Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: What. The F*%&.  (Read 4567 times)

Daynen

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
What. The F*%&.
« on: November 28, 2019, 04:58:34 AM »

Scenario.

High tier Luddic Path station.  Allies and enemy reinforcements.  Glorious battle.  Going our way.

Prometheus mk 2 in my fleet.  Cautious officer.  Missile spec, fighter skills, total missile carrier guy.  Perfect match for the ship, IMHO.

He's taking a few good hits and starting to lose a lot of hull (for SOME REASON--remember he's CAUTIOUS.)  I order him to back off to a nice safe distance while I finish the job.  You know...because I'm a responsible commander who pays attention to the battle situation and I don't want to lose an expensive, well-kitted ship I had to fight for.

What does he do?

Does he:
A: Back off as ordered?
B: Stay put?
C: nimbly dodge incoming fire while maneuvering for a better firing position?
D: Charge right into point blank range and get blown up?


Got your final answer?  Okay.  If you actually thought it was anything but D, I want YOUR copy of the game because MINE seems to have total *** as officer AI.  I love Starsector.  Let me reiterate so the context of my post is clear: I love Starsector.  I think it has enormous potential and focuses on game elements that I've found fun in many games for years.  I say this with nothing but love and care: I.  HATE.  FLEET.  AI.  It's cost me AT LEAST as many ships as my enemies have.  If anyone has any experience suitable to help our good friend with the AI, I URGE you to step up because GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2019, 05:23:54 AM »

AI acts more aggressive vs a station. I'm not sure if it's exactly same as setting everybody to Reckless, but result is similar enough. As you noticed yourself this easily leads to unnecessary and easily preventable losses for standoff combatants and carriers.

Frankly, I also very much dislike this. I could always press full assault or order eliminate if really wanted this to happen.
I'd be perfectly fine with most of my fleet just distracting station from afar while I dive in.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 05:27:07 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Tackywheat1

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Paragon is Perfection
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2019, 09:22:35 AM »

AI acts more aggressive vs a station. I'm not sure if it's exactly same as setting everybody to Reckless, but result is similar enough. As you noticed yourself this easily leads to unnecessary and easily preventable losses for standoff combatants and carriers.

Frankly, I also very much dislike this. I could always press full assault or order eliminate if really wanted this to happen.
I'd be perfectly fine with most of my fleet just distracting station from afar while I dive in.

Agree. I've had frigates diving toward stations and dying (no officers).
Logged

Morrokain

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Megalith Dreadnought - Archean Order
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2019, 02:46:08 PM »

AI acts more aggressive vs a station.

This might be for the enemy AI's sake (same AI iirc). I think the enemy AI suffers when attacking player stations because of overly cautious behavior when the station out-ranges you and the idea behind a station assault is either the defenses will break... or they won't. Losses are unavoidable (in theory). Backing off to vent seems like its detrimental to the overall strategy unless you are a frigate or especially fast destroyer.

As you noticed yourself this easily leads to unnecessary and easily preventable losses for standoff combatants and carriers.

Yeah true. For that situation, its a bad idea to have reckless behavior. Ideally you'd only want the enemy AI to do this and leave the decision up to the player in their case. It's ok if the enemy AI runs into the meatgrinder in some situations if it benefits them in other situations like stated above.
Logged

Daynen

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2019, 03:27:18 PM »

Okay...now that I've had a night to cool off (and a plate of ham and turkey and the like) let me digest this a bit.

The problem I've identified is actually something I see far more often than the unintended casualty: AIs love to burn their active cooldowns the moment they're available.  I see it all the time with temporal shells, maneuvering jets and especially burn drives: your fleet will do EVERYTHING in its power to reach the enemy AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, even if it careens them headlong into a wall of missiles.  The Prometheus 2 in question actually hit its burn drive straight into the station shortly after I gave it the order to fall back, leaving it so close even reapers couldn't possibly miss.

It didn't even have the decency to ram the station properly and do some damage on the way out...still blows my mind that this was a CAUTIOUS officer too.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2019, 08:15:28 PM »

Yeah, AI doesn't intelligently reserve mobility systems or prepare to retreat before it actually wants to (like by keeping a skimmer ship at near 0 velocity, so it can quickly skim backwards).
This doesn't have anything to do with personalities though. Cautious AI basically means that it always engages at range maximal among it's weapons and refuses to enter firing range of same size or larger ships.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24111
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2019, 09:08:57 PM »

Hmm, are you 100% sure it didn't start to burn drive before you ordered it to back off? In theory it's not supposed to activate burn drive while facing away from a task it's assigned to if there is one, so if it still does that occasionally, that's something I need to take a look at.
Logged

Scorpixel

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2019, 12:10:07 AM »

By back-off do you mean a move order or a retreat order? If the former it happens all the time, it's like a low priority for the AI and will mostly ignore it, which is why it is better to simply order it to retreat as the behaviour is immediately changed to "avoid enemies, then leave"

If you want your ships to survive it's better to do retreat then cancel the order than asking it to move, especially against a station were they will never listen to positioning once at firing range (tried to focus on a side so many times, only to have the warships alone all around the station, and the carriers on vacation, so just attack order everything and out-dps the thing)
Logged

Daynen

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2019, 12:15:37 AM »

Hmm, are you 100% sure it didn't start to burn drive before you ordered it to back off? In theory it's not supposed to activate burn drive while facing away from a task it's assigned to if there is one, so if it still does that occasionally, that's something I need to take a look at.

100%.  I gave it a move order well out of range of the station because it was already way too close--like less than 1000u away--saw it SLOWLY begin to move while under fire and thought everything was fine because I was able to maneuver a bit and distract the station while that section rotated out of its arc.  Then at some point I saw it just dive right into the station's face.  It was already heavily damaged, leaving me no chance at diving in to block for it, even if there WERE room to do so.  It's like it was waiting until it got just out of maximum burn drive range before hitting it.  I don't think it ever actually turned away from the station...which would've been worse anyway, since showing your engines to a station is BEGGING to be vaporized.
Logged

Daynen

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2019, 12:30:15 AM »

By back-off do you mean a move order or a retreat order? If the former it happens all the time, it's like a low priority for the AI and will mostly ignore it, which is why it is better to simply order it to retreat as the behaviour is immediately changed to "avoid enemies, then leave"

If you want your ships to survive it's better to do retreat then cancel the order than asking it to move, especially against a station were they will never listen to positioning once at firing range (tried to focus on a side so many times, only to have the warships alone all around the station, and the carriers on vacation, so just attack order everything and out-dps the thing)

Funny thing is that's not entirely accurate either.  Just today I had a couple missile carriers take position well out of a station's range while I went in with my flagship and, a few maneuvers and a little drifting aside, they mostly stayed put and fired missile support like I intended.  Neither of them were Prometheus II's this time of course, so no burn drives...I also try not to use "retreat, then cancel" tactics because if I use the "retreat while defending" they never get anywhere if they're already under fire and if I use "direct retreat" they tend to turn their engines to the enemy and...you can imagine how that goes.

I'm all too familiar with how senseless AI gets when engaging a station with no orders--fight allied ships for position, close in, bang into each other trying to get a shot off, then blow up in a chain reaction when the station finally pops in their face--but that problem seems to be more about them having a clean shot be too high a priority or something.  This is a far more specific problem and I feel like it's directly tied to the way the AI uses active systems with abandon even when doing so is an absolutely terrible idea AND rather contrary to their orders.

I don't know how helpful it might be but I have to ask Alex directly here: Have you ever played Gratuitous Space Battles?  The entirety of player control happens during ship design, fleet placement and pre-battle orders; this game sometimes has a similar feel in battles (which I like.)  I wonder if there's inspiration to be taken from the way it handles fleet orders?  Lots of priority sliders, drag-and-drop escorts and formations, lots of emphasis on giving smart orders to account for circumstance, that sort of thing.  It's much more complex than I think you want this game to be but I wonder if perhaps a little methodology might be applicable here?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24111
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2019, 08:35:53 AM »

100%.  I gave it a move order well out of range of the station because it was already way too close--like less than 1000u away--saw it SLOWLY begin to move while under fire and thought everything was fine because I was able to maneuver a bit and distract the station while that section rotated out of its arc.  Then at some point I saw it just dive right into the station's face.

Ok, thank you for confirming - made a note to check into it!
Logged

Brichess

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2019, 09:28:39 PM »

I've experienced the same behavior with the onslaught class burn drive into a battle station, one moment its happily plinking away at 1000 range sitting on its rally point like its supposed to, the next its decided that it would rather close to 500 range and engage in a DPS race with the station part it's attacking while blocking fire from the other two capitals. Fortunately, it was tanky enough to survive with 30% hull after I ordered it to fall back but that kind of behavior on a steady commander with an explicit rally point seems excessive
Logged

Arcagnello

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Arguably Heretical, Definetly Insane
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2019, 02:51:04 AM »

I did have the same thing happening but it wasn't so damaging, I played my second campaign with a lot of Dominator assault cruisers and usually deployed them all against big bases.

I actually try and manually spread them in a line before I start the attack so that they don't group togheder once at the star fortress. Some of them boost into the base (I think at least) because of a combination of them having low flux and that base section being vulnerable because of high flux.

 I do not think that should be changed, but they should NOT do that when told to stand by. The aggressiveness of a ship AI should also stay the same no matter the opponent when no orders are given to be honest, increasing aggressiveness against an opponent that can and will butcher almost any unit in under a minute if it gets too close is a recipe for frustration.
Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.
The therapist removed my F5 key.

JaronK

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2019, 10:46:47 AM »

In similar news, I learned I can't use my Astral loaded with prox mine bombers against stations, because my Legion XIVs have a habit of burn drive charging into its own prox mines and blowing themselves up.  Only way I've lost one, in fact.
Logged

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: What. The F*%&.
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2019, 10:52:07 AM »

against stations I go to the tactical map and post my carriers at the corners of the 2 by 2 area that the station sits in the middle of.

That way they are close enough to deploy craft, without being in too much danger from attack. This doesn't really work against remnant stations as they have MASSIVE range (not much of a reason to bother killing them at the moment), and against star forts the mines can catch you by surprise if your PD is insufficient.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.
Pages: [1] 2