What is Egosoft's vision for X5?

[Falcrack]

I know players have their own ideas as to what sort of things they might want to see in X5. I wonder what Bernd himself has in mind though? What major changes could be made to justify a whole new game, not just a new DLC?

For myself, the thing X4 lacks the most is a compelling, non-war based economy. Warfare is fun and a good part of the economy, but I feel there needs to be more than just war to drive the economy. Maybe a way to interact with planets through trade to satisfy civilian demand, grow the tax base, develop infrastructure to increase planetary output, etc. Terraforming on steroids. Real benefits to sector ownership.

Maybe an expanded research system, where we can improve module blueprints? Reverse engineering?

Maybe a more dynamic diplomacy system, not linked to storyline? More dynamic faction relations?

[geldonyetich]

I'm curious too, but I think Egosoft is choosing to keep their cards close to their chest on this one. They'll give us an idea when they formally announce it's in production. But I have seen signs that it's at least in a prototype state here and there, so it's something they'd like to make.

[TroubledRabbit]

you may be sure that 'minimal demands' will probably add something to your mortgage

There is still a lot to work on within the existing frame (though I believe that part of the crew might grow hateful for the project they are stuck with for the last 4 years, it's human). Exploration (for real), no 'war-mostly' economy, something resembling diplomacy (endgame beyond 'build me the stuff I will love you in return') and a lot more, the whole class of ships (frigates, because these in game are not the ones, they are 'heavy corvettes') and other stuff in the players' wish bucket.

[mr.WHO]

For me it would be something like a final step in trillogy:

1 - X-Rebirth
2 - X4: Foundation + DLCs
3 - X5 brings back X-Rebirth region and factions into X4 galaxy



Reason:
X-Rebirth has a lot of ineresting factions, regions and designs, however they are very distinct from X4 ballance.


Having them be back for X5 would mean they are afer X4 timeline and many years after X-Rebirth, thus it allow to do more changes and retcons, which still bringing back most of the designs.

Plot wise it would be also very interesting mix as most of X4 factions would have some interests with X-Rebirth region:
Terrans would be interested with Canteran Republic and Torride Colonist, as well as with local Xenon infestation
Argons would be interested with Albion and Omicron Lyrae
Split would be interested in Split remnants.
Teladi would be itnerested with Teladi factions.
Reavers would be another nice pirate faction to increase variety.
Plutarch and Terracorp would finally bring back megacorporations (along with a dozen of minor corporations)



Additional features:
- More customizable HQ (both outside appearance and inside room variety and customization)
- better and more deep missile balance (e.g. capship missiles/torpedos, ability for player to directly target big torpedos like in X3)
- rebalancing and limiting Defense stations (no more mega fortresses with hundreds of guns)
- Station boarding
- NPC factions, ike pirates actually doing boarding
- pirate economy (based on loot and smuggling)
- XL modules for most frequently used modules (e.g. Habitats, storage, etc.)
- missing distinct wharf/shipyard models for Teladi, Paranid, Split and Terrans (simple retexturing of Argon model doesn't count!)
- Planetary colony management and interactions (replacing current Terraforming as more deep, but less massive/tedious process)
- Reverse engineering from X3
- Diplomacy and Espionage from X3:FL
- Turrets actually using paint mods colors isntead of default race texture
- No ventures and online crap
- bring back TP class (personel transport) and ability to ferry workforce from stations and colonies and to retreive ejected escape pods/pilots.
- different sound and FX effect between small and medium weapons
- further simplification of logistic for Auxilary Ships and Carriers, so that they wouldn't struggle to supply small torpedo bomber wing or more than a few destroyers.
- small region of space that would be randomly and procedurally generated with options to re-roll procedural generation (e.g. analog to X3 unfocussed jump drive sector).

[gbjbaanb]

WRT the defence platforms, the only realistic way to stop these from spamming turrets is to require ammo of some sort - that would probably be energy cells. More turrets require more energy cells that would eat up the power storage of a platform. Take away turrets from the other modules so only defence platforms get them and you might be balancing stations a little.

I would also add:

sectors be bigger and more self-sustaining and connecting sectors radiate out to become progressively less safe.

more base trade wares required for stations and require workers for production modules (revisit the numbers too). I'd want much more trade needed for basic stuff like food and energy, the high-tech stuff should be non-essential and specalised so the player has a goal to aim for to make a difference becoming a supplier of such things.

Add a small amount of storage space and habitation to docks (basic docks get storage and a little hab, luxury docks get habs and a little storage)

Alter small ships to have limited missile hardpoints, so you can have a couple of missiles and a full gun loadout. These can only be refilled at a dock. This gives a player the possibility of playing with missiles in those "uh-oh" moments without sacrifcing loadout guns points. Give a scout 1 hardpoint, light fighters 2, heavy fighters and corvettes 4. Frigates and up use existing system.


Big yes to reverse engineering - its practically the Explore aspect but applied to equipment. I'd say station modules should also need slower means of obtaining blueprints too.
Pirates should board way more than simply shoot. They should also use non-combat ships like passenger transports instead of destroyers (where do they get them from!) or raiders. Freighters should be boardable too - extend the boarding system to M class ships.

Pirates should have more bases, hidden in station bars, casinos and underground cells,then as cap ship bases and then as whole stations. As they get stronger they progress to the next stage of pirate base, if they get taken out, then reduced. This allows for more fight than simply shooting spawning pirates, find them and keep them down. I really think spending the effort usually reserved for quests should be directed to making pirate operations much more complex.

Revisit ship stats too, I have a S courier that is slower and has less cargo space than a discoverer. That's crazy stuff there, some ship stats are wonky. All ships should be in a roughly comparable band per type. One race's S class scout shoulnd't be slower than another race's M freighter!

TBH the turrets need some attention too - if you watch any YT experiment yu'll see there are only 2 turrets that matter: plasma for slow ships, flak for fast. The rest need not bother, so either scrap the others or improve their effectiveness. Same with missiles - what is the difference between a tracking and dumbfire turret? Why do we have so many different missile types?

I also think it might be worthwhile, if primary sectors were clumped into race-specific groups, to then procedurally generate the rest of the map.

[SirLosealot]

I hope their visions contain improving the AI and the performance. But mostly the AI though.

On a micro level, the AI should at least be competent on the fundamental level. One example is, as far as I can see, capital ships still cannot use their main batteries effectively against the Xenon capital ships in X4. But that i just a start, I hope the AI can have more fighting scripts based on their equipment/faction/ship type and the player can set more behaviors for the AI. Because as a player for example, flying and fighting using a ship with TER engine will feel different from the same ship with SPL engine so the AI should fight differently with different equipment too.

On a macro or strategic level, they should at least be able to interact with each other (other factions) and the player more than what they can do currently which depends entirely on the story and the action of the player . I am not saying they need do have a full dynamic diplomacy system. But something like proposing a ceasefire with another faction when a faction is losing and then maybe resume hostility sometimes afterward because the lore says so. Right now, even if a faction is down to having zero military asset, they still refuse to not be at war with somebody else because the lore says so. Cue Monty Python's "tis but a scratch".

Regarding performance, everybody loves more performance. Personally, I notice the game only uses 20% or less of my cpu. More performance means bigger battle, bigger station, more complex AI...

[christina jade]

We have seen that the egosoft team can do it...
I would like to see more planetary bodies to land/dock with .
we have the asteroid with built in station in 'tides'. more like that , bigger in size .. perhaps moons that have bases on, mining plants?

improve the boarding ..nice to watch a progress screen?..not.. At the very least, made the boarding audio match up with what is happening during the boarding progress.
I dont want FPS,
something that allows for a more interaction...selecting troops to 'storm' keys areas of ships first,.Maybe, if the boarding is going bad.. an evacuate option?

[flywlyx]

I believe the most apparent answer involves streamlining the trading system to reduce its consumption of system resources, thereby enabling other AI to update more frequently.

[TroubledRabbit]

WRT the defence platforms, the only realistic way to stop these from spamming turrets is to require ammo of some sort - that would probably be energy cells. More turrets require more energy cells that would eat up the power storage of a platform. Take away turrets from the other modules so only defence platforms get them and you might be balancing stations a little.

It can be done in existing game.
I would add: make production and habitation modules more fragile and proportionally buff defense ones.
As a variant: destruction of habitations would cost more in rep. loss.

sectors be bigger and more self-sustaining and connecting sectors radiate out to become progressively less safe.

Kinda 'eve' design. Self-sustaining would somewhat defeat the point of cross-sectr trade.

more base trade wares required for stations and require workers for production modules (revisit the numbers too). I'd want much more trade needed for basic stuff like food and energy, the high-tech stuff should be non-essential and specalised so the player has a goal to aim for to make a difference becoming a supplier of such things.

yeah. generally - civilian part of economy. This could be done in existsing game.

Alter small ships to have limited missile hardpoints, so you can have a couple of missiles and a full gun loadout. These can only be refilled at a dock. This gives a player the possibility of playing with missiles in those "uh-oh" moments without sacrifcing loadout guns points. Give a scout 1 hardpoint, light fighters 2, heavy fighters and corvettes 4. Frigates and up use existing system.

I would love to have frigates as such. Not just box+stuff heavy corvettes. Regular L ships.
'There is mod for that' (ofc): https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... xt=frigate or https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... xt=frigate or https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... xt=frigate

Big yes to reverse engineering - its practically the Explore aspect but applied to equipment. I'd say station modules should also need slower means of obtaining blueprints too.
Pirates should board way more than simply shoot. They should also use non-combat ships like passenger transports instead of destroyers (where do they get them from!) or raiders. Freighters should be boardable too - extend the boarding system to M class ships.


Pirates should have more bases, hidden in station bars, casinos and underground cells,then as cap ship bases and then as whole stations. As they get stronger they progress to the next stage of pirate base, if they get taken out, then reduced. This allows for more fight than simply shooting spawning pirates, find them and keep them down. I really think spending the effort usually reserved for quests should be directed to making pirate operations much more complex.

Revisit ship stats too, I have a S courier that is slower and has less cargo space than a discoverer. That's crazy stuff there, some ship stats are wonky. All ships should be in a roughly comparable band per type. One race's S class scout shoulnd't be slower than another race's M freighter!

yep. "There is mod for that, too"
Generally a lot of good ideas are in mods so the basic conceptual part is already done. Implementation, balancing etc. ofc. is not.

I also think it might be worthwhile, if primary sectors were clumped into race-specific groups, to then procedurally generate the rest of the map.

that would demand a serious lore change - basically: rebuilding of whole galaxy stuff. Not impossible ('There is mod for that, too'), though. Races are split all around because the gates align themsevels differently from time to time. Realigning them (assuming that interested parties - namely: races, would be actually interested and not every of them would be, there are certain benefits from fragmentation) is worth the whole 'endgamechanger' gigaquest. Also doable in existing game.

[gbjbaanb]

WRT the defence platforms, the only realistic way to stop these from spamming turrets is to require ammo of some sort - that would probably be energy cells. More turrets require more energy cells that would eat up the power storage of a platform. Take away turrets from the other modules so only defence platforms get them and you might be balancing stations a little.

It can be done in existing game.
I would add: make production and habitation modules more fragile and proportionally buff defense ones.
As a variant: destruction of habitations would cost more in rep. loss.

sectors be bigger and more self-sustaining and connecting sectors radiate out to become progressively less safe.

Kinda 'eve' design. Self-sustaining would somewhat defeat the point of cross-sectr trade.

Fragile production makes sense, but it means any attack on a station would be sufficient to destroy it - the parts that matter, that is. It doesn't solve the problem fundamentally as you would be encouraged to build walls of defence platforms then. I don't like ammo generally, but energy cells to restock or "repair" after attacks might be a reasonable abstraction.

Defence stations should also be manned, for a game that refuses to let an AI pilot a ship, it sure is happy to let them fire guns at passing traffic!

For trade, the concept is that there is enough of the base stuff to allow local-only trade to occur. That doesn't mean no cross-sector trade, it just means you're going out for the more processed stuff. Every sector should be self-sufficient in food, some ore-rich sectors will be producers of metals and hull plates (why build your hull plate fab in a sector that doesn't have ore?) and a few sectors will have the advanced electronics. If you make the cost of the more refined goods much higher, there will be fewer of them and the trade will have to occur to get them, but at the same time trade for basic stuff (like food and ore) can be safely ignored in the simulation as it can be handled locally. That reduction in processing would allow more complex processing chains and goods.

It might also mean more opportunity for disaster relief type trade or smuggling goods some race wants that some other race provides.

[Virtualaughing]

The place where I would re design some stuff is the map itself. For example to get a simple ship information about your target shouldn't open the full map. I dont like the "3D" side panels. They are too big. I dont know how many player using VR googles. Optimizing the game for a minority of players for the expense of the majority is not good.
I use 1440p and 0,7 scale to read stuff on screen. i would like to see some customization on the on screen side panels.
With Windows XP, Flight Simulator X's monitor/display handling was superb. I will forever miss X3's two top left and right window. Especially functionality for the remote controlling of your other ships.

[Virtualaughing]

For trade, the concept is that there is enough of the base stuff to allow local-only trade to occur. That doesn't mean no cross-sector trade, it just means you're going out for the more processed stuff. Every sector should be self-sufficient in food, some ore-rich sectors will be producers of metals and hull plates (why build your hull plate fab in a sector that doesn't have ore?) and a few sectors will have the advanced electronics. If you make the cost of the more refined goods much higher, there will be fewer of them and the trade will have to occur to get them, but at the same time trade for basic stuff (like food and ore) can be safely ignored in the simulation as it can be handled locally. That reduction in processing would allow more complex processing chains and goods.

It might also mean more opportunity for disaster relief type trade or smuggling goods some race wants that some other race provides.

This is excellent. Lets say you find an ice field and your miners should mine them locally. It is so hard to control your ships not to wander around like crazy. Restricting jump range in a way that counting the actual passing of a gate/superhighway.I have tried to restrict a specific sector but then your ships going around passing a lot more gates and "ignoring" your wishes. Going around the restricted system. Sometimes it feels that your ships just passing gates just for the gist of it.
I'm against of too much micro managing. However when you see your big factories and the workforce drops like crazy even if you have an individual super extreme mega food production factory nearby. The entire thing when you have to build your factories in a remote places just to prevent their ships going too far or covering too much territory is bad.
The prices of goods should be affected by jump range. Maybe managers of stations and salary of traders would be a solution. Also I realize that too much variables = more CPU usage, longer idle time.

[Nerwesta]

I hope their visions contain improving the AI and the performance. But mostly the AI though.

On a micro level, the AI should at least be competent on the fundamental level. One example is, as far as I can see, capital ships still cannot use their main batteries effectively against the Xenon capital ships in X4. But that i just a start, I hope the AI can have more fighting scripts based on their equipment/faction/ship type and the player can set more behaviors for the AI. Because as a player for example, flying and fighting using a ship with TER engine will feel different from the same ship with SPL engine so the AI should fight differently with different equipment too.

On a macro or strategic level, they should at least be able to interact with each other (other factions) and the player more than what they can do currently which depends entirely on the story and the action of the player . I am not saying they need do have a full dynamic diplomacy system. But something like proposing a ceasefire with another faction when a faction is losing and then maybe resume hostility sometimes afterward because the lore says so. Right now, even if a faction is down to having zero military asset, they still refuse to not be at war with somebody else because the lore says so. Cue Monty Python's "tis but a scratch".

Regarding performance, everybody loves more performance. Personally, I notice the game only uses 20% or less of my cpu. More performance means bigger battle, bigger station, more complex AI...

About asking for a fleshed out diplomacy system :
I do actually, it's in term of features my biggest grip against X4, which in turn make the quest system a bit less believable.
This is for X5 or a yet bigger DLC, because a quicker thing would be to flesh out every single factions we are set to meet in X4, some donwright have no questlines.

[TroubledRabbit]

Fragile production makes sense, but it means any attack on a station would be sufficient to destroy it - the parts that matter, that is. It doesn't solve the problem fundamentally as you would be encouraged to build walls of defence platforms then. I don't like ammo generally, but energy cells to restock or "repair" after attacks might be a reasonable abstraction.
...

I meant - the 'every station is a fortress, smaller or bigger' is just wrong. There should be certain cost attached to the increased defenses. I do not mind the idea of added cost (e.g. EC) of rebuilding or manpower needed for working defenses (or maybe - in simpler way: +% to effectiveness).

I am skeptical of the 'self-sustainability' idea - this would practically exclude the player from entering the market of low level production - and OK in 'the real world' it is much easier to start selling mobiles than building the mine, but the game never worked that way (and I think - it should not, to some extend, it is well established mechanics of early game). For that to actually work it would require drastic changes, starting with complete rebuild of game's economy (added or rather created market significance of non-military and double-use goods and demand for it from stations and planetary bodies).

[eedden]

I hope they introduce more ways to directly interact with the game other than menus.
- huds to keep track of combat outside of the one ship we are chasing
- ability to meaningfully command fighter wings and capitals from the hud
- ability for the player to find trade shortcuts that would not be used by automated ships
- a good piracy/police system with more raiders and pirate bases, boarding, cloaking ships , a way to call police for help, pay them off if you are caught

Most of all AI needs to drastically improve, as it stands a fighter wing can barely maintain formation on patrol, much less fight as a unit.

[SwizzleStick86]

" ability for the player to find trade shortcuts that would not be used by automated ships"

I feel like anomalies were a missed opportunity for this. It would be cool if there was a research tree/mission chain after tides of avarice where boso can make technology to replicate the tide, and allow you to tie two anomalies together permanently (or until you disconnect them).

[geldonyetich]

If we're now talking what we'd like to have in X5. I'll make my wishlist simple:

• On the metagame, add the kind of diplomatic happenings and technological progression that you would see in a full 4X game. The rise and fall of empires, faction schisms, war and peace, constant technology evolving, subterfuge, and such. Except dynamic this time, not just through scripted static story sequences.
• In the core gameplay loop, continue to enhance the depth and nuance of piloting the ships and issuing orders to your empire.

If they even got halfway from X4: Foundations to these points in X5, it would be a remarkable experience.

But honestly, this was probably the plan all along, but they got derailed along the way. Game development is hard.

[Ageansnowfly]

If X5 had FPS elements and planetary landing, it would be 1000 times better than Star Citizen

[eedden]

" ability for the player to find trade shortcuts that would not be used by automated ships"

I feel like anomalies were a missed opportunity for this. It would be cool if there was a research tree/mission chain after tides of avarice where boso can make technology to replicate the tide, and allow you to tie two anomalies together permanently (or until you disconnect them).

Yes, something like anomalies is what I had in mind. I think the tricky part would be how predictable these paths are. If they were stable then they are just additional jump gates, if they were random they are useless. I'd like to see a way for players to be rewarded if they fly a trader themselves rather than having AI do it all. This mechanic could also be a way for pirates or xenon to slip past blockaded gates.

If X5 had FPS elements and planetary landing, it would be 1000 times better than Star Citizen

Such mechanics sound great but I feel like they would either fall short of expectations or draw away too much resources from the space aspect. Everybody, myself included, dreams of these endless worlds with something interesting behind every corner, but in reality good games have boundries and games without boundries are usually not very good.

[gbjbaanb]

Such mechanics sound great but I feel like they would either fall short of expectations or draw away too much resources from the space aspect. Everybody, myself included, dreams of these endless worlds with something interesting behind every corner, but in reality good games have boundries and games without boundries are usually not very good.

Indeed. "A studio proudly revealing its game will have 1,000 planets is obviously meant to be a selling point". Except Starfield found that quantity over quality doesn't work outside of the marketing department. 1000 empty, lifeless planets is exactly what people worry about when the forums start to get filled with demands for outrageously ambitious features.

More complexity within what we already have would be much more awesome. eg instead of the one-size fits all faction rep system, imagine if split didn't care if you destroyed their ships. Obviously split deserved it because he lost. But similarly they will attack your unprotected traders, if you didn't want them capped you would surely have sent a big escort with them. Split think you strange. And so the faction rep can be lost or won and you can have more combat interaction. Similarly the Boron would take a very different attitude to attacks on their shipping, major rep loss at the least. Suddenly the game environment becomes more interesting, even if it really only gets applied to the player.

More complexity like that would make me think about what I'm doing, and the game then appears to be much more than it is.