This is the reason I ditched hull reinforcement. Random pp damage was making it blow while hull damage made me think I was safe. Without them hull damage is a better indication to bug out.
I got blown up by AI last night when I had 47% hull
- Thread starter stevesideas
- Start date
This is the reason I ditched hull reinforcement. Random pp damage was making it blow while hull damage made me think I was safe. Without them hull damage is a better indication to bug out.
In my opinion the powerplant instadeath should go. It's just a no brainer decision to target the powerplant on large ships.
Also, there should be no gimballed module targeting, pick them off with fixed weapons.
However, fixed weapons need a customisable convergence point. Therefore they could be useful at a reasonable length of ranges. Clipper fixed weapons would still be awkward but you could sacrifice their ability to hit at long range to increase their short range ability at least.
Instead, module targetting should have non-lethal but serious effects. Pop the FSD to prevent escape. Pick off individual thrusters to reduce manoeuvrability (e.g. you might lose 90% manoeuvrability with a thruster down, for example suddenly it just takes forever to roll right (but not left)). Powerplant hits should reduce the power generated by the ship, never to 0%, but perhaps to 60%. This provides some strategy, do you run your ship to the limit so you have to turn the cargo scoop off and FSD when you deploy weapons, and risk your life support going on the slightest glance to the powerplant, or do you give yourself some breathing room?
If you got rid of the instadeath, removed the gimballed targetting, made fixed weapons a little more useful, and perhaps then weaken modules (as they're harder to hit and the effects are not as serious) well then you'll have all sorts of interesting things happening in combat.
Maybe even make is so 1%/2%/4%/8% of chance of a hit from Small/Medium/Large/Huge weapon bypasses the shields. So you can get a bit dinged up even with the shields up!
It is Elite Dangerous remember.
Also, there should be no gimballed module targeting, pick them off with fixed weapons.
However, fixed weapons need a customisable convergence point. Therefore they could be useful at a reasonable length of ranges. Clipper fixed weapons would still be awkward but you could sacrifice their ability to hit at long range to increase their short range ability at least.
Instead, module targetting should have non-lethal but serious effects. Pop the FSD to prevent escape. Pick off individual thrusters to reduce manoeuvrability (e.g. you might lose 90% manoeuvrability with a thruster down, for example suddenly it just takes forever to roll right (but not left)). Powerplant hits should reduce the power generated by the ship, never to 0%, but perhaps to 60%. This provides some strategy, do you run your ship to the limit so you have to turn the cargo scoop off and FSD when you deploy weapons, and risk your life support going on the slightest glance to the powerplant, or do you give yourself some breathing room?
If you got rid of the instadeath, removed the gimballed targetting, made fixed weapons a little more useful, and perhaps then weaken modules (as they're harder to hit and the effects are not as serious) well then you'll have all sorts of interesting things happening in combat.
Maybe even make is so 1%/2%/4%/8% of chance of a hit from Small/Medium/Large/Huge weapon bypasses the shields. So you can get a bit dinged up even with the shields up!
It is Elite Dangerous remember.
That makes no logical sense, at all. If you can slew a gun in the direction of a target, then you're perfectly capable of having it select an individual component of the same, providing it's big enough (which it shall be, considering even a Sidewinder is about the size of a house). What you're arguing for is an artificial and unnecessary handicap.
If you want to create some sort of obstacle for turreted weapons (which, let's face it, are exactly what gimballed weapons are; just with smaller firing arcs), then we should be asking for ECM to be turned into the fun and diverse gadget it should have been from the start, able to interfere with anything relying on sensors, instead of the bizarre one-shot EMP weapon it was implemented as. ECM should be the counter against auto-aiming weapons, just like in reality.
Great idea to get a warning/critical module display BUT...
Why can't we go one step further and allow Hull Reinforcement Armor Points to be assigned to areas of Hull that overlap these subsystems/modules (Powerplant,etc). It seems natural to use Hull Reinforcement to harden critical areas of Hull that covers subsystem, doesn't it?, esp. now that NPCs are targeting subsystems.
I made a thread about this as a gameplay suggestion a little while ago:
Hull Reinforcement Pack: Add option to select armor points to subsystems
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=146922
Why can't we go one step further and allow Hull Reinforcement Armor Points to be assigned to areas of Hull that overlap these subsystems/modules (Powerplant,etc). It seems natural to use Hull Reinforcement to harden critical areas of Hull that covers subsystem, doesn't it?, esp. now that NPCs are targeting subsystems.
I made a thread about this as a gameplay suggestion a little while ago:
Hull Reinforcement Pack: Add option to select armor points to subsystems
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=146922
Last edited:
While I agree that PP kills are too easy right now and could do with a balancing pass, I don't believe they should be super difficult, either. In modern warships, a power plant can be knocked out of service by a sufficiently large weapon, even if said weapon doesn't penetrate much of the hull. A near-miss by a torpedo can leave a warship dead in the water because her power plant is offline.
And yes, the core of a (presumably) nuclear reactor will be well protected, but the cooling mechanisms will, by necessity, be exposed to the outside.
I think what I'd prefer is to have other mechanisms decide the fate of a ship, rather than "power plant 0% == explosion". If FD decides it's the cooling equipment that's getting damaged, then PP damage can be reflected by (much) higher heat. High enough that a 0% power plant produces so much heat that it will ultimately kill the ship, and heat sinks will only delay the inevitable - but they will delay it. Might make for another tight get-to-a-station type gameplay similar to an expiring life support system.
And yes, the core of a (presumably) nuclear reactor will be well protected, but the cooling mechanisms will, by necessity, be exposed to the outside.
I think what I'd prefer is to have other mechanisms decide the fate of a ship, rather than "power plant 0% == explosion". If FD decides it's the cooling equipment that's getting damaged, then PP damage can be reflected by (much) higher heat. High enough that a 0% power plant produces so much heat that it will ultimately kill the ship, and heat sinks will only delay the inevitable - but they will delay it. Might make for another tight get-to-a-station type gameplay similar to an expiring life support system.
No, Clinton is saying skill should target sub-systems, not a computer and I completely agree.
Sarah Jane, I'd love to see the NPC's targeting PC sub-systems. You will then hear a huge uproar of "It's not fair!" from the same people who employ that tactic to make millions in the RES.
If it is a good enough tactic for PC's to use, then NPC's should use it too.
I'm all for NPCs being brought to the same level as their CMDR counterparts. I can imagine a game where CMDRs are asking other (unknown) CMDRs to wing up to fight off the NPCs... as it is now, the only good reason to wing up is against CMDRs.
Sarah Jane Avory
Retro Queen
I'll just say current build (in test only) PC Anaconda vs Elite AI Vulture targeting PP... hull down to 25% before ship goes bang.
My new code in the works (much, much better AI accuracy etc)... I sill had 75% hull before my PP went bang! Oh, I had the biggest, most evil grin on my face... But you don't really want Elite AI ships that deadly, do you? Here's what they wrote:
Manual skill only goes so far in todays' world - and is likely to go even less in the future, as our technology progresses. If ships were small, there'd be an argument for it, but they're huge! Have you ever seen, say, a 1980s-era Phalanx take out sea-skimming missiles? And that's decades old...
Like I said, the option should definitely be there, but with the qualifier of allowing proper ECM to massively interfere, if the target has it. That should be what interferes/prevents auto-aiming from hitting a target. Anything else is laughably unrealistic and tantamount to a moderator coming into the game and shouting, "NOOO! BECAUSE WE SAY SO!"
If we had proper ECM realised, we could have all sorts of different options, from versions/ratings which merely affect/prevent precise module targeting, right up to all kinds of shenanigans, like forcing the enemy's (or an individual missile's) software to designate friendlies as enemies. Or right up to what we can do, today, with AESA and planes like the F-22, where you can literally burn out and destroy enemy sensors, effectively leaving them blind. You could force an enemy to rely on fixed weapons then - and open up focused ECM roles to craft like Type-7s and Type-9s (just like the USAF were planning to convert B-52s into massively powerful ECM fortresses, before budget worries prevented them).
That's how you counter turrets, because that's what they do in real-life. ECM can become fun, diverse and highly useful. You don't wave a hand and magically decide it should be impossible for auto-aiming weapons to do something they not only should, but have been doing, all of this time.
Remember, you might treat these ships like F-15s and the like, but they're the size of nuclear submarines. Probably a lot bigger than real-life aircraft carriers, in some cases!
With the increase in AI difficulty, I've begun to stray from open play bc most cmdr's that I've run into only target other cmdrs (even though there are better credits to be had nearby) in RES or CZ's. Then it's all targets on PP with no defense, especially if trying to get away.
I like the increase in AI difficulty, it feels more worthwhile to take them down, but it would be nice to have some control/protection/view/etc over the subsystems while in combat.
I like the increase in AI difficulty, it feels more worthwhile to take them down, but it would be nice to have some control/protection/view/etc over the subsystems while in combat.
I'll just say current build (in test only) PC Anaconda vs Elite AI Vulture targeting PP... hull down to 25% before ship goes bang.
Only if armor protects subsystems and gimbal/turret precision reduced to reduce subsystem vulnerability.
There's no particular issue with high ranking AI being able to do what we can do, but the current subsystem model needs to be fixed first.
I'll just say current build (in test only) PC Anaconda vs Elite AI Vulture targeting PP... hull down to 25% before ship goes bang.
Yes, we do. As long as the AI is not cheating (having more stats, predicting the players movements etc), I am willing to receive as much pain as you can possibly offer personally.
Regarding subsystems. In my view the AI should definitely target them, and should really try to play by the same rules that the player does, without added restrictions. I think the end result would not be optimal though if something like that went live today, and that has to do with the current way that ship and module damage works in the game. This is a separate discussion though, and really has nothing to do with your work on AI.
It is very easy to make AI unbeatable in a game. Its very hard though to do that without having the AI in "god mode", and its almost impossible to do it without having AI feel to the player as a bot instead of a thinking entity simulation. Sarah I admire your dedication on improving this, and I fully acknowledge the many updates and constant improvement the game has had on that frontier. Keep up the good work, and may your minions buzz electric. I want Elite to be Dangerous. C:
Last edited:
Do you really want a game where a single Elite AI vulture can take out a player Anaconda with 75% hull left? That just doesn't seem fun. There's a difference between a good challenge and frustratingly hard, and that's definitely crossed the line. I enjoy the harder AI and I like there to be danger/challenge but I don't play impossibly hard games for a reason - dying repeatedly is frustrating and not fun (to me).
Here is a question. If a single player vulture can take out an Elite AI Anaconda with 75% hull left, why is the opposite bad? The problem here (and yes, there is a problem) is the actual module damage mechanic (as well as armor), not the AI imo.
Last edited:
I'll just say current build (in test only) PC Anaconda vs Elite AI Vulture targeting PP... hull down to 25% before ship goes bang.
I'd just like consistent rules across the board for PC/NPC. When PC's start dropping like flies from having their internals ripped apart by NPC's, maybe the debate on this particular over-balanced game mechanic can resume.
As for Elite AI, I can run faster scared than they can mad.
Last edited:
That's a symptom of a flawed combat model. The game needs a combat overhaul covering subsystems, shields/SCBs, weapon sizes/gimbal and turret accuracy and ship roles.
Unfortunately it's not likely to happen because it would take a concerted effort by FD to make all the necessary changes.
Last edited:
Personally I'd prefer for Elite NPCs to be rare, but as close as possible in skill to Elite CMDRs.
Although this would probably mean that the Elite NPC was used to being AFK in a turret equipped Anaconda, and that the Dangerous/Deadly NPCs were the ones that you need to watch out for.
I'd also like Power Plant damage to cause massive heat management problems rather than instadeath, as others have already posted.
It's always felt cheap to be able to slaughter NPCs by just targeting the PP; NPCs really should use the same tactics as players and the damage system should be better balanced. Seeing an NPC Anaconda should be something to fear, not an easy payday.
Although this would probably mean that the Elite NPC was used to being AFK in a turret equipped Anaconda, and that the Dangerous/Deadly NPCs were the ones that you need to watch out for.
I'd also like Power Plant damage to cause massive heat management problems rather than instadeath, as others have already posted.
It's always felt cheap to be able to slaughter NPCs by just targeting the PP; NPCs really should use the same tactics as players and the damage system should be better balanced. Seeing an NPC Anaconda should be something to fear, not an easy payday.
I'll just say current build (in test only) PC Anaconda vs Elite AI Vulture targeting PP... hull down to 25% before ship goes bang.
That's awesome.
You must be so proud of your clever little NPCs.
I'll just say current build (in test only) PC Anaconda vs Elite AI Vulture targeting PP... hull down to 25% before ship goes bang.
Oh yes. Although I do think the more expensive ships are underpowered, you shouldn't be able to pick of Anacondas with Vipers. It's just silly when the Viper pilot is risking $10,000 in insurance vs the Conda at $10,000,000 for that battle even to be a contest.
Is that code with the AI using gimballed weapons or fixed? Like I said, gimballed targetting of subsystems should probably go, as should powerplant instakills, but I'd love to see an AI do that well with fixed weapons. Being able to regularly destroy ships 1000s of times the cost of your own gets old quickly, I'd rather have a game where taking on an AI that's simply in the same ship as you is a serious challenge (as long as the AI isn't cheating and subject to the same rules and physics).
Some modules can´t be placed inside the ship for technical/physical reasons.
Dr.Obvious brings up the example of thrusters.
Iirc the powerplant needs strong cooling, so it can´t be easily hidden in the ship´s guts.
I still wonder what 15% powerplant means. 15% of hull between pp and space left? Or 85% of pp damaged (how would a reactor work then??).
And yes, it shouldn´t be possible for a single fighter to down a big ship all alone. A canoe can´t sink a carrier, right?
oh, btw the internals of the Diamondback Class are well hidden under these flappy things.
Dr.Obvious brings up the example of thrusters.
Iirc the powerplant needs strong cooling, so it can´t be easily hidden in the ship´s guts.
I still wonder what 15% powerplant means. 15% of hull between pp and space left? Or 85% of pp damaged (how would a reactor work then??).
And yes, it shouldn´t be possible for a single fighter to down a big ship all alone. A canoe can´t sink a carrier, right?
oh, btw the internals of the Diamondback Class are well hidden under these flappy things.
Last edited: