Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gothars]

I already said that I really, really like the new fighter mechanics, but I also think that as a result (among many other factors) the command system works much better now. It was always very floaty, you had to hope that your order were executed, and many didn't seem to matter. You could direct bomber strikes, but I was an inefficient mess that required constant re-adjustment. I had already come to terms with that, assuming that it was an inevitable effect of the independent minded AI approach. In that regard 0.8 has been a great surprise to me. The AI is still acting with character, but now you can really command it within that frame - you see that your ships immediately start interpreting your order and acting on it. It's not quite perfect, for example you are hampered by a lack of feedback from your ships, but I can now believe in the general approach again.

@alex: what do you think is the tone you want for the game? It's obvious there's a whole range of players in that regard from those who want a slow grind in a decaying society to those who want an arcady shooter to blow stuff up in and (presumably) everything in between. Where on the spectrum do you stand? Is the current tone (I use this term as a shorthand for pace, progression speed, and player power level) something you're happy with? Where do you see your game sitting in the tone scale between say guardian of the galaxy/the new star trek and battlestar galactica reimagined/the expanse

I find this a bit confusing, as the question contrasting backstory tone with gameplay feel. That said: probably in the middle, with variation depending on playstyle etc.

It makes sense in so far as arcady shoot 'em-up gameplay wouldn't fit well with a serious, dystopian scenario. And likewise, a hardcore tactics simulation doesn't lend itself well to a happy-go-lucky gameworld. Or let's say, than the gameplay would contrast with the setting, which of course can also be used on purpose.

Personally I'm happy when all parties have believable, human motivations - that alone should bring enough gritty darkness into the game.

[AxleMC131]

... It's not quite perfect, for example you are hampered by a lack of feedback from your ships...

Agreed. I've found myself using Combat Chatter at last, and found it extremely helpful even just for that: Getting real-time feedback when one of my ships is in danger.

[Cosmitz]

- Putting 3 Sabots on the front of a Gryphon.. it doesn't use them whatsoever. Even with expanded missile racks so it's not running into issues of 'not enough'. It gleefully shoots the Squalls or whatever it gets put in the large, as well as MRM's off the side. Facing off against a Sunder in the sim, it just stutters helplessly as its getting pummeled. (unrelated, is the subsystem supposed to be one-shot-no-recharge per fight?)

PS: The AI is also really defensive with it, waiting too long for the 'perfect' situation (seen the Gryphon idle like 20 seconds once) instead of using the missiles as actual weaponry/ammo.

[Sarissofoi]

Well the current carrier AI can be quite suicidal. I think something is not right with them.
>my gemini just charge berserker and die even when he has full of fighter wing that could attack him.
I also miss the old fighters command and ability to tell your fleet fighters to strike somebody.
Is there really no way to mark enemy ships as 'fighter target' or 'fighter escort' so some carriers send their fighters to either attack or defend it?
Currently they are really limited in operational range.

[Alex]

Well the current carrier AI can be quite suicidal. I think something is not right with them.

There's an issue where if a carrier is following another order (i.e. it's assigned to "assault" or "defend" an objective) that overrides its normal behavior of finding a nearby friendly combat ship to hide behind. Going to look into that one.

There's also another issue where a carrier that's *not* assigned to an order will not hide behind nearby ships that are one size smaller, even though it should.

There may be a third issue where the carrier doesn't send its fighters to attack an "eliminate" target, but I need to confirm that one.

So overall: yeah, definitely a few issues there. In the meantime, I'd suggest giving them an explicit "search and destroy" order to improve survivability if there are other orders they'd get assigned to otherwise. Or ordering them to escort another ship specifically.

Is there really no way to mark enemy ships as 'fighter target' or 'fighter escort' so some carriers send their fighters to either attack or defend it?
Currently they are really limited in operational range.

That's more or less "escort" and "eliminate", with the caveat of that potential eliminate issue. I don't think a "fighter escort" would be practical - that's a bit too dynamic, and deciding just how to keep up (without just doing normal escort behavior) would be very tough for the AI to do well.

[orost]

I've been playing Forlorn Hope recently and the enemy Heron gets itself killed by wading into my Paragon's range every time. I think it's taking the "combat" part of "combat carrier" a bit too seriously. It would be a huge threat with its Daggers if it didn't commit suicide.

The Condors mostly hide like they're supposed to but occasionally one or two of them will also fly into my range for no reason.

(How am I supposed to win that mission, anyway? I can't chase down the Condors. Should I grab a book and wait until they run out of CR?)

[FooF]

Saw some new fighter behavior today that I hadn't noticed before but thought was absolutely awesome:

I've been piloting an SO Hammerhead that tends to be the tip of the spear for a rather large frigate and carrier battlegroup. Since I tend to be the first destroyer into the fray and the carriers are a ways behind, I have seen the AI Carriers rally their fighters to my Hammerhead, so much so it's a giant screen reminiscent of the ending scene of Enders Game.

It in fact, they saved my Hammerhead after an overload where a ton of interceptors flew in front of my ship as Reapers started coming. One brave Talon pilot gave the ultimate sacrifice to save my flagship. Godspeed pilot. 

[Sy]

(How am I supposed to win that mission, anyway? I can't chase down the Condors. Should I grab a book and wait until they run out of CR?)

i actually managed to 100% it earlier, for the first time. \o/

not with the default loadout though. mostly beams + 2 Dual Flaks + 2 Plasma Cannons at the front. one of the Condors (and the Falcon) escaped, but the other two got close enough for my 2k range beams to fry them... which is probably an error on their part.

i actually feel the mission needs to be made a bit harder now with the advantage of having the Advanced Targeting Core. specifically, too much of the enemy fleet is composed of small ships that just get fried before they can ever get into range. a few more destroyers and/or cruisers would probably make the huge range advantage less critical. or the enemy fleet as a whole needs to be better aware of the Paragon's range, and maneuver to surround it at a distance before closing-in as a large group.

I have seen the AI Carriers rally their fighters to my Hammerhead, so much so it's a giant screen reminiscent of the ending scene of Enders Game.

yep, i love that as well. even a fighter escort from a single Mora does much to increase the survivability (and consequently the aggressive potential) of a fast destroyer flagship.

It in fact, they saved my Hammerhead after an overload where a ton of interceptors flew in front of my ship as Reapers started coming. One brave Talon pilot gave the ultimate sacrifice to save my flagship. Godspeed pilot. 

RIP!

(i wish my Broadswords and Claws would stop body-tanking incoming Pilum swarms though, at least while the carrier has PD and shield available at that time anyway.)

[Sarissofoi]

It would help if you could assign different tasks to carriers, maybe even it could help AI behavior.
Like if you assign carrier as escort it would use wings to to form defensive screens and protect allies, but when you assign them to support it would use wings to attack whatever target the supported vessel attack(in the case of player what he targeted), if you assign it as a strike group leader it will use his wings to strike marked targets or targets of opportunity(and if you use carrier to support carrier it would rally on him and use wings to support their wings, and escort would use wings to either cover carrier or attacking wings).
It would be neat if you could form strike groups and give them specific combat tasks.
I know that you can assign them to some tasks already but seriously I have feelings that AI is struggling right now and sometimes its kind of borked and totally not aggressive enough.
I have plenty of battles right new in my current amp where either side(as I mostly use autopilot) managed to actually fight successfully in battle time and the battle was decided but who endure it better(mostly by CR). Kind of not fun.

[orost]

or the enemy fleet as a whole needs to be better aware of the Paragon's range, and maneuver to surround it at a distance before closing-in as a large group.

Yeah you might be onto something here. I just did Paragon vs Conquest + Onslaught in simulator and the only reason I won was because the Conquest kept dropping shields while still well within the range of my beams (when it was not even in danger of overload). Seems the AI doesn't quite know what to do with such extreme range bonuses.

[Alex]

I know that you can assign them to some tasks already but seriously I have feelings that AI is struggling right now and sometimes its kind of borked and totally not aggressive enough.

Let me put it this way: in this case, it probably makes more sense to fix up whatever is wrong than to make things more complex - that's unlikely to improve the situation

I have plenty of battles right new in my current amp where either side(as I mostly use autopilot) managed to actually fight successfully in battle time and the battle was decided but who endure it better(mostly by CR). Kind of not fun.

Yeah, the game in general and the AI in particular are really not meant for an "autopilot always on" approach. Not to say that your other points are invalid, but what you're describing here is "yep, that's pretty much working right" - since if you *do* pilot your ship manually, a somewhat more passive stance by the AI both allows you to have greater impact and minimized unnecessary losses. Breaking the fight open when the sides are more or less matched usually requires some risk-taking, of the kind the player themselves are best equipped to take.

It's not that you're not supposed to use autopilot - it's a feature, after all - it's just that the game assumes that when it's not leading to the desired result, you'll take the reins yourself rather take the unfun route of waiting things out.

(Also: are you using the new eliminate command? Just to make sure, since that helps with aggressiveness a lot.)

[Sarissofoi]

Well that its truth. Fixing stuff now maybe adding some additional controls or AI behavior later.  I still have the fun.
Also I running mostly salvaged low tech D ships. So offensive power is not great.
If I have fighters on my side its fine as they are aggressive enough but with no fighters its pretty much stalemate unless one side have big advantage.

Overall fighters are strong now and AI can not really counter them well. Also did carriers can run out of spare fighters like in old builds?

[Cosmitz]

- Putting 3 Sabots on the front of a Gryphon.. it doesn't use them whatsoever. Even with expanded missile racks so it's not running into issues of 'not enough'. It gleefully shoots the Squalls or whatever it gets put in the large, as well as MRM's off the side. Facing off against a Sunder in the sim, it just stutters helplessly as its getting pummeled.

PS: The AI is also really defensive with it, waiting too long for the 'perfect' situation (seen the Gryphon idle like 20 seconds once) instead of using the missiles as actual weaponry/ammo.

Adding to this, it also doesn't know to use the subsystem and it seems to deal pretty poorly with aiming the Squall, either using extreme distance or just outright failing to properly calculate leading it. I think this would work better as a player ship, or just a full LRM boat and be done with it.

[Allectus]

I know that you can assign them to some tasks already but seriously I have feelings that AI is struggling right now and sometimes its kind of borked and totally not aggressive enough.

Let me put it this way: in this case, it probably makes more sense to fix up whatever is wrong than to make things more complex - that's unlikely to improve the situation

I'd be content if we had the ability to at least have the carrier to move to one spot while the fighters attacked another.  With most other ships, excepting the super long range ones (which should perhaps be treated similarly) you know that if you issue a defend/attack/move command the ship in question is going to move into a reasonably tight area around the waypoint. With longer range ships it may be the case that you want them on top of  that point right now, or alternatively super far away leveraging their range.  The issue with far away is that you lose control over their positioning the moment you tell them to attack (since half the sector may be in range of the attack point and they may move in a suicidal way) or, alternatively, you lose control over where they attack when you issue a movement command (since again, they can select a target spanning half of the sector).

With other ships a single order is sufficient to get both approximate position and target orders.  This is not true for longer range ships, including carriers.  That's my most significant beef with the change.  

[Alex]

I'd be content if we had the ability to at least have the carrier to move to one spot while the fighters attacked another.  With most other ships, excepting the super long range ones (which should perhaps be treated similarly) you know that if you issue a defend/attack/move command the ship in question is going to move into a reasonably tight area around the waypoint. With longer range ships it may be the case that you want them on top of  that point right now, or alternatively super far away leveraging their range.  The issue with far away is that you lose control over their positioning the moment you tell them to attack (since half the sector may be in range of the attack point and they may move in a suicidal way) or, alternatively, you lose control over where they attack when you issue a movement command (since again, they can select a target spanning half of the sector).

With other ships a single order is sufficient to get both approximate position and target orders.  This is not true for longer range ships, including carriers.  That's my most significant beef with the change.  

Hmm. I think for carriers, a right-click on empty space ("rally task force") would more or less do the job - they may choose from a lot of targets, but they will tend to choose targets already under attack, which in most cases is going to be what you want  anyway.