Once you take these two skills, you have spent 12 skill points, a quarter of your total, and now you are incentivized to take additional skills in those same trees since you already spent the aptitude points.No, all that does is make skills points get wasted on dead aptitudes. I have no problem spending only seven on Loadout Design 3 and Electronic Warfare 1 in Technology because they are universal skills critical for every single character. Also, Fleet Logistics 3, Fighter Doctrine 3, Coordinated Maneuvers 1, and Officer Management X in Leadership. Even Combat has Combat Endurance 1 and (if you use fighters) Helmsmanship 3.
This is compounded by the fact that two very good player ship buffing skills are in the tech tree (gunnery implants 3 and power grid modulation 3). Imo, dissipation and range are two of the most important ship stats and they can only be buffed for the player ship by taking tech tree skills. I can achieve substantial player ship buffs using these skills and other fleet wide skills in the leadership and industry trees so I often forgo the combat tree to save the aptitude points.If I knew I would not be married to a carrier, Gunnery Implants 3 would be an automatic pick up there with Loadout Design 3. The only reason it is not because if I want to pilot a carrier, I have no use for guns (because fighters take all of the OP), and I need to put skill points into carrier skills, at least Carrier Command and Wing Commander. (Strike Command is a junk skill aside from 3.) As for Power Grid Modulation, it is good, but the bonuses are so puny that it can be cut if you do not have enough skill points. That said, if you want to use Mjolnir on low-tech ships, blaster spam on high-tech, or other flux hogs, you need it. I do agree that, aside from Helmsmanship, the best combat skills for conventional gunships is in Technology.
I think even just removing officer management and loadout design would improve balance drastically (I would probably add the extra OP as default and use the officer soft cap instead).I would not mind removing Loadout Design if everyone gets the extra OP. We have too low OP without it, especially carriers. Officers (and presumably administrators to come) should be given the same treatment as ships. Either remove Officer Management (I prefer this) or add a skill that extends the fleet cap (like 0.54 and 0.6 era Fleet Logistics).
-Combine ordinance expertise and target analysisI would combine Power Grid Modulation and Loadout Design (1 and 2). Loadout Design 3 could either be its own skill (+4% or +5% OP per level) or removed (with higher base OP to compensate)… or
-Combine evasive action and helmsmanship into one
-Move gunnery implants and power grid modulation into the combat tree and move coordinated maneuvers into the tech tree
-Combine Power grid modulation and defensive systems (assuming previous suggestion)
-Combine gunnery implants and ordinance expertise (alternative to suggestion 1, could combine these 3 skills into two in many ways)
-Eliminate advanced countermeasures (its just bad)
-Move Combat endurance into leadership and combine with fleet logistics
-Combine some of the fighter sub-trees
QuoteOnce you take these two skills, you have spent 12 skill points, a quarter of your total, and now you are incentivized to take additional skills in those same trees since you already spent the aptitude points.No, all that does is make skills points get wasted on dead aptitudes. I have no problem spending only seven on Loadout Design 3 and Electronic Warfare 1 in Technology because they are universal skills critical for every single character. Also, Fleet Logistics 3, Fighter Doctrine 3, Coordinated Maneuvers 1, and Officer Management X in Leadership. Even Combat has Combat Endurance 1 and (if you use fighters) Helmsmanship 3.
In short, it encourages cherry-picking the very best (skills useful for every character) from all trees, which may be undesirable too.
As for rebalancing skills, a quick idea is to have all of the personal skills be at level 1, maybe 2, and have the fleetwide stuff at 3. For example, Combat Endurance 1 gives more peak performance to flagship, 2 gives more CR to flagship, and 3 gives more CR to the whole fleet. Do this for other skills directly related to combat. That way, player can spread his skills to have a great flagship or concentrate his skills for a good fleet. Officers max skills at level 2, since only fleetwide is at three.
Rewarding the player on focusing their points on one skill tree with "perks"It tries to do this with dead aptitudes, so that those that do not touch other aptitudes get more skills. In practice, that fails because the must-haves are spread across from two to all four aptitudes, and everyone who wants the best spends more-or-less nine points into dead aptitudes. Also, exploration is gated behind Industry.
My take on this problem is:1) This sort of what the current system attempts to do with the skill trees, however it doesn't work well at achieving the effect you describe. IMO, there are a couple things the skill tree system would have to do in order to incentivize this sort of specialization in gameplay:
1) We shouldn't view this problem by comparing every skill to each other, instead, carve each skill for a particular type of gameplay
2) We need to add more consequences to balance out each specific skill while creating more opportunity to engage in the game more
Skills that are sidegrades probably feel bad. I would not want them. What is the point of skills if the sum power of my character is zero due to power-up letdowns, sidegrades, or poison mushrooms?
This is just another way of balancing the opportunity cost of skills. It's a pretty good idea but ultimately the goal is still to ensure that all the skills have the same opportunity cost. This method just avoids nerfing skills and chooses to add a separate drawback instead.
Officer Management: gives you the ability to have more officers but for every officer above x number your entire fleet suffer from increasing a%/b%/c%...(Supply usage) and non-officer-helmed ships suffer x%/y%/z%...(peak performance time and top speed penalty) as a consequence of officer personality quirks and envy. (This change keeps the small elite fleets more supply hungry while making their support/backup ships weaker as a consequence)
As long as there are skills that are so good that every character needs to take them (to be the best), it does not matter if there are skills that curve out different paths because there will not be enough skill points left. Currently, the player can be a solo combat flagship junkie (weak), CP micro-commander, carrier master, jack, or gimp his combat power to play explorer. Currently, Leadership and Technology have those universal must-take skills. Combat has few critical skills for various builds. Industry is required for exploration, but exploration is optional since they only yield one-time cash rewards.
Solution b would be much simpler. Similar to what you suggested, it could be as simple as a % bonus for each skill taken in a tree. So each skill in tech might add 2 OP or 2% OP or something like that. You could also do a non-linearly scaling bonus so there is more benefit for each skill taken. This could ensure that focusing on one tree was more viable by giving substantially larger bonuses for large investments and create several distinct and very powerful play styles with little intersection.
Lets say every 5 levels starting from level 5 you get to select a feat of your liking. Lets also say that there are a few general feats that include skills you can use on the map, but some are only available if you invested enough points into a particular tree.These would be the general ideas behind skills gained by investing into a particular tree
Do not want skill access tied to factions. Do not like the idea that character requires training at Tri-Tachyon to level up (for a bunch of dangerous sidegrades). I should not need to pay someone to teach me how to breathe. Tri-Tachyon or Persean League are already no-brainers to join due to the nearly exclusive access to various hullmods. Hullmods already fill the book learning aspect.
I'm not quite clear on what you are suggesting? Are you saying that every 5 character levels, you get to choose from some set of potential perks? Or are you suggesting that for every 5 points invested in a tree, you gain access to some specific perk?Both. Have you played DND before? If you have, I'm using the concept of leveling up and getting feats from ability improvement.
-Technology: A singe upgrade-able perk that allows more skill points at the cost of all other perks. This should balance out how this tech tree appeals more than to others.If this means more skills but perks become null-and-void, then you just shot yourself in the foot by destroying all skills and effectively become an unskilled character. If this means spending points to get even more points back (and perks are not voided), then this is a no-brainer!
I mean, if there is a way to both make the game more complex, hard and rewarding while only giving the option to those who would want to take advantage of it, I would gladly take it.I do not necessarily want complexity for its sake, especially if the extra bells-and-whistles make the game worse (like CR in early 0.6). Simplicity can be good.
Both. Have you played DND before? If you have, I'm using the concept of leveling up and getting feats from ability improvement.Pre-0.8 Starsector was probably like this, and it was problematic because only the perks mattered. For example, the difference in power in the Combat tree from 9 to 10 was greater than from 0 to 9. It was really bad. On the other hand, there was no level cap, and if you could grind long enough, you can get everything.
The reason behind balance shouldn't be vigorous tuning of each individual skill in regards to another skill, instead, it should be making every playstyle a viable choice to the player, think Boarderlands 2.In order for play styles to be balanced, the skills that enable them must be balanced. I'm not suggesting that every skill provide the same benefit, but rather that they provide (roughly) the same amount of overall benefit. Different play-styles provide value in different ways, but they are all trying to achieve the same goal, so you can judge their value by how well they achieve that goal. Overwatch is a great example. The hero's are not balanced directly wrt each other at all. That would mean they would all have an equal chance of winning a 1v1. Instead they are balanced based on how well they help win a team fight. If a hero helps win a team fight much more than any other hero, they provide more value in terms of that goal and so they are unbalanced, even though they do not provide the same value that another hero might. I think I am talking about value more abstractly than you are. Supports and tanks in overwatch both provide completely different value to the team, and their abilities do different things that cannot be directly compared, but they can still be compared abstractly to one another based on how well they help win the game. In starsector, the goal is to win combats. If playership skills help me win combat a little, but fleet-wide skills help me win combat a lot and they require the same investment, then they are not balanced. In order to make solo playership combat a viable playsestyle, the components that make it up must be able to provide a similar amount of value towards winning the game as any other play style. Balancing playstyles and balancing the skills that enable them is the same thing.
My propositions are indeed another way to 'balance' these issues the game already has. But unlike changing the numbers so that each skill have similar utility, I think drawbacks bring into the game high risk high reward skill selection.You add drawbacks to..... ensure that each skill has similar utility? Otherwise why are you adding drawbacks? You are trying to do the same thing by a different mechanism, which might be a good mechanism, but it's still doing the same thing.
Or in-other words, more meaningful choices and less one sided decisions.I agree with this, drawbacks can make decisions more interesting but more complicated as well. Also, drawbacks do not determine if a decision is one-sided. If the skill is too strong or the drawback too weak, the decision will be one-sided. It's always possible with any balancing mechanism to tune a skill so that the decision is difficult or not obvious. I agree that strong skill and major drawback make for a more interesting decision sometime , but that can also be frustrating. In the example of unstable injector, I never use it because the range penalty is too annoying, even if it actually makes the ship relatively balanced (questionable). I might rather have the choice of 20/15/10/5 su/s with no penalty than 40/30/20/10 with a range penalty. The choice of balancing mechanism should be specific to each case.
Perks are meant to be another balancing measure to provide each tech trees option that are available to other tech trees but are not possible / to high of an investment while including tech tree specific bonuses.If we are adding more skill trees, I think splitting campaign and combat skills is more intuitive. Or even splitting each tree into its own system with it's own xp. These ideas directly reward the player for playing a play-style with skills that benefit those play-styles, and they don't restrict you from pursuing other playstyles separately. Simpler and more intuitive. That's just my opinion though, your idea is certainly viable.
The problem with separated tech trees is like unlimited levels, you can get all the skills in one play though. This kills replay-ability and add a grind aspect to leveling up, highly dangerous.
The problem with separated tech trees is like unlimited levels, you can get all the skills in one play though. This kills replay-ability and add a grind aspect to leveling up, highly dangerous.I'd say just the opposite: Limited skills LIMITS skill builds, especially in .9 when we are going to get MORE must have skills and most likely no more SP.
The combat tree is perfectly fine for a SO heavy playstyle centered around Medusa and Aurora. And its not the "common" options of the combat tree that are usually taken for that.
The combat tree is perfectly fine for a SO heavy playstyle centered around Medusa and Aurora. And its not the "common" options of the combat tree that are usually taken for that.
Why would you ever SO a Medusa? It is fast enough that most enemy ships can't really threaten it, phase skim allows for easy venting pauses on demand, 2 Railguns are far below normal flux dissipation anyway... Basically, there isn't much to gain, but you lose ton of CR.
SO Aurora may be barely capable of solo defeating weaker Paragon variants (where non-SO can't at all), but it's kind of moot point with Afflictor doing so much better job for way less cost.
The combat tree is perfectly fine for a SO heavy playstyle centered around Medusa and Aurora. And its not the "common" options of the combat tree that are usually taken for that.
Why would you ever SO a Medusa? It is fast enough that most enemy ships can't really threaten it, phase skim allows for easy venting pauses on demand, 2 Railguns are far below normal flux dissipation anyway... Basically, there isn't much to gain, but you lose ton of CR.
SO Aurora may be barely capable of solo defeating weaker Paragon variants (where non-SO can't at all), but it's kind of moot point with Afflictor doing so much better job for way less cost.
Because you cannot run heavy blasters consistently without SO. And Heavy blasters are that good. And i don't mean that in a sarcastic way. They're really that good. Their cap efficiency isn't that great vs shields but that doesn't matter that much when you have SO because you can stack so much hard cap so fast while you dissipate the difference. Their DPS vs armor is second only to HIL's and Plasma Cannons and tied with Hellbore Cannons*, and its DPS vs hull is second only to Plasma Cannons. Edit: And its more flux efficient than Plasma Cannons.
The additional 80 speed you get is just gravy. OK actually its pretty essential to easily slaughtering everything that gets in your way because it ensures that nothing can easily kite you and lets you move between targets super fast.
SO Medusa will easily and speedily solo most sub cruiser fleets until the enemy has very significant fighter coverage. The SO aurora will solo almost all pirate fleets and can get pretty close to soloing some of the mid-late game IBB fleets. Its not just about what you can solo but about how much chaff you can clear out and how fast. It is much faster, safer, and cheaper(in terms of ease of acquiring equipment) to rely on a player piloted SO Medusa than it is to try with an Afflictor.
*You need to get to armor values higher than what you will reasonably see in game in order for Hellbore to clearly win out. While HB is better against low armor targets they're pretty close in the heavy to medium relevant range where you particularly care about armor piercing. The variance tends to occur due to the long fire time on HB which means that, if you're close to a 1 or 2 hit armor kill it will be "clearly better" but if you're in the middle then HB's will be. Antimatter Cannons also can have the same advantage (basically the zero time advantage on first shot makes it penetrate some armor values faster) but HB's still dominate them in killing targets.
You know what is a perfect solution to cowardly AI? A 220 speed dual Heavy Blaster destroyer with phase skipping.I wish it was that simple. If you mean Medusa, it does not work well against multiple targets that deathball or bigger ships that kite-and-snipe, unless you have a swarm of them to outnumber them. (But if you have that much of an advantage, they usually run instead, in which case, auto-resolve with junk ships for free kills.)
Let them “run away”.
Let me ask the community some questions:
-Could there be a simpler way to change skills than perks and drawbacks to achieve (higher replayability with skills, more differentiated end game content and playstyle focused content)?
-Are there any major play styles I didn't account for?
-Compared to the current tech tree, does (perks, drawbacks) solve your problem, if not, why?
I am very much of the opinion that there should be separate levels for the trees: ie 'combat' is one experience track, 'leadership' another, etc etc. Then there is no direct competition of skill points between trees: a point in combat can never be a point in leadership.
This makes balancing only have to happen within an individual tree, which is a lot easier than among all the skills.
I guess this kind of goes to show that when the player takes a backseat in the combat, the core feature of the game, for the sake of 'optimised' gameplay, something's wonky.