itself (there was an improbably large number of interceptors and destroyers there to keep other things away).

In the video I watched, they maintained perfect distance with no ramming or suicide runs at all. If your testing shows otherwise, it’s possible that a mod was involved.

In terms of factions' strategic AI, I do think there is room for improvement, but still would prefer the actual process of successfully attacking a defence platform had a bit more nuance to it.

You may have to be careful with defence fleets re-arranging themselves, though. On one hand it's frustrating to see a faction getting obliterated while it has the means to protect itself and they're just idling somewhere else, but it also seems like something that if overtuned could lead to their ships being wasted in a chain of transits to-and-fro instead, or in some cases accidentally baited to their deaths across hostile space (Xenon and Split especially seem like they'd be vulnerable to this).

Isn't luring an NPC patrol fleet through a dangerous zone far more interesting than attacking a station with simply bigger guns and thicker armor?

[LameFox]

In the video I watched, they maintained perfect distance with no ramming or suicide runs at all. If your testing shows otherwise, it’s possible that a mod was involved.

Haven't run any mods for a long time, certainly not while those saves were active. It got too annoying always needing to stop what I was doing and reproduce a bug in vanilla to report it.

Isn't luring an NPC patrol fleet through a dangerous zone far more interesting than attacking a station with simply bigger guns and thicker armor?

I'm not talking about you doing it on purpose, rather it seems like something that such a system could easily cause on its own by accident.

[jlehtone]

X3AP had Rapid Response Forces (RRF). They did jump in to deal with hostiles. It was possible to bait them to one spot and send another fleet to the real target. Although, I rather slaughtered them on the spot; there was a delay before respawn, basically as we see things in X4.

Or saw. I remember working on Xenon station and Xenon K's bouncing us, dropping from travel on top of us. Must have been game version 3.x. Now they cruise slowly from far, at best. Not sure whether players did lament about K's popping in, or about player Destroyers traveling into Graviton range. Either way, that fun is gone now.