I have experimented some with this and would like to have a discussion about balancing this better...
Now I do wonder why there is such a hard focus on attacking enemy Escort ship that usually have a low threat value, it makes very little sense. It also get worse when you figure in how this can be abused by an observant player.
In essence you can do an all fleet with only Escort and Guardian ships... due to how the priorities are constructed such a fleet will be completely OP in regard to a more balanced fleet against the AI. In this fleet Escorts have 90% defenses and 10% weapons while the Guardians the reverse. The fleet would then have about 1/4 escorts and 3/4 Guardians, or perhaps even less Escorts.
There is such a high focus on targeting Escort ships that by the time any ship want to target any of your Guardians the battle is practically over. The only ships that will go after your Guardians are Interceptors, but Interceptors start so well forward they they die first anyway and your Guardians are going to prioritize them first anyway.
There should not be such a high focus on targeting Escort ships.
Capitals should go directly against other Capital/Escort/Support/Assault and defend Capital
Assault ships should target Capitals/Support/Escort/Assault.
Interceptors should go for Support/Assault/Guardians/Escort.
Escorts should go for Assault/Interceptors/Escort/Guardians and defend Capital/Support.
Guardians should go for Interceptors/Assault/Guardians/Escort and defend Support/Capital/Escort.
This would make the battles less easy to optimize and Support ships would need to keep some defenses if they want to survive. It would also give some incentive to actually put weapons on Escorts and other defensive ship types while you will need defenses on your Capital and Support ships.
In the battle viewer I want to see a wave of Assault and Interceptor coming in and my Capital ships will direct their attention on enemy capital ships once they get in range not the enemies Escort ships. My Escort will most likely keep focusing their fire on enemy Assault ships who attack my Capital ships and my Guardians will attack any Interceptors that races for my Support ships.
The Battles would probably be more dynamic and chaotic and there would be much less focus fire on one class of ships throughout a whole battle. Since I figure that a ship will mostly target ships with a higher threat value if there are several ships to choose from these priorities will provide some more interesting results in my opinion.
The targeting priorities seem to be designed to create the illusion that ships "defend" others.
I agree with some of what you put. Capitals should go after other capitals to prevent pure weapon capitals behind super-tanky escorts, which especially against the AI, really makes things unbalanced.
One thing I'd add is that Interceptors go for interceptors first. This is more of a visual thing though because I think it could look cool to have your tiny ships clashing in the centre fully as the others close.
I had the same thought about Interceptors... that would probably be the most interesting way to handle them.
When ship "defend" in the game from a mechanics point of view my take is that they simply change their priority target to the one that attacks the ship they defend, for me that is what they should do. And I agree... escorts are high in the priority to pretend like they actually defend something which is just silly and only serve to make combat unbalanced.
With the way ships should behave with the values I suggested means that Escorts will only get priorities if they have enough high a threat, which mean it is the way it should be. Since Capital ships actually defend themselves they will usually target the highest threat that target themselves. Perhaps this should be extended to other ship classes as well so ships actually defend themselves and not just target things like a robot (except Interceptors and Assault ships).
As a player, if I saw you creating such a fleet, I would attack you with a fleet full of high attack interceptors. They will fly right by your low attack escorts up front and engage your guardians. Since the interceptors favor attacking guardians over escorts, the battle will become a matter of who wins the interceptors vs guardian fight, leaving only high defense escorts that have very little firepower should the guardians be overwhelmed.
I really like what has been done with ship roles. I can see ways to counter almost any mix of ships. If the AI could learn to counter human player strategies, the fleet battles would be extremely interesting part of the game.
In mutli-player yes... but then you could just use Capital/Escort instead... escorts are always before capital ship in the priority queue.
I really don't care much for multi-player because that is in part self regulating environment. The AI can never adapt and if you use Capital and Escorts only there is no direct counter since the Escorts will always be targeted first.
With the above structure you would get more diverse and interesting battles in general and be much harder to power-game.
Yes a combination of capital/escort has no direct counter. You would have to destroy the escorts first... But I think that is the entire point of having escort ship roles, as ships meant to defend the capital ships. What good would they be at defending if not to prevent damage being done to their friends.
The main issue that I see is that the AI just doesn't use good ship combinations. I see too many fleets consisting of interceptors/escort from the AI that just get mopped up so quickly that it makes fleet battles against them too easy. With the way targeting priorities occur, the interceptors and escorts spread their damage out too thinly, resulting in difficulty getting past the defenses of their targets.
You can change these defines. I've done it myself. The big change I made was to capital ships, capital ships directly engage other capital ships. I think I made other changes as well, but the big one for me was capital ships.
My current settings look like this, just listing the first priority.
Capital - Capital
Assault - Capital
Interceptor - Assault
Escort - Assault
Guardian - Interceptor
I think my settings are almost identical to what the OP suggested. The difference being interceptors chasing assault.
I'm also fairly certain you can add more classifications. The issue is getting them to show up in the list. I haven't tried just adding them and seeing if they show up, I expect I'd probably need to track down the proper UI xml file and add entries for the new roles.
The problem with this is that you'd need to make entirely new classifications of ships for the AI to select! It would be a pretty big project I think.
Yes... I have changed this myself as well and started a new campaign to test it out.
What are your experiences so far?
The problem is as I explained in the first post... it is open to abuse by simply put only defense on escort and only offensive weapons on your capital... more or less. It makes battles against the AI too easy.
In my opinion escort should not block incoming damage but rather attack whatever is attacking the thing they defend. It does not really work if the Escort are the only ship that gets targeted before anything else.
I have tested this and it seem to work very well, it sort of trivialize space combat... even if you are both numerically and technologically inferior.
As of 6.2, the ships were not slaves to their priorities.
I tested this out myself, trying ships with tons of defenses and little attack to see if the ships would target them blindly while the ships bristling with guns got off scott free.
In my tests with Beta 6.2, they did not. They still attacked the big gun ships.
Ship Type seems to modify their priority but it doesn't override it.
I have not tested this extensively yet but so far my defense only ship (escorts most of the time) have been the only ship targeted... but only if they are in front. Assault and Interceptor will take a short beating before the enemy turn their attention to the Escorts.
But as I said... I have only tested it in relatively small combats so far.
This setup would be faulty as well, as it would also be open to abuse. I would make a fleet of high defense assault ships and high attack guardian ships. This would destroy any AI fleet, same problem there is now with capital/escort combinations in the current game.
This would be great if true. I admit I have not tested the extremes to see if the target priorities hold regardless of offense/defense power.
Good point, Guardians should be moved upo in priority above Assaults for Assault and Interceptors... that would do the trick.
Yeah as long as each type of ship can be the primary target of at least one other type of ship, there should be no exploits available.
You're right of course, but not everything has to be directly countered. I think the priorities accomplish this. I think there also has to be some restraint at least in single player. If people want to game the system in single player by making huge hull guardians, well ok. That isn't really the spirit of the system.
The way I see it.
Capital = large and huge 100% of the time, sometimes medium. These are your cruisers, carriers battleships.
Interceptor = tiny. These are your air superiority fighter aircraft.
Assault = small or tiny. These are your strike aircraft ranging from small fighters, to heavier bombers up to corvettes.
Escort = small or medium. Frigates and destroyers.
Guardian = small or medium. Frigates and destroyers.
I understand what you mean, but even if you "restrict" yourself which I do all the time in this game (like no other game)... the current priority is boring and it is really... really hard NOT to abuse the fact that Escort are so easily exploited.
I want my battle ships to duke it out and interceptors to attack the support ship. If you want to stop these ships you have to take them down. Most combat just comes down to focusing fire on a few ships at a time. It is rare for more than one ship to be damaged after a battle. I hope that this way the light show makes for a better show.
It also seems that people on this forum answer all possible exploit and unbalance with "you don't have to exploit it"... that is not really a valid answer in a game, single player or not and have never been. Games should be as competitive as possible, players should not have to make up most of the constraint themselves, game rules should. If that is not what you think then we can just drop the argument...
I've made the modifications I listed myself already.
My point was is that if someone wants to powergame you cannot stop them. They will just find something else, and as a developer often times when you fix something for the powergamer, you break it for everyone else.
There's always a measure of degrees though. Taking your statement to the extreme, developers shouldn't balance anything. They should just pick numbers that feel good, and let it ride.
But balance is still important to the game, again to a reasonable degree.
What file do you have to edit to make changes to roles?
I've made the modifications I listed myself already.My point was is that if someone wants to powergame you cannot stop them. They will just find something else, and as a developer often times when you fix something for the powergamer, you break it for everyone else.
Yes... I agree that you should not change stuff based of one guys wishes... but I am just a little tired of the phrase that "you don't need to use it" as if me the player are suppose to make up the rules and constrictions of the game in order not to break the AI. It is the easy cop out comment which do never lead to any good argument, it is not really a valid defense to have on the matter. Most people who post just state there is no problem but can never explain what they mean by that.
I meant no disrespect toward you since you already seem to have thought the issue through...
I'm still interested in your results...
BattleBehaviorDefs.xml
Yes... I agree that you should not change stuff based of one guys wishes... but I am just a little tired of the phrase that "you don't need to use it" as if me the player are suppose to make up the rules and constrictions of the game in order not to break the AI. It is the easy cop out comment which do never lead to any good argument, it is not really a valid defense to have on the matter. Most people who post just state there is no problem but can never explain what they mean by that. I meant no disrespect toward you since you already seem to have thought the issue through... I'm still interested in your results...
I think balancing is important, but, and this comes from almost 20 years of being a brutal powergamer in MMO's, you can't balance for the 1%'r types. They break the game no matter what, and if you constantly put out fires that those guys start you are destroying the accessibility of the game for everyone else.
That said, balancing is important in single player games like this. However in my opinion it should follow these rough guidelines, at least early on when lots can be done, but there is finite time.
If the issue causing problems is something the majority of the playerbase will experience through NORMAL game play, it should be fixed. If the issue is something that crops up for the super user, the guys who are looking to break the game and trivialize single player content, well, that should be a low priority. I'm personally of two minds on this. In a online competitive game, I am that super user powergamer. I am breaking the game so I can crush everyone with a brutally unfair advantage. In single player, I restart the game if I think I am cheating myself out of a good end game because the AI didn't get a good start, or I expanded too quickly, or if I think I can mod the AI to do something better via scripts.
That last bit figures into your curiosity about how my changes are working. At the moment I have modded huge hulls out of my game, because they cause the overflow bug to happen more rapidly, and I have yet to progress beyond 170 or so turns. I've run about 9 games to 100-120 turns and then I restart because I've made more custom factions, or I've made some mod changes or reasons : )
I think we are on the same page on how to approach the "problem"... I do seem to play for maybe 100 or more turns and then restart the game. Perhaps I made some new changes and want to test some new ideas, different strategy or I simply became too strong and need to impose further restrictions on my own game play next time. I'm also that guy who like to understand what I do and why I do stuff in general and games in particular... I just seem to have the skill for finding good solutions or exploits... for god or bad...
I have actually never built a huge hull yet, never rushed for that yet so I have never encountered that "bug". I tend to end my games around that time I can get them.
I will start a new game soonish and test out the new priorities and see how they work in practice.
One thing that I'd like to know is how the ships select which individual ship to target.
As far as I understand this is how it works...
They select a ship based on their priority list (you can see the hole list int the XML) that is within range every time they are allowed to fire their weapons. This means they will change target if a new target with higher priority shows up.
If they have two targets that has the same priority they fire at the one with the highest threat ratio with some mix of value in there. Can't say for sure the exact formula for that.
Ships also prioritize defending over attacking priorities. So an Escort will automatically use their defense priority if any such ship is fired upon by a ship in their range. So... if an Escort ship is firing at an Assault ship which is the highest on their priority list and an enemy capital ship fires at one your capital ships it will change and start fire at the capital ship instead since Escorts prioritize defense more than attack.
As far as I can tell that is all there is too it.
I really don't care much for multi-player because that is in part self regulating environment. The AI can never adapt and if you use Capital and Escorts only there is no direct counter since the Escorts will always be targeted first.With the above structure you would get more diverse and interesting battles in general and be much harder to power-game.
Actually with current targeting priorities, Capital/Escort ships as you have stated would actually be vulnerable to high defense capital and high offense guardian fleet.
With the current ship role targeting and defending priorites, there is no perfect fleet combination where you can stack all offense on one ship type and all defense on another ship type that cannot be countered effectively in multiplayer.
Again, the real issue is that the AI will not compose fleets to counter your fleet makeup effectively. As such, I don't see a need to change the ship targeting priorities but rather just the AI fleet building techniques.
Actually with current targeting priorities, Capital/Escort ships as you have stated would actually be vulnerable to high defense capital and high offense guardian fleet. With the current ship role targeting and defending priorites, there is no perfect fleet combination where you can stack all offense on one ship type and all defense on another ship type that cannot be countered effectively in multiplayer. Again, the real issue is that the AI will not compose fleets to counter your fleet makeup effectively. As such, I don't see a need to change the ship targeting priorities but rather just the AI fleet building techniques.
Actually no... the Capital ships would shoot the Guardians first since they priorities them first and the defensive capital last while the offensive Guardians would shoot the the Escorts since they prioritize them higher.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
