The "Opening one door and closing another" skill choosing irked me for a bit, but I'm glad you can still get the other skills at a later point.
I'm excited! ;D
Story Points are an awesome idea, but if they're gained by leveling up and the level cap is only 15 you're still limited majorly by the maximum story points available, even with bonus experience. Unless, that is, you can keep "leveling" beyond 15 just without skill points, or can gain Story Points in other ways... Which might be implied by the name? :-X
Yeah, it says in the post - you keep gaining story points after reaching max level!
Are story points theoretically unlimited? It seems like if player runs out, he can grind longer to get more.
Will bringing AI-piloted ships attract patrols like smuggling contraband? I guess it also brings the question of possible AI betrayal, but that would probably be mildly hidden like alpha colonies.
I REALLY like the idea of perm hull mods, as one of the things that this game has been missing in my eyes is the EV feel of "this is MY ship" and that should help with it. Giving me a reason to care about the a specific ship or hull
Sorry, I am still gloating at the Redacted ships and officers in the player fleet. I know I need to read the rest of the post, but...
Well, that opens up a lot of options and it addresses a lot of murky things such as officer personalities. In all, I'm very pleased, it seems like a very interesting system. I think what excites me the most is not even the story points, but the specialized skill points that will make each run unique. For example, the hard flux for short ranged beams skill there has already made me start thinking of some interesting loadouts geared for that.
The only thing I'm not too keen on is, well, the name "story points". When I first started reading the blog I thought it'd be related to plot events or missions but it is completely detached from that. I feel it might be a little confusing for a new player.
While reading I was at first like "man, less levels again" ... but at the end of the blog post I'm quite intrigued.
Of course I'll have to play with this to be sure, but thinking about it for a bit, it sounds pretty good.
The story points open up pretty much endless possibilities and you never really stop progressing, but not in a broken way.
As for permanently adding OP-free hull mods... On the one hand, this is neat! On the other hand, I'm a little bit wary of the 'max 2' bit - means there's incentive to pick the most expensive hull mods, rather than the most interesting. May I suggest that you have an ordnance point limit as well, so that if the player chooses to install mostly cheap mods, they can get to three or four of them, while someone who installs Safety Overrides and Augmented Drive Fields would only get the default two?Yes, I would pick the most expensive ones, not necessarily the most vital ones, to maximize OP on a ship.
Another thought: Story Points offer a means to scale difficulty. A complaint I’m hearing is that it could be perceived as “glorified cheating”. Perhaps Easy/Medium/Hard should scale the number of Story Points you get per level. Maybe you should start with some on Easy. Players that feel like they make the game too easy, or feel like it makes their victory unearned, could move to Hard Mode where you get fewer of them.If the only difference is time, then it is fake difficulty, or just more grinding.
May I suggest that you have an ordnance point limit as well, so that if the player chooses to install mostly cheap mods, they can get to three or four of them, while someone who installs Safety Overrides and Augmented Drive Fields would only get the default two?On second thought, don't do this - instead, scale the bonus XP granted based on the OP cost of the hull mod, so a super-expensive mod like SO costs (in the long run) more of a story point than installing something cheap like Advanced Turret Gyros.
Something I noticed: If the only skill I am interested is something in tier 5, then the other four skills might as well be dead aptitude skills. Worse, if both must-have skills occupy the same tier, that may hurt. Noticed that Gunnery Implants and Loadout Design (as shown in the pic) occupy tier 2. That is 7 out of 15. Also noticed Colony Management and Industrial Planning both are Industry tier 5. If I do not want to rely on cores (to avoid Pathers and Hegemony), that is 10 out of 15 just for babysitting mitigation. I guess time to farm alphas for unlimited colonies and save 10 skill points.Considering it seems that Loadout Design is now more like a ship-specific hullmod (it's in the menu for picking an AI core's skills), I would not assume immediately that all skills are the same as in 0.9.
Also noticed Colony Management and Industrial Planning both are Industry tier 5. If I do not want to rely on cores (to avoid Pathers and Hegemony), that is 10 out of 15 just for babysitting mitigation. I guess time to farm alphas for unlimited colonies and save 10 skill points. Pathers will be a royal pain, though, and I need to stay vigilant for inspection alerts.
Also noticed Colony Management and Industrial Planning both are Industry tier 5. If I do not want to rely on cores (to avoid Pathers and Hegemony), that is 10 out of 15 just for babysitting mitigation. I guess time to farm alphas for unlimited colonies and save 10 skill points. Pathers will be a royal pain, though, and I need to stay vigilant for inspection alerts.
If i were a guard on patrol duty and had to scan a ship, i would accept a credits bride because we all need credits, not some magical "you're immune to 1 scan" pass.Considering that the AI smuggler fleets can wander around with their transponders off without faction patrols so much as looking at them, I, for one, will be quite pleased to have an option to do something even vaguely similar.
some mechanics like the inverse scaling of skill bonuses with the number of ships that are cool but feel a bit counterintuitiveMore to the point... won't that be forcing players into yet-another pigeonhole?
With industry limits, player needs at least three colonies to be self-sufficient. More likely four or five. If player wants to avoid Pather cells, he probably needs four. (If he does not care about that and inspections, he has as many colonies as he has alpha cores.)Also noticed Colony Management and Industrial Planning both are Industry tier 5. If I do not want to rely on cores (to avoid Pathers and Hegemony), that is 10 out of 15 just for babysitting mitigation. I guess time to farm alphas for unlimited colonies and save 10 skill points. Pathers will be a royal pain, though, and I need to stay vigilant for inspection alerts.
It never felt like to me that you were supposed to have more then 1 or 2 colonies anyway. Just 1 or two good ones and then to import whatever else you need from the independents.
Needing to farm for that kinda stuff seems fair game to me, as it's a little beyond the general use of the colonies anyway (A piggy bank/shipyard.)
If i were a guard on patrol duty and had to scan a ship, i would accept a credits bride because we all need credits, not some magical "you're immune to 1 scan" pass.Considering that the AI smuggler fleets can wander around with their transponders off without faction patrols so much as looking at them, I, for one, will be quite pleased to have an option to do something even vaguely similar.
Quotesome mechanics like the inverse scaling of skill bonuses with the number of ships that are cool but feel a bit counterintuitiveMore to the point... won't that be forcing players into yet-another pigeonhole?
Honestly, the last thing this game needs is more caps that make play even more about threading the Skill needle some specific way and playing some specific way.
That was my initial reaction but i'm not sure it'll work that way in practice.Quotesome mechanics like the inverse scaling of skill bonuses with the number of ships that are cool but feel a bit counterintuitiveMore to the point... won't that be forcing players into yet-another pigeonhole?
Honestly, the last thing this game needs is more caps that make play even more about threading the Skill needle some specific way and playing some specific way.
Another thought: Story Points offer a means to scale difficulty. A complaint I’m hearing is that it could be perceived as “glorified cheating”. Perhaps Easy/Medium/Hard should scale the number of Story Points you get per level. Maybe you should start with some on Easy. Players that feel like they make the game too easy, or feel like it makes their victory unearned, could move to Hard Mode where you get fewer of them.I wouldn't mind something bad happening every few spent story points.
Considering it seems that Loadout Design is now more like a ship-specific hullmod (it's in the menu for picking an AI core's skills), I would not assume immediately that all skills are the same as in 0.9.It better not be ship specific, or Alex better create some check to prevent having over OP ships in your fleet.
Could I use story points to do stuff to my faction/colonies? Like faction wide/fleet wide hull mod instillation? Orders to invade a system? Diplomacy? Change my faction colour from blue to anything else?
Not that this all should be a major thing.
I actually like this system more because it's more intuitive, I know there might be quite a few people that don't like the levels being limited or the new level up system but I think it's a step in the right direction, I sort of wish it was possible to have 3 skills per tier or at certain tiers as choices but that might be pushing it a bit
So after I get to the last skill in a tree, I can put points in any skill in that tree I missed the first time? Or if I want the second T5 aptitude, do I need to spend another 5 points?
I can see the ups and downs of both, but if I don't want anything besides one or two things a ways down the tree, it's gonna feel like an unreasonably large investment.
Will using story points on salvaging a ship let you pick which one you want, letting us snipe out specific ships in a fleet again? Or is it, (as I just thought of mid-writing) when you find a random ship floating about to pick loot of, you'll always be able to choose to make it recoverable instead of no? (And more importantly, will we know if we need to spend the point beforehand to garentee it? Or can we decide to take it anyways when the game initially says it's unsalvagablee? (Akin to adding the dice after the inital roll, as you mentioned?)
Either way, I'm hyped! I wonder how many skill points you'll have to throw around after getting all the non-refundable skills. I also wonder how you'll work with them being deeper in the tree, or if you'll just front-load them? It means you could go down a path, snipe a skill, and reset your points, keeping that skill and going elsewhere.
All is fine but I don't think making remnants recoverable is a good idea...
And so as permanent hullmods, "just put the hullmod which cost most op inside the ship!"oh that's...wild.
I have to say, story point system is an awesome idea but the application you showed might have a very bad influence on the game balance.
There should be more limitations.
SpoilerA thought on this system. You probably won't like this, but...
What if you just give players their 15 Skill Points right off the bat? De-couple that from Levels; tie Story Points to Levels and Doing Stuff That's Impactful instead?
One of the major problems with the Skills system, in general, that this overhaul doesn't really appear to fix, is that it feels like a pay-wall in the game design, locking away most of the "good" gameplay. Players keep hoarding their Skill Points, comparing builds, etc.- this is all detrimental to the gameplay.
Right now, players are all pushed towards monoculture characters, where they need to be able to fight but also have to be good Colony admins, if they want to "win" the easiest way. I think that having players be pushed into pushing around Carrier fleets optimized via putting as few skills as possible into Combat (and therefore, being unable to explore fighting their own ships much) was one of the unfortunate side-effects of this.
What we want, I think, is to deliberately encourage players to re-spec as they want, try new things out, keep having fun- not feel like they're Doing It Wrong because they invested more than 6 points in Combat (or whatever).
In Vanilla right now, the caps mean that the player's basically unable to go a bunch of routes if they're trying to minmax.
My current solution was drastic- get rid of the level cap and make experience gains considerably faster, so that players aren't nearly so starved. It's not a great solution; you still can't re-spec and eventually even un-capped Levels get slow. But at least the early game doesn't feel artificially hard.
In a system where all players have Skills to allocate immediately, they won't feel crippled or stuck behind a pay-wall. That these Skills are initially weak isn't such a big deal then; there will still be "better" routes, but psychologically, nobody's going to be stuck in Choice Anxiety (at least, not in this area of this game design, lol).
Story Points could then be used to logarithmically improve Skills or unlock Elite, and spending them is good, because they'll give the player something that improves an area a little bit, as well as XP gain to keep moving forward against the endless Level curve.
Story Points could continue to be Level-bound as proposed, but Levels could be capless (but the XP needed to keep going up would, of course, skyrocket). Other Story Points could be gained by Doing Something that scales in challenge with level and times accomplished, keeping it tantalizingly available but not over-powered.
Anyhow, just my $0.02, for what it's worth; I think that, in general, there's a lot to be said for having a system where players respec quite a lot and make themselves into the thing they need over and over as part of a playthrough, rather than feeling that they need to understand <this specific Elite build strat that requires X levels, Y Story Points, and Z grinding>.[close]
I think these new-fangled "story points" are the first time I've seen plot armor worked into the mechanics of a game.
An immediate concern is the Ordnance Point scaling method. Won’t this disproportionately benefit ships with built-in weapons? Some modded ships mostly rely on that type of weapon. Perhaps the scale should count weapon-OP from built-ins for the total amount of OP that a ship counts as having.
As for permanently adding OP-free hull mods... On the one hand, this is neat! On the other hand, I'm a little bit wary of the 'max 2' bit - means there's incentive to pick the most expensive hull mods, rather than the most interesting. May I suggest that you have an ordnance point limit as well, so that if the player chooses to install mostly cheap mods, they can get to three or four of them, while someone who installs Safety Overrides and Augmented Drive Fields would only get the default two?
May I suggest that you have an ordnance point limit as well, so that if the player chooses to install mostly cheap mods, they can get to three or four of them, while someone who installs Safety Overrides and Augmented Drive Fields would only get the default two?On second thought, don't do this - instead, scale the bonus XP granted based on the OP cost of the hull mod, so a super-expensive mod like SO costs (in the long run) more of a story point than installing something cheap like Advanced Turret Gyros.
Also curious: what happens if I have a civilian vessel, install Militarized Subsystems, and then attempt to perma-install SO?
Story points are a fascinatingly fresh take on incorporating a TTRPG mechanic into a video game. My only concerns with this new system is that I won't be able to edit a file and make sure I can have all the skills now
... and Loadout Design (as shown in the pic) occupy tier 2.
Another thought: Story Points offer a means to scale difficulty. A complaint I’m hearing is that it could be perceived as “glorified cheating”. Perhaps Easy/Medium/Hard should scale the number of Story Points you get per level. Maybe you should start with some on Easy. Players that feel like they make the game too easy, or feel like it makes their victory unearned, could move to Hard Mode where you get fewer of them.
Actually; expanding on the spending story points on your ship thing to improve it - I'd *really* like to be able to spend points on improving aspects of a ship's stats.
Uhhh, also you could use them for other funsies stuff like buying and setting up system improvements once you've gotten to the colonization stage (or pay out in a bar to come across someone who's got info on good colonization targets? If you pay X amount it could roll through the list of every planet and look for stuff that a player would be interested in - low hazard ratings or extremely rich in resources, or the third desirable criteria of several nearby good enough colonizables that the patrols support each other meaning you don't have to baby it) like an asteroid belt mining operation (+1 resource to system, as a bad example) or any of the other potentially neat megastructure stuff.
If i were a guard on patrol duty and had to scan a ship, i would accept a credits bride because we all need credits, not some magical "you're immune to 1 scan" pass.
Considering that the AI smuggler fleets can wander around with their transponders off without faction patrols so much as looking at them, I, for one, will be quite pleased to have an option to do something even vaguely similar.
with story points, you can permanently assign hull mods to a ship. isn't that a balancing issue? so you can end up having a pretty invulnerable ship.
My point is- if the enemy can't do, the player shouldn't. otherwise its a balancing issue (because no matter what the enemy does, the player will be unkillable and eventualy fights will become boring because you are pretty invulnerable at that point).
i agree having more control over your officers and being able to change stuff on them. but shouldn't that be something like specific training or things you do thogeder with the officer that makes the officer change? you know ... developing a connection with your officer and slowly building him/her up.
For an example: the more battles the officer does on board a carrier, the more experience it gets while piloting a carrier and if forced to change to a cruiser, it will underperform because its used to flying carriers and not cruisers, and it will take time untill it gets the hang of piloting cruisers. but at the same time will forget about his carrier experience.
Are we able to refit the AI ships or are they limited to set variants? If we're able to refit them I assume we can use the simulator... I'll pilot a drone vessel some day yet!
The skill changes are looking great, the quote used for the Energy Weapon Mastery skill is very nice. The Gunnery Implants skill has a typo on "psych" being "pysch".
Should phase mastery perhaps lower phase activation flux cost by a % to allow the player to use the -50% cooldown more easily(I definitely don't just miss blink dodging I swear)? As well, I hope the leadership skill that increases your maximum captains gives decent other bonuses because being only a +2 on an initial 8 cap seems rather weak. I suppose it might be far stronger than it seems given how many player skills might be tied to the ship having a captain.
Is the +% OP skill still in or did that get snapped? As much as I love it, it probably breaks the game balance- especially now that we can put two hullmods on a ship for no OP cost.
Speaking of, the current limit is two "Non-built-in" logistics hullmods does this mean we can now put four logistics hullmods on a single ship? EDIT: It just occurred to me that only 3 hullmods were even in the list for the image showing applying permanent ones, so maybe logistic ones aren't allowed? Makes sense.
- the name feels weird. I feel like the name of something should convey how it is meant to be used, but this name doesn't do that for me.
- they may be too broad. With so many different ways to spend them, I can already feel the decision paralysis and the massive stack of unused points
- free hull mods could really throw off ship balance on some ships
Speaking of ship balance, is this going to be accompanied by a major balance pass? It seems like a lot of these changes (particularly the changes to skills and how they can have smaller/larger effects based on the number of ships etc) will affect ship balance in a major way which will likely require rebalancing. Or is the plan to make the changes and then patch balance problems as they arise.
Finally, there are some mechanics like the inverse scaling of skill bonuses with the number of ships that are cool but feel a bit counterintuitive and really hard to communicate to the player. not sure what to do about that. My instinct when I get a skill that buffs carriers is to get a more carriers to take advantage of my investment, but I might actually be hurting myself by doing that.
Stuff like built in weapons.
Oh and what about ships with mods already built in? Do they lose a perma mod slot? And are there ways to remove the perma mods, maybe even at the cost of an StP?
— Use of smaller ships or smaller number of ships isn't necessary to encourage, there's a hardcap in there already. Is there a "bonus floor" for bonuses with diminishing returns, like Fighter Doctrine?
— Does Coordinated Manoeuvres still provide the usual benefit, besides officered frigate and destroyer one?
— The player can't fly unboardable ships directly... Considering that Guardian exists (you flexed on mods hard with that, even if you didn't intend to), perhaps it is a good thing. Can AI cores be installed only on unboardable ships, or could it be made so that certain ships can be both crewed and uncrewed in that regard? Some mods probably could use this.
— Story points have an... Unflattering name. Permanent hullmods? Alex, you were meant to bring balance to Starsector, not destroy it!
Having to choose between Field Repairs and Salvaging was a truly evil mastermind-like move on your part.
I wouldn't mind something bad happening every few spent story points.
It'll depend on lot on the numbers ,but I don't think the core idea is shot.It'll definitely depend a lot on the numbers; falloff would have to be faster than 25% at double-the-numbers to make Drover Doom Fleet unattractive.
Hellllo Modpocalypse number... 3? 4?Oh yeah, definitely on the Modpocapypse, lol. Welcome to modding an Alpha product.
So, I'm curious here: what's the reasoning for using total Ordnance Points instead of ship deployment costs? You know, the thing that's supposed to be a (fairly direct) match to a given hull's overall combat power?An immediate concern is the Ordnance Point scaling method. Won’t this disproportionately benefit ships with built-in weapons? Some modded ships mostly rely on that type of weapon. Perhaps the scale should count weapon-OP from built-ins for the total amount of OP that a ship counts as having.
That's a good point, hmm. Wasn't thinking of this because it's extremely marginal in vanilla. Not quite sure how to handle it, though; having say the Onslaugh count for more OP than it has would probably be confusing.
So, I'm curious here: what's the reasoning for using total Ordnance Points instead of ship deployment costs? You know, the thing that's supposed to be a (fairly direct) match to a given hull's overall combat power?
Edit: Because it occurs to me, there's also the same problem in the other direction - the amazing Interstellar Imperium mod features ships with comparatively higher numbers of ordnance points (and, I believe, slightly lowered base stats?), to allow for a choice between several faction-specific hull mods that drastically change up the hulls' overall functionality - or just skipping the faction packages and mounting premium weapons and regular hull mods instead.
As someone who's always giving the venture/mule and other "almost but not quite combat" ships a shot, what does the skill that makes civ ships better do?
Another thought, these changes may create new issues with xp and how the player is incentivized to play. In the past there was essentially no reason to care about or grind xp. The only thing that would achieve is to speed up the level progression a bit which the player might not even want (since it was pretty fast to begin with) and the player certainly wasn't desperate to level up since you could take the skills you really wanted while leveling was super fast (early). Now the player can actually improve their fleet a lot and may also gain other campaign benefits by grinding xp for story points. This might incentivize grindy xp farming and other non-desirable gameplay that was not a consideration in the past. Maybe the game is already balanced to avoid that but I certainly never considered the xp gain from things at all before now. It just seems like a significant shift in how the player is rewarded for actions and I don't know what the ramifications will be.
With Loadout Design gone, and from the looks of things no OP boost to compensate, I'm afraid certain ships will be ''spend story points on this or forget about it''. Hell even with LD before, I've barely had enough OP on some ships to make a decent build. I guess it's healthy to remove OP boosting skills from the game (since I take LD as soon as possible every single game), but I feel like ships without ''free mods'' will just be inefficient to have in your fleet. Of course this is all just speculation from what I can gather.Looking at you, Shrike (and other ships). Loadout Design 3 was always my second perk I wanted to get, #1 being Electronic Warfare 1.
Yeah I think you could even give all the ships the old loadout design OP bonus by default and it would probably work out well. I remember a lot of ships that felt super OP starved, even with the old bonus. This might really need some ship by ship tweaking if there isn't an across the board increase. I basically played the game under the assumption that I had those extra points (and it never felt like enough).I agree. Some ships felt like they barely had enough to be functional with Loadout Design 3. I would not use either Shrike without LD3.
I approve of this change. While Command Points are situationally useful, I don't think anyone but HELMUT ever used the skill for them.— Does Coordinated Manoeuvres still provide the usual benefit, besides officered frigate and destroyer one?
It doesn't. It gives you some bonus command points, though; there's a few of those spread out in the Leadership tree, since it's kind of a fringe bonus and it didn't make sense to focus a skill on it.
Hey, it's only fair that the game cheats, too! I recall that some other game passes dice like that between the players and the game master as well. Perhaps make it a feature of the hard mode.I wouldn't mind something bad happening every few spent story points.
HMM.
(No, probably not.)
I agree. Some ships felt like they barely had enough to be functional with Loadout Design 3. I would not use either Shrike without LD3.Those free built-ins seem to possibly be stronger than LD3 was. If you petrify Heavy Armour and Integrated Targeting Unit on an Onslaught, that's already 70-36=34 more OP. On a Paragon that's a bit worse, Hardened Shields plus Stabilised Shields vs +10% OP is 45-37=8 more OP, less (but it might be more, depending on hullmods). For Shrike? Assuming you petrify, say, Hardened Shields and ITU, you get 20-8=12 more OP. Unless you go for something more extreme, like HS and SO, then you gain 42-8=34 OP, as much as the Onslaught in the first example. You know, I can see SO being a prime candidate for becoming permanent, such savings...
You know, I can see SO being a prime candidate for becoming permanent, such savings...And that's why it's built in to all the Pather hulls?
The original reason was that it's more accurate with carriers in some cases, which generally have less OP and don't take up as much of the OP allowance for weapons-boosting skills. Buuuut, looking at how all the skills turned out, that doesn't actually hold up well, and with these other mod-related problems in mind... let me experiment with this a bit. The numbers are a bit different - frigates have less deployment cost compared to their OP so switching to that might hit large ships too much. Still, the way things are structured, this would be pretty easy to try out, I think I'll give it a shot. Thank you for mentioning it!Given that you explicitly called out in the blog post that you were looking at things to boost the value of frigates/destroyers in end-game, I'd suggest that's more of a feature than a bug?
One possible problem with relying on "Story Points" to power-up ships is it makes losing them in combat painful. If you really want to keep the ship, that means some form of guaranteed recovery (like Reinforced Bulkheads), and even if you do keep it, it will take (D) mods. If player does not want to pay huge restoration costs, that means much reloading in a difficult fight much like pre-0.8 games.
The original reason was that it's more accurate with carriers in some cases, which generally have less OP and don't take up as much of the OP allowance for weapons-boosting skills. Buuuut, looking at how all the skills turned out, that doesn't actually hold up well, and with these other mod-related problems in mind... let me experiment with this a bit. The numbers are a bit different - frigates have less deployment cost compared to their OP so switching to that might hit large ships too much. Still, the way things are structured, this would be pretty easy to try out, I think I'll give it a shot. Thank you for mentioning it!Given that you explicitly called out in the blog post that you were looking at things to boost the value of frigates/destroyers in end-game, I'd suggest that's more of a feature than a bug?
I think the issue is more that some ships need a balance pass on OP. I just want the base ships to be good without this special bonus and that definitely doesn't seem true for all ships.
Just went looking through the blog post again, and... I have to ask, what's up with the variant on that Falcon in the first image? Six LRPD and two light autocannons? Just... why?
Im using good as a measure of how much I want them in my fleet not some objective measure of combat power. The 10% OP bonus takes some ships from unusable/bad to maybe good and it takes other ships from good to good+. Thats more the issue. I would not use a shrike without the OP bonus but I would think about it with one. I would happily take a paragon either way. The point is more that these extra OP have a very different effect on different ships, and some ships are really getting hurt by this change because there are OP thresholds that allow good load outs to work.I think the issue is more that some ships need a balance pass on OP. I just want the base ships to be good without this special bonus and that definitely doesn't seem true for all ships.
That's relative, isn't it? If they're facing similar opposition, but with custom-made player loadouts and officers, how can they not be "good"?
Im using good as a measure of how much I want them in my fleet not some objective measure of combat power. The 10% OP bonus takes some ships from unusable/bad to maybe good and it takes other ships from good to good+. Thats more the issue. I would not use a shrike without the OP bonus but I would think about it with one. I would happily take a paragon either way. The point is more that these extra OP have a very different effect on different ships, and some ships are really getting hurt by this change because there are OP thresholds that allow good load outs to work.
(And, ahem, to discourage buffing everything: if the majority of ships were in the "needs more OP" category, that would probably be an argument for reining in the other ships...)Not if those high-end ships were the only ones with enough OP.
Any chance the gates becoming an "active" part of the story?
Has it ever been considered to separate the combat skills from the strategic skills? Either have each level give you a point in the combat/command/practical skills and another in the campaign/colony/management skills so you don't "waste" your skill points or gate some stuff behind levels and leave all the skills to be cool/unique boosts rather than borderline required stuff.
(I ended up changing the fleetwide skill calculations to use recovery costs, btw, and hullmod bonus XP is based on OP cost; 0% bonus XP at 40 op and above. Thanks again, Wyvern! Let's see how this holds up :))Yay! I'm helping!*
Quickly hopping in to say as a long-time Starsector owner that's only really played one or two campaigns, changing things to a skill tree is going to make leveling up a lot easier to swallow, and so I hope that's the same for most newer players, too. Thank you!
(I guess I should also chime in with the nitpick that the name "Story Points" also confused me, given that they sound like something "earned in the story", rather than as a meta-currency you can "spend to affect the story". I'm not losing sleep over it, though. Eclipse Points, maybe? Potential Points? Overclock Points? I'll stop. ^_^;)
However, i will say that maybe changing the name somewhat to reflect more their actual in-game-mechanics altering effects might help. "Starfarer Points"? :)
but i can see a flaw in 'getting to the last tier, just so i can pick the other 2nd tier skill' which may lead to a feeling of needing to 'waste' skill points to unlock the other thing you want.
I'm also glad about reassigning skillpoints, however the 'only some can be reassigned' kind of feels a bit like cheaping out. I understand why, but it feels more like under-the-hood issues than actual user experience issues.
It's also interesting how effect scaling and forcing downscaling in ship numbers which may offer a better choice than slapping extra ships to the tailend of the roster may loosen up the tension felt on the hard 30 ship cap, which so far is only really kept in check by supply/fuel usage and nothing else. However, this comes with the caveat that the gameplay experience itself has been balanced around these smaller numbers that you are tempted to deploy, and that we're not fighting enormous ship blobs in quick succession.
But i assume the 2 limit is WITH whatever it comes on included by default right?
Bonus experience sounds really great as a mechanic but it'll take a lot of interface and general gameplay communication to say that 'hey, this isn't just a hullmod upgrade, it's also a 75% bonus xp booster'. And i guess the 'quantity of experience for which it's boosted' stacks? Or else we'd end up in the 'i get the 100% xp boost going right now, so i'm going to wait out until i get another experience boost off of something'. I'm not super sure calling it percentages helps explain the 'quantity' it's valid for either. Heh, maybe just because i didn't quite get it in one sitting /is/ the problem. :P
Anywho.. remnant and derelict ships? Guess it was somewhat expected, also especially since they wouldn't really be fully player flyable (or configurable if i got that right?)
Right, yeah, this is part of me wanting to tone down the current endgame fleets to something that feels more reasonable but still presents a challenge.
Not sure what you mean. Like, the Conquest has Heavy Ballistics Integration, and that does *not* count for the 2 built in mods limit, if that's what you're asking.
Otherwise... it's possible that people might still be doing Combat fleets; it's not that Combat's been nerfed to death (although there are a few things that aren't quite as useful as others) it's that there's no global power-boost.
One possible problem with relying on "Story Points" to power-up ships is it makes losing them in combat painful. If you really want to keep the ship, that means some form of guaranteed recovery (like Reinforced Bulkheads), and even if you do keep it, it will take (D) mods. If player does not want to pay huge restoration costs, that means much reloading in a difficult fight much like pre-0.8 games.
Hmm - one thought is to make losing ships with perma-mods give you bonus XP. Sort of like how losing ships used to do, but this time not something you'd really want to do on purpose.
I'd like to throw out there that maybe this is a good time to reassess the ship and weapon economy?SpoilerMy understanding is that ships and weapons sell for near dirt cheap because otherwise it'd be too easy to have players play in an unfun manner where they farm ships and weapons, but-
1. This just leads to players often with an obnoxiously large weapon stockpile and rapid fire clicking through the ship recovery screen 9/10 times.
2. There was a similar rule for trade if I recall, but that system has been reworked to be more intuitive (it makes sense that trading can make you money) and enjoyable (it's not something that's super easy to break and it has some depth).
I really feel that it'd make a lot more sense if weapons beyond the standard affair were much less likely to salvage (due to being more complicated devices) along with enemy ships in general rarely being salvageable (they aren't yours, you don't know the small tweaks their crew made, so it's harder to salvage, irregardless of if it's a common or advanced ship).
Normal players can get most of their Weaponry/Ships through the usual method- Shops for basics, black market/commissions/exploration/colonies for exotics
Players that want to specialize in salvage can dedicate skills, hull mods, ships (salvage gantry anyone?), and maybe even items (marines? "Engineers?") to the process.
With ships being more rare to come by, they can serve as more serious rewards, and the recovery screen is now potentially interesting since even if you don't want a pirate carrier, it can help cover the supply cost of the battle.
It could also mean that dumping your weaponry for cash is a viable solution to short term income problems, or even another way to cover the cost of a battle, rather than just "flat supplies". Hell maybe even a "focus on supplies, or recovery more weaponry" option at the salvage screen. Either way it should help stop the hoarders armory that develops fast and eventually winds up just sitting on the colony (and I still think a "store all weapons" button would be useful either way).[close]
Re "story points": You shouldn't get these from leveling up. Why not reward them for completing actual "stories"? Level ups are fine but seem a little timegate-y, esp. at later levels once diminishing returns kick in. You should be rewarding these special points for special events or milestones, to encourage the player to get out of their comfort zone and do activities they might not otherwise do.SpoilerFor instance:
* Launching your first saturation bombardment against a planet.
* Decivilizing a planet.
* Abandoning a colony.
* Going to war with someone besides pirates and pathers
* Waking up some cryosleepers.
* Running out of fuel and having to make a distress call.
* Becoming a pirate lord. (Currently near-impossible unless you want to grind pirate rep for hours and somehow never get attacked by accident and have to kill them.)
* Finding out about the Luddic Church's free lunches.
* etc., etc.
I find Starsector interesting, but a lot of the really awesome content sometimes never gets done because the player isn't comfortable with it or sees things as high risk (Starsector is difficult and that's great, but it deters you from taking risks most of the time because of how punishing a loss can be). I realized the other day that I simply don't do certain activities just because I want to keep all the factions happy or the high-risk stuff just isn't worth it (I have yet to bombard a planet... no reason to do so as far as I can tell...). Was scrolling through rules.csv the other day and there was a ton of great stuff that I've just never seen because I always end playing the same way. You should only earn "story points" from completing activities that advance your personal story or get you out of your comfort zone and doing something really cool.
Rewards on level up == participation trophies. Why not reward the player for doing all of the cool stuff?
*edit - even better. Get rid of "levels" from XP entirely. You should only "level up" from completing milestones, not aimlessly grinding away at the same pirate bounties and exploration missions that give easy money.[close]
(Also I would really like more story-based content and quests. Sue me.)
what the hell is "high scatter amplifier"?beam weapon could deal hard flux??
So what's the ratio?5%?10%?
I really like this, both for the general revamp to be less of an intimidatingly huge pile of skills for newbies as well as the loosening of skill permanency that'll allow someone to go with what's cool and good right now rather than worrying about what happens in twelve hours. I also like the idea of making small fleets both in terms of ship count and size more attractive and rewarding. I've said it before, but it bears repeating that Starsector is at its best when you've gotten a low-to-middling weight fleet together and are adventuring around the map. However, with the current endgame meta pulling hard into fielding walls of cruisers and capitals to deal with AI fleet walls and giant doom stations, those cool skills are going to have a pretty hard expiration as the player moves into colonies.
I have fun with Starsector's endgame, both vanilla and modded in shaping the sector as a whole, but as even the bounties start a terminal climb into the heavy metal small fleets become completely nonviable even to generally fool around with. Have you got any plans to lessen the push towards a wall of battle in lategame?
Given that story points can be used to salvage ships and retrain officers (making finding the correct ships/officers less frustrating), could they possibly be used to cause ships to spawn on the black market? Possibly with some limitations, d-mods, or just straight up more expensive than normal if it needs to be balanced.
It seems thematically workable at least, you spend your story point to find a guy who knows a guy who'll sell you a Medusa this time next month.
Yeah, it could work! I've got a TODO item for looking into something similar - where you might spend a story point to have someone find a hull or weapon for you. Well, "find", more like "spawn it somewhere halfway sensible and tell you about it".We've already got that interface: the Custom Production screen. You could also limit the ships and weapons available to choose from based on the faction that you're hacking into. You're not going to divert a Paragon from the Hegemony when they don't even have one.
The tricky part is actually the UI - how would "specify a ship or a weapon" look when there's 100+ to choose from, when you factor in mods? Half-thinking about it being some sort of "command line query" interface and the action being presented as doing some sort of hacking of logistics reports or some such. But having a fun UI for that sort of thing could be more work than it's worth.
Re: Loadout Design.
It was mandatory because it was so good, but in general ships do not need an increase in OP. With the 10% there are few to no hard choices in ship design: just put in all the best things and call it a day (and for most ships, you can indeed fit the best of everything, enough flux, and the needed hullmods). Fewer OP lowers total power level, but increases the design space for ships because there are more viable tradeoffs. I think lowering the total power level is neutral - these things go up and down - but increasing the design space is very valuable.
Some ships are exceptions to this and need more OP, but I think those are special cases rather than general, and they could even be balanced in other ways if there are other reasons to keep OP the same. For the Shrike and Wolf for example, increasing the base flux stats would be a better choice than increasing OP, in my opinion.
Re: the blog post
Cool! Reminds me of the skill choices for XCOM soldiers, but it aims to avoid the pitfall of one skill being much superior to the other.
Re: Loadout Design.
It was mandatory because it was so good, but in general ships do not need an increase in OP. With the 10% there are few to no hard choices in ship design: just put in all the best things and call it a day (and for most ships, you can indeed fit the best of everything, enough flux, and the needed hullmods). Fewer OP lowers total power level, but increases the design space for ships because there are more viable tradeoffs. I think lowering the total power level is neutral - these things go up and down - but increasing the design space is very valuable.
Some ships are exceptions to this and need more OP, but I think those are special cases rather than general, and they could even be balanced in other ways if there are other reasons to keep OP the same. For the Shrike and Wolf for example, increasing the base flux stats would be a better choice than increasing OP, in my opinion.
Re: the blog post
Cool! Reminds me of the skill choices for XCOM soldiers, but it aims to avoid the pitfall of one skill being much superior to the other.
I disagree, I think it will reduce build variety. There are lots of weapon layouts that require a lot support from hull mods and vents/capacitors to be viable. Less OP means these loadouts will be worse so 'fun' loadouts that use the more eccentric guns will go away/ be less competitive with the more efficient loadouts. Most ships feel like they get enough to feel complete, but I can't think of any ship except maybe the paragon where I actually put everything I want on without concern. Most ships have to drop stuff that I want to fit other things that I want. Some ships (like the shrike) can barely fit the basics with +10% op. I very frequently leave mounts empty to get extra OP, or drop hull mods for extra vents, or downgrade weapons for an extra hullmod, which indicates to me that many ships are a bit tight on OP even with +10% op. I think ships on +10% OP felt like they were in a good place in general with some exceptions either way.
I mean, isn't this why you can now get two free hull mods? That seems potentially WAY better than 10% OP.
I want to say that I think +100% top speed is a mistake for the phase ship skill. Top speed is NOT what a phase ship needs. Phase ships tend to not have enough maneuverability and/or acceleration. +100% top speed barely helps at all and in some cases might make the problem actually worse! The time dilation effect gives you plenty of speed.Just turn around while you're phasing through them.
So I'd suggest changing it from top speed to either maneuverability or acceleration, or even all three (but at much lower numbers say +33% to speed maneuverability and acceleration?
If you pilot a phase ship right now in the game, it's pretty easy to fly through an enemy ship to appear behind them. It's much harder to actually turn around and fire before they can turn around.
Really disagree with this. I can make a Tachyon Lance disaster with Advance Optics and the Amplifier, and just let other weapons go to hell to save OP for me.what the hell is "high scatter amplifier"?beam weapon could deal hard flux??
So what's the ratio?5%?10%?
It's 100% hard flux, but it also halves beam weapon range - as a multiplier! - so they stop being long-range weapons.
intrinsic_parity's experience is mine as well. The majority of ships barely have enough OP with LD3. Without LD3, the number of ships with enough OP can probably be counted on one hand. That is a reason why LD3 is must-have.Re: Loadout Design.
It was mandatory because it was so good, but in general ships do not need an increase in OP. With the 10% there are few to no hard choices in ship design: just put in all the best things and call it a day (and for most ships, you can indeed fit the best of everything, enough flux, and the needed hullmods). Fewer OP lowers total power level, but increases the design space for ships because there are more viable tradeoffs. I think lowering the total power level is neutral - these things go up and down - but increasing the design space is very valuable.
Some ships are exceptions to this and need more OP, but I think those are special cases rather than general, and they could even be balanced in other ways if there are other reasons to keep OP the same. For the Shrike and Wolf for example, increasing the base flux stats would be a better choice than increasing OP, in my opinion.
Re: the blog post
Cool! Reminds me of the skill choices for XCOM soldiers, but it aims to avoid the pitfall of one skill being much superior to the other.
I disagree, I think it will reduce build variety. There are lots of weapon layouts that require a lot support from hull mods and vents/capacitors to be viable. Less OP means these loadouts will be worse so 'fun' loadouts that use the more eccentric guns will go away/ be less competitive with the more efficient loadouts. Most ships feel like they get enough to feel complete, but I can't think of any ship except maybe the paragon where I actually put everything I want on without concern. Most ships have to drop stuff that I want to fit other things that I want. Some ships (like the shrike) can barely fit the basics with +10% op. I very frequently leave mounts empty to get extra OP, or drop hull mods for extra vents, or downgrade weapons for an extra hullmod, which indicates to me that many ships are a bit tight on OP even with +10% op. I think ships on +10% OP felt like they were in a good place in general with some exceptions either way.
1000 range beams get their range boosts then take half range? Probably less range than 600 or 700 range weapons like pulse laser. Nevermind PD weapons that also lose range and likely become worthless, except maybe burst PD. Phase Lance, with the range of Pulse Laser but none of the hard flux (that will get hard flux after half range penalty)? Forget about it.Really disagree with this. I can make a Tachyon Lance disaster with Advance Optics and the Amplifier, and just let other weapons go to hell to save OP for me.what the hell is "high scatter amplifier"?beam weapon could deal hard flux??
So what's the ratio?5%?10%?
It's 100% hard flux, but it also halves beam weapon range - as a multiplier! - so they stop being long-range weapons.
Or to specify, Paragon + Tac-Lance + Adv-Optics + HSA = Let's strike all ships' face.
And if you want to keep the perma-mod ships pristine after they die and gain (D) mods, you need to restore them or reload. Currently, without mods, player can just buy or a build a fresh new one if it is more convenient.I mean, isn't this why you can now get two free hull mods? That seems potentially WAY better than 10% OP.
You have to spend story points for this though (that have a lot of other uses). I don't know exactly how the balance will work but my guess is that you will only get this on your flagship and maybe a your officers ships. The average ship in your fleet will likely not have this. Also two free hull mods is only marginally better than 10% op and limits you a lot more as well. It definitely hurts some ships more than others.
1000 range beams get their range boosts then take half range? Probably less range than 600 or 700 range weapons. Nevermind PD weapons that also lose range and become worthless, except maybe burst PD. Phase Lance, with the range of Pulse Laser but none of the hard flux (that will get hard flux after half range penalty)? Forget about it.Really disagree with this. I can make a Tachyon Lance disaster with Advance Optics and the Amplifier, and just let other weapons go to hell to save OP for me.what the hell is "high scatter amplifier"?beam weapon could deal hard flux??
So what's the ratio?5%?10%?
It's 100% hard flux, but it also halves beam weapon range - as a multiplier! - so they stop being long-range weapons.
Or to specify, Paragon + Tac-Lance + Adv-Optics + HSA = Let's strike all ships' face.
- Lol @ flux capacitor icon
The tricky part is actually the UI - how would "specify a ship or a weapon" look when there's 100+ to choose from, when you factor in mods? Half-thinking about it being some sort of "command line query" interface and the action being presented as doing some sort of hacking of logistics reports or some such. But having a fun UI for that sort of thing could be more work than it's worth.
Anyway, are the maximum amount of permanent hullmods modifiable in the settings file?If so, would it be possible to make the setting per hull size?
Anywho.. remnant and derelict ships? Guess it was somewhat expected, also especially since they wouldn't really be fully player flyable (or configurable if i got that right?)
You can refit them, just can't pilot them.
What about spending a decent number of story points to modify a certain blueprint to have a built in hull mod? It seems like it will might not be worth spending story points on frigates/destroyers beyond maybe your early game flagships, so frigates/destroyers in a late game fleet might actually be a bit less viable.
Some ships are exceptions to this and need more OP, but I think those are special cases rather than general, and they could even be balanced in other ways if there are other reasons to keep OP the same. For the Shrike and Wolf for example, increasing the base flux stats would be a better choice than increasing OP, in my opinion.
We've already got that interface: the Custom Production screen. You could also limit the ships and weapons available to choose from based on the faction that you're hacking into. You're not going to divert a Paragon from the Hegemony when they don't even have one.
I don't know exactly how the balance will work but my guess is that you will only get this on your flagship and maybe a your officers ships. The average ship in your fleet will likely not have this. Also two free hull mods is only marginally better than 10% op and limits you a lot more as well. It definitely hurts some ships more than others.
I want to say that I think +100% top speed is a mistake for the phase ship skill. Top speed is NOT what a phase ship needs. Phase ships tend to not have enough maneuverability and/or acceleration.
I can see you have been kicking this around for a long time Alex, it feels like the last piece of the puzzle just clicked into place for me. Essentially these story points fix most the currents weaknesses of Starsector and turn them into strengths and opportunities for player narrative instead. I think getting bonus points as a one off for doing cool things is a good idea too but overall I think you've nailed it in one. The bonus exp for certain choices keeps them from being hoarded, very simple and effective solution, and the fact that they are essentially infinite should keep the ball rolling well into end game. Maybe a small bonus too for having no story points left? I can't wait to see this in action.. Great work mate :)
How many skills are there like automated ships skill, that change the gameplay very tangibly and significantly, or at least offer something that you actually can't do without them? Or, perhaps, it's better to ask if all tier 5 skills are as crazy as that.
Third edit: Another thing! Make story it possible to spend story points on small caches of resources, ships and weapons, to put new players who screwed up back on track. Early game is pretty unforgiving.
Yeah, automated ships sounds powerful. Normal fleets are limited to 8-10 useful ships (by officers), rest fodder. Auto ships use cores as officer-equivalent to go (how far?) above this limit.
Plus from how it reads, automated ships are OP-scaled instead of constant like officers. Is it rebirth of frigate fleet? (or at least 8-10 bigger ships + auto frigates).
It's 100% hard flux, but it also halves beam weapon range - as a multiplier! - so they stop being long-range weapons.Really disagree with this. I can make a Tachyon Lance disaster with Advance Optics and the Amplifier, and just let other weapons go to hell to save OP for me.
Or to specify, Paragon + Tac-Lance + Adv-Optics + HSA = Let's strike all ships' face.
Very much looking forward to further ship differentiation with the story-point based hull mods!
I'm being greedy here,Spoilerbut what about a faction hull-mod (eg Like the Hegemony) that you can install permanently into ship blueprints (Perhaps with a fairly high story-point based cost and limited to a small number of ship blueprints per game).
You could name this hull-mod after your Faction and on integrating it into a ship blue print it would provide small permanent bonuses to the base stats of the ship, much like the Fourteenth Battlegroup built in hull-mod does. Of course that would make the 14th Battlegroup hull-mods a bit redundant, so perhaps a choice of several more focused hull-mods focusing on things eg Speed, Armoured, Shielded, Offence, Flux:
"KC Shipworks" (Speed) <- Player named hull-mod
+10% Top Speed
+10% Manuverability & Acceleration
"KC Shipworks" (Armoured)
+10% Armour
+10% Hull
"KC Shipworks" (Shielded):
-10% Damage taken by shields
-25% Shield Flux/sec
"KC Shipworks" (Offence):
+10% Damage dealt
+10% Weapon Range
"KC Shipworks" (Flux):
+10% Flux Capacity
+10% Flux Dissipation
Ignoring the randomly selected bonuses I've assigned to these hull-mods (a bit boring, likely overpowered and with a distinct lack of anything for Carriers), I think it would be neat to be able to create your own faction specific modified blue-prints. In addition, I don't know how difficult it would be, but it would also be great to get basic colour change options for your ships (perhaps even be able to paint your faction flag on ships & blueprints).[close]
What someone brought up has me concerned: the loss of the +op skill, the need to semi spend a resource, and the addition of perma hull mods makes me think that there will be less build diversity than there is now. Without the ability to remove these mods (maybe a space dock could for a fee of credits or starfarer points) it will encouage you to either A) add in stuff that is good on all ships like ITU or Effecency Overhaul. Or B) It will encouage you to add in the most expensive mod you can to get the most OP out of everything. Do I wait until I get a better mod or do I go ahead and just put RB and EO on this ship? I can see this being a pretty big newbie trap too
SpoilerThis update seems promising. I like RPG stuff a lot, so this kinda content gets me excited. The story points seem like a really cool addition, but all the conversation about the name for the points gave me some ideas. Maybe something useful can be gotten out of them.
One thing that could be done to the "story points" to give them some fluffy flavor would be to tie the name into what kind of character you roll. For example a tritach start would begin you with a few of their smaller ships and a commission. This start could also rename story points to something flavorful for the faction, like uuhh... Executive points. For pirate players they'd be Rogue points. A tooltip should point out that these are special "story points", to avoid confusion.
Then again the name could be something more generic (yet fluffy) like "Connections" or "Favor points", because as the player accumulates experience and grows in power they'd also gain contacts and powerful people owing favors to them. People who could know a certain someone who could refit ships like nobody else in the sector. A gray market of connections if you like. The points could even at some point in the future, be introduced by the player meeting a powerful individual/administrator who needs a favor.
Or the points could be explained by something special in the player character themselves. Like a Domain era experimental quantum computing interface, that somehow ended up in the player's head. Which would be a good excuse for the player being able to pull off some weird stuff (as well as why they could grab them droneships, when nobody else seems capable of doing so). While remaining neutral enough that it would fit with whatever playthrough the player attempted. It could even have some plotpoints or storylines related to it. This could help the player feel special. The points could also be called something more scifi at this point! I'm terrible with names, so I'll just say "Quantum points" and shamefully leave it at that.
Thanks for all the hard work! 8)[close]
- I have a certain liking for the "story points" name, because I read it as conveying "this is the sort of thing that only a hero can do, in fact it is almost the definition of a hero". Maybe it could be replaced with something more fitting in-universe though.
"Hero points" or "legend points" have the same idea but may be too RPG-ish? Don't have any other ideas.
- What kind of skills will AI fleet commanders have? Can their officers have elite skills? (For that matter, can their ships have perma-hullmods?) It might be good to get a GUI (both in combat and in the fleet interaction dialog) for displaying the skills of officers on both sides.
- For that matter, do officers have to learn skills in the same order the player does, or is it just "pick what you like" as with the AI cores?
Anyway, are the maximum amount of permanent hullmods modifiable in the settings file?
If so, would it be possible to make the setting per hull size?
[Redacted] Points
Besides the confusion that Story points might create, another reason I'm not a fan of it is because it just sounds simple. The word is too broad and doesn't have a cool ringer to it.
Not sure if this was already suggested but simply just ''campaign points''. I mean you obviously only use them in campaign, for a lot of different things so its name shouldn't be something specific. Honestly I don't have any problems with them being called story points but I can see how people could misunderstand.
You did block transferring command mid-battle, right? ;)
I'm confused by your early answer Alex, are AI officers strictly for automated ships?Yes. They need to have the "automated" hull mod for you to be able to use AI Cores as officers
I am not sure that forcing the player to progress through skill tiers is a good thing. Are you sure that new players are really having a problem picking skills and that this problem is so bad it justifies removing choices from experienced players? Players will be able to reallocate their skill points with story points so it's not really a problem if they make some bad decisions with their skills.
Story points sound interesting but I worry that there could be a balance problem if some uses for story points grant permanent, or long lasting benefits (like making an officer's skill elite) while other uses are "frivolous". I don't think the bonus experience thing addresses this. If the more frivolous uses are effectively free, then using story points becomes a no brainer. Obviously they will not be free, and then I will probably decide that I should invest all story points into permanent or long lasting things, such as creating the best possible officers and giving them ships with permanent hullmods. In the long run this should give much more power to the player, which means that the game might become too easy, or that the higher difficulty will be balanced around this sort of powerplay with little room for frivolous things. So I think story points should be mostly about frivolous and fun things, convenient things like allowing skill point reallocation.
I'm confused by your early answer Alex, are AI officers strictly for automated ships?Yes. They need to have the "automated" hull mod for you to be able to use AI Cores as officers
I am not sure that forcing the player to progress through skill tiers is a good thing. Are you sure that new players are really having a problem picking skills and that this problem is so bad it justifies removing choices from experienced players? Players will be able to reallocate their skill points with story points so it's not really a problem if they make some bad decisions with their skills.
Like I mentioned in the blog post, this isn't a new-player-only change. Would be kind of silly if it was! I think it's a very much superior system for experienced players as well. When the choices are more pronounced and clear-cut, it's a benefit to everyone.
I mean, let's look at just the current combat skills - which ones would one pick and why? A couple do stand out (Impact Mitigation level 1, Missile Specialization, maybe Helmsmanship) but a lot of them are kind of a generic mass of bonuses where if you want to make an optimal choice, you have to do a lot of math and be very sure of under-the-hood mechanics. Which, 99% of people aren't going to do, so they'll probably just pick a couple because it doesn't matter too much and be ok with it. I mean, it *works*, but it's hard to even articulate the choices it presents, they're so fuzzy at times. And if you do the math, it's not like the situation is better - at that point, you just know what the optimal option is, instead of having a choice.
With the new tier system, picking one skill vs one other skill, it's much easier to set things up so that the choices are clear - generally speaking, the bonuses each tier offers will affect entirely different things, so there's not a case of one or the other being mathematically better and you "just" needing to work it out by spending a few hours with a spreadsheet. E.G. tier 1 combat is a choice between Helmsmanship and Strike Commander - do you want to go faster, or have stronger bombers? Level 3 is Impact Mitigation (which works about as before) vs Ranged Specialization (which gives your weapons bonus damage at longer range). And so on.
It's near impossible to do this sort of thing if you can pick anything at any time - it'd be much harder to avoid having several skills where they're really hard to meaninfully compare. Also, being able to present things as "this OR that" lets you have skills that would be too strong - or just a no-brainer choice - if they could be combined easily.
Combat: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tech: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Leadership: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Industry: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I think players will get 0-1 specialization skills for each category (combat, tech, leadership, industry). The remaining skills will be the generalist skills which are always the same ones. I don't think this system is worse than what we have now, I think it's better for the reasons you're giving but I don't think it will do much to create variety in character builds. Admittedly it depends a lot on how many skills points we will have and what the actual skills will do.
Have you considered a system where skills are organized in rows (representing the skill category) and columns, and a player can never pick more than 2 skills from the same column? I'm assuming 14 level ups here.CodeCombat: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tech: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Leadership: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Industry: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If balancing all columns against each other is too difficult, then you could make it so that at the first level up, only skills from column 1 could be chosen, at the second level up only skills from column 2, and so on. After 7 levels ups it would start against in column 1. Then you only have to balance skills in each column against each other.
Wait so is the designed gameplay to rarely deploy more than 8 ships? Or are you expecting AI ships to fill out the fleet a lot?
Also, if the game is balanced around essentially all combat ships having these built in hull mods, it sort of cheapens the decision to put them on. I liked the idea of a big investment to make your flagship special. Instead, I have to allocate a certain number of my story points to keeping my combat ships 'up to par.' It doesn't feel like a decision, more like an obligation.
I say 'balanced around' meaning the ships themselves are balanced around some expected strength/course of action that the player takes. If the ships are designed so that if you have two built in hull mods, then you will have enough OP for some interesting loadouts then I would say the ships are balanced with the expectation that the player will spend story points to buff every ship, and that the game is not balanced around ships not having those hull mods (i.e. you probably won't be able to fit anything more than super basic loadouts on ships without those story points. So if the player chooses not to buff ships with story points, he is losing access to a lot of the game because the ship wasn't balanced to be able to use a variety of loadouts without those extra hull mods. Obviously you also want to make sure that ships that do use the buffs aren't too strong which is 'balancing' them, but I'm talking about whether they are the 'default' or not.Also, if the game is balanced around essentially all combat ships having these built in hull mods, it sort of cheapens the decision to put them on. I liked the idea of a big investment to make your flagship special. Instead, I have to allocate a certain number of my story points to keeping my combat ships 'up to par.' It doesn't feel like a decision, more like an obligation.
I'm not sure I understand. If a player can do things to increase their power, then of course the game would be balanced around that? That's... just how it works, right? ("It" being "games in general".)
Wait so is the designed gameplay to rarely deploy more than 8 ships? Or are you expecting AI ships to fill out the fleet a lot? Also, if the game is balanced around essentially all combat ships having these built in hull mods, it sort of cheapens the decision to put them on. I liked the idea of a big investment to make your flagship special. Instead, I have to allocate a certain number of my story points to keeping my combat ships 'up to par.' It doesn't feel like a decision, more like an obligation.
I say 'balanced around' meaning the ships themselves are balanced around some expected strength/course of action that the player takes. If the ships are designed so that if you have two built in hull mods, then you will have enough OP for some interesting loadouts then I would say the ships are balanced with the expectation that the player will spend story points to buff every ship, and that the game is not balanced around ships not having those hull mods (i.e. you probably won't be able to fit anything more than super basic loadouts on ships without those story points. So if the player chooses not to buff ships with story points, he is losing access to a lot of the game because the ship wasn't balanced to be able to use a variety of loadouts without those extra hull mods. Obviously you also want to make sure that ships that do use the buffs aren't too strong which is 'balancing' them, but I'm talking about whether they are the 'default' or not.
I don't think it has to be given that the player will do this on all ships he plans to deploy? There are plenty of other ways to spend story points that seem very important. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like the idea of spending story points to buff your ship being a big investment (i.e. not the default course of action) that makes your flagship better than the baseline of ship power like a hero/custom ship, rather than spending story points to buff ships being the default course of action that all ships are expected to have in order to use anything more than a super basic loadout. I guess that's more what I thought of when I read it, rather than what it has to be, but it seems more interesting to me.
There are certain playstyles that I like, and others I strongly dislike. I never liked phase ships, for example, so for me personally, there won't be a choice in that specific skill tier. I'm sure others also have their preferences. What I am mostly worried about is exclusive skils that feel relevant to certain playstyles. For example, making a choice between decent colonies, decent fleet logistics and better specialists. In the current system, if you completely opt to ignore the conbat tree and gimp yourself incombat a bit, you can get a lot of fleetwide skills and all the colony stuff. If all those skills move to tiers 4 and 5, you "have" to pick 80% skills that are "nice to have", but ultimatey you don't care about. And you can only ever get maybe three out of 5 skills you consider "core" to your playstyle. (I guess we can remedy this by setting the max level to 30 in the options, but then banlancing completely goes haywire)
With the skills scaling with OP/recovery cost/etc., the player is even more incentivised to keep their fleet small. I see the benefits of performance, less micro and others, but ultimately, I love massive endgame fleets clashing, where some 4-7k OP are fielded by both sides, respectively. It seems that this kind of playstyle will be totally gimped by the new system, and you might not want to use any buff skills in the first place, if you get 0.7% better flux management or 2% top speed. Maybe such skills should scale with player level (or better, story points earned). Those skills should have a minimum effectiveness (maybe floored at 50%) and should obviously not scale above 100%. For example, a skil gives +20% top speed, for 30 OP per story point earned. It would always give at least 10%, but even huge lategame fleets could get the full 20%, given enough time.
How many carrier skills for officers are there now? I can see just one for certain at the moment. Hey, there are no leadership skills anymore... It's nice that I won't be forced to get personal carrier skills just to get to the ones I want.
This is actually a current concern/something I'm thinking through - I think it'd make sense to have another story point "sink", but haven't sorted out what it would be, exactly.
2) Well story points are unlimited at the moment. So you're not really obligated to keep your combat ships up to par. ...Just because you have more theoretical options, doesn't mean you will take them. In the current skill system, you can take whatever skills you want but you always take loadout design. Loadout design isn't technically an obligation, but in practice it is. I just feel like these hull mods will be the same way. If there are a ton spare story points, it probably works out ok, but it still cheapens the decision making. I was hoping for a way to make your flagship special, but I'm worried that instead we will replace the mandatory skill point tax with a mandatory story point tax. It's just much more interesting to me to give all ships those extra OP as a baseline, and then make the built in hull mods a really special thing that you will only do on a handful of ships. That just feels more interesting to me.
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, I didn't go and nerf the OP on all ships across the board! Plus, most NPC ships wouldn't have perma-mods. So it wouldn't make sense to balance ships around in this sense.I guess I think about the game being 'balanced' around the +10% OP from loadout design (because that is all I ever play with) so it feels to me like all ships did just get an OP nerf. Weapons like the heavy blaster become worse when there is less OP to support them with vents/hull mods so changing the baseline OP does change the balance of everything else. As I've said above, I would like the +10% OP to be the baseline because I feel like it allows for a larger variety of builds, and then built in hull mods to be more special (probably by costing a lot more story points), but I admit it's definitely possible to be balanced in the way you're doing it. Ultimately I will have to play it to see how it feels.
Perhaps toning story points down to 2 per level would be enough, though; at 4 right now it feels like you'd be drowning in them in short order.
I guess I think about the game being 'balanced' around the +10% OP from loadout design (because that is all I ever play with) so it feels to me like all ships did just get an OP nerf.
I guess it could be argued that not all ships need it, but a good question to ask is how many people don't choose Loadout Design 3 in their games?I always choose Loudout Design 3 early because too many ships are OP starved without it, and some ships are OP starved even with LD3. In addition, Resistant Flux Conduits is the only way to get EMP resistance, and with LD3 giving enough OP for another hullmod, it is effectively more EMP resistance or other perk. I consider Loadout Design 3 the baseline. No Loadout Design 3 is too crippling.
I'm pretty dependent on that extra OP, so while not having it is technically not a reduction in OP, it does seem a bit like it in practice. However I don't know whether this is true for other players (you don't necessarily pick it all the time as you mentioned), perhaps I'm in the minority with Intrinsic_parity in thinking that it is super important.
If i were a guard on patrol duty and had to scan a ship, i would accept a credits bride because we all need credits, not some magical "you're immune to 1 scan" pass.Considering that the AI smuggler fleets can wander around with their transponders off without faction patrols so much as looking at them, I, for one, will be quite pleased to have an option to do something even vaguely similar.
why would the faction patrols look at us so much and not smugglers then? maybe we're not doing as well of a work, unlike smugglers.
Remember, if you're a known smuggler, you're doing something wrong
How moddable is the new skill system?
SpoilerI guess it could be argued that not all ships need it, but a good question to ask is how many people don't choose Loadout Design 3 in their games?
I'm pretty dependent on that extra OP, so while not having it is technically not a reduction in OP, it does seem a bit like it in practice. However I don't know whether this is true for other players (you don't necessarily pick it all the time as you mentioned), perhaps I'm in the minority with Intrinsic_parity in thinking that it is super important.
With story points I'm almost certain to be able to actually squeeze more OP into a ship with the hull mods, but rather than being a specialization, I'm thinking about integrating the most expensive hull-mods first to free up the OP lost with the absence of LD3. I guess it would feel better to me if integrating hull-mods with story points was an upgrade rather than being a requirement of getting that additional OP I count on in 0.9.1a.
I admit though that once I see the new mechanics in action, perhaps I will change my mind, and I want to emphasize that I'm genuinely excited about the new skill system overhaul; it just seems very much more interesting than the current system. I'm just greedy when it comes to ship customization!
A possible compromise would be to create a hull-mod that gives that 10% additional OP of "Loadout Design 3". Perhaps make it logistics based (was the limit on those 2 right?), though that may mean buffing other logistics hull-mods so that the OP reduction hull-mod doesn't become the default choice.
Building on this idea, how about offering several unique hull-mods only available with story points?, some random examples:
"Lightweight Weapon Mounts"
- OP cost reduction per size class of weapon (Small: -1 OP, Medium: -2 OP, Large: -3 OP)
"Waste Flux Re-Routing" <-- I struggled for a name here....
- +50% to Energy Weapon damage at high flux levels
"Hull Repair Droids"
- +0.5% Hull integrity restored each second up to 50% hull (maybe requires 5 seconds of not receiving enemy fire to activate).
Ignoring my randomly chosen bonuses, these unique hull-mods could be more expensive in story points, and be of a limited amount (eg 5/10 per game, but refundable) so that they don't end up replacing all the standard hull-mods as the de-facto choice. You could even make these special hull-mods into something that you need to acquire through salvage rather than be given immediately.[close]
Speaking of the old skills system. I often took missile specialization as first combat skill. It is very effective in the early game when piloting a Wolf built as missile platform. There's nothing like oneshotting a Hound and Cerberus with a salvo of atropos missiles before they can even get in firing range, and then having all the flux to deal with a third ship, and thanks to expanded missile racks still having a quick finisher. Being able to quickly remove ships from the battlefield is very valuable.
It sounds like being able to pick missile specialization early on will no longer be possible because I have to progress through several tiers of combat skills before that. On the other hand some of its effects are available through hull mods.
Will "elite" fleets like the Diktat subfaction and maybe some inspections/bombardment/expedition fleets have builtin hullmods? They seem like a good way of making "late game" NPC fleets stronger. Or maybe for high ranking commanding officers, would make sense for them to have customized ships. Maybe also put a few of them on mission flagships.
Also, I do think more information is good, but knowing bonus hullmods or all officers skills might be too much. Maybe just anything remarkable, rumored or storied about the officers? Like one or two Elite Skills they might have?
How moddable is the new skill system?
To add to that, I'd like the new skills to be modified more easily, without having to recompile the game. Maybe it's a tall order but hey.
(For what it's worth, I don't take Loadout Design 3 - late if ever - and don't feel constrained by any OP shortages)
New skills arrangement / framework sounds brilliant, by the way :) (especially the third iteration of it, heh!)
Personally, I'm in the camp that "story points," as a term, are a bit of a misnomer. I get that you're trying to "tell a story" with them but I don't think you'll ever get away from people associating them with campaign/mission arcs. In practice, they're used to make decisions of varying degrees so I'd be more inclined to call them "decision points", "journey points" (synonymous with "story" but a wider connotation), "fulcrum points" (nice double-meaning but tipping the balance in one way or another), or even "path(way) points" as you took one fork or another along the way. Nit-picking notwithstanding, I like the idea and the more ways there are to spend them, the more meaningful they are.
Will there be some sort of scaling after max level for earning story points? I know the previous "post-max level" xp curve (if enabled in settings) was rather insane. As a player, I want the story points to be earned (i.e. not drowning in them) but not a trickle, either. I guess the key to all of this is rate at which we're getting them. I kind of like the idea of getting a ton early (i.e. while you're still earning levels you get 4) but after max level, you get 2, but gaining post-max levels aren't that hard. I'm also assuming that combat is the quickest way to earn XP still so if the impetus to get another story point or two is "fight stuff," I'd approve of that direction.
(I know this sounds a little crazy, but I think the best way to teach a new player to not hoard them is to put an expiration date on them or, as has been mentioned, give a bonus for not having any at all. The MO behind them should be "you can always get more!" and though their rate of accrual will slow(?), they're never that far away).
As an aside, cribbing from Civ 6 a little, if you want to really lean into telling a story, I think the game should record a timeline of how when/how you used story points, in addition to other major events like starting colonies, getting your first capital ship, finding a rare item, etc. It could get bloated, sure, but run-throughs are just as much about "oh remember when I got ambushed by 6 pirate fleets out on the fringe?" as it is the play-style you decide on. Heck, if the player could write their own little logs and add it to the timeline, that would be kind of cool. Whether or not this is worth dev time is another issue but I digress...
Count me as a filthy Loudout Design 3 junkie. It's every game, though not first thing. I think it provides a cushion for an extra hull mod, more flux, a better weapon, etc. and its enough that I can't recall the last time I didn't get it. For example, I have a very tight SO Hammerhead build that uses LD3 (in addition to a lot of other skill perks) to reach flux parity with its weapons (930 vs 925) and still incorporate hardened subsystems. If I can "bake-in" SO and/or Hardened Subsystems using the new system, that saves me 40 OP so LD3 is a non-issue but I get the concern others are having. I think a list of ships that need looking at (not just for OP) would be helpful and I'd like to contribute.
At max level, it's consistent. Otherwise it'd be more of a "soft cap", really, than "unlimited"...That is good to know. No need to hoard if player can get them back after a bit of fighting or something.
Also one fringe case is the Paragon, where there are Energy mounts aplenty and much higher bonus range available from the get-go. A Paragon with this skillset is going to spell trouble. I would almost say nerf his range hullmod a bit.How is 1175 (best case) range Tachyon Lance better than 1400 range Plasma Cannon? That beam hard flux mod is very specialised.
That is good to know. No need to hoard if player can get them back after a bit of fighting or something.
Does bonus XP stack in magnitude or duration? There could be some odd level leap-frogging if it's magnitude.
My reaction to the skill change went something like this: "Oh no, no, my precious points. Well, maybe. Yeah, okay!" ;)
I think having a player pick one of two is elegant. Now care needs to be taken that there are no filler skills remaining.
Speaking of filler.. a skill that gives 2 extra officers from 8 to 10 is relatively weak. I hope Story Points will buff that by another 2 or so.
I have brought this up before, but phase ships are still problematic. Before this change, they were either 3x or 4x accelerated while phased, which made regular defense and preparation against them pointless. Now if I assume the time dilation buff is gone and the ship is instead 100% faster, that still facilitates the same thing. Phase ships that zip across the screen are not fun to fight against and impossible to prepare against because they're literally off in a realm of their own. The player can raise shields but he certainly can't turn fast enough. Please, buff phase utility instead and don't give them speed. I still say phase ships need to have time dilation nerfed to 2x across the board. Which isn't a true nerf but also a buff in longevity for these ships, and likely a buff in 'player interaction' and phase tactics that don't amount only to 'get on his tail because he can't defend against it'.
I'm not sure about Remnants in player fleets. The idea that the player simply domesticated an Alpha core to play nice with his fleet takes away from the awesome power and alien nature of AI in the game as it is now. It's just one more thing the player Can Now Do and one less thing that used to be special and out of reach. Don't get me wrong, the skill looks fun and I would definitely try it out. But I had hoped to see Remnants honed into even more of a hostile and alien force in future versions, with hyperspace incursions and an actual strategic threat to the player, rather than just a tactical one. If they remain system locked and continue to be XP farms in systems with starbases AND the player can capture and reactivate their ships, that may be an increase in cool stuff but an overall net loss in atmosphere and defining uniqueness.
Instead of buffing carriers, why not adjust fighter costs down a bit?
PS: The date on the Blog Post entry at the top of the forum page is for 2018.
Is there going to be some skill that helps with swarm tactics, that isn't Safety Procedures?
Instead of buffing carriers, why not adjust fighter costs down a bit?
Buffing carriers what now? :)
Happy to hear that Remnants are going to be given some more special sauce.
I'm not sure about Remnants in player fleets. The idea that the player simply domesticated an Alpha core to play nice with his fleet takes away from the awesome power and alien nature of AI in the game as it is now.
This is the kind of thing that I worry about actually... If you have something like this then it would make such a high level skill useless. Although I do agree that having AI ships in the fleet is a bit... OP and weird as hell. Especially if you aren't p*** off Anti AII'm not sure about Remnants in player fleets. The idea that the player simply domesticated an Alpha core to play nice with his fleet takes away from the awesome power and alien nature of AI in the game as it is now.I'd kind of like to see AI ships break free of the shackles with a random chance at low hitpoints, say 30% or so and turn on all ships, friend and foe alike. :)
Also, can I ask for an API hook so that mods can have the ability to possibly pull perma hull mods?
If a ship broke free like that, after I spent skill points and other resources to recover and outfit the thing in the first place, my first reaction might be to spend a story point to respec all of my skills and get more useful skills. (Or reload the game and not take the skill in the first place if it happens early enough.)This is the kind of thing that I worry about actually... If you have something like this then it would make such a high level skill useless. Although I do agree that having AI ships in the fleet is a bit... OP and weird as hell. Especially if you aren't p*** off Anti AII'm not sure about Remnants in player fleets. The idea that the player simply domesticated an Alpha core to play nice with his fleet takes away from the awesome power and alien nature of AI in the game as it is now.I'd kind of like to see AI ships break free of the shackles with a random chance at low hitpoints, say 30% or so and turn on all ships, friend and foe alike. :)racistsfactions
SpoilerYeah, I think this is largely being spoiled by LD3 :) A reset to not having it might be uncomfortable, but, well, changes!
Interesting idea as far as hullmods; I'll say I'd as soon not have another type of limiter (i.e. X maximum or some such) - that gets weird implementation-wise (what happens when you lose those ships? sell them? put them into storage? take one from storage? mothball? etc?) but also story points are supposed to be that limiter in the first place.
Have been half-thinking about being able to make just assorted stat improvements to a hull at the cost of story points, without involving hullmods directly, and that's kind of along the same path. It'd have to be very much less story-point-efficient than building in hullmods, though, or individual ship power would go through the roof.[close]
Tachyons aren't that bad. Every Small Energy mount is going to have better range than projectile weapons and hard flux, isn't it?
How about the option to invest story points in the deployment screen before a battle to purchase certain combat features. Since these story points are consumables, they would come with something like that 100% bonus to experience. Some ideas:
Okay, another stab at a 'sink' for story points:
Item Upgrade. Something like:
- 2x Gamma Core + 2x Story Point = 1 Beta Core
- 2x Beta Core + 4x Story Point = 1 Alpha Core
- 4x Damaged Nanoforge + 1x Alpha Core + 4x Story Point = 1 Pristine Nanoforge
- 4x Damaged Nanoforge + 1x Alpha Core + 2x Story Point = 1 Synchrotron Core
Also, spend a story point to abandon (or maybe even transfer to your commissioned faction or the Independents) a size 5+ colony.
Spend a story point to re-visit a ruin you've already scavenged once - only works once per ruin, and - here's a key part - every planet that you have survey data for at game start counts as having been scavenged once. (So you can still loot Maxios for random goodies, but only if you're willing to part with a story point. Edit: and scale bonus XP based on what you get; if it's just commodities and weapons, 100% bonus XP, all the way down to no bonus if you get an alpha core or a capital warship blueprint or something similarly valuable.)
One other thing I'd like to say is to please consider some of these skill rewards to be things that we have to achieve/unlock through the campaign, like the Planetary Shield. I have no issues with the player being able to domesticate Alphas and use Remnant ships, but that really feels like a reward of a long quest after many arduous challenges (that can justify that ability and show why only the player can do it), instead of it being simply a skill effect.
Can we choose to build in one mod now and one later down the road? And can we build in mods that are on the ships but aren't known? (Like the starting hammerhead and ITU)
Suggestion: If Hammerhead (with free ITU) start stays in the next release, I suggest it gets ITU built-in for free.
story points are “do something cool” points. They let the player do things that would be overpowered or game-breaking if the player could just do them whenever, or even at a regular resource cost.Can I use story points to unlock more skills?
Not so hot on the core upgrades, since they make less "sense", where for the other stuff you could reasonably suppose to get the best parts from all of the low-quality units. Still, this also does run the risk of making pristine finds a lot less exciting. Could *possibly* be balanced with a high enough story point cost, but I don't know.)In terms of being a story point sink, the core upgrades is vital. You only ever truly need one pristine nanoforge, for example, but you can always use more alpha cores. (Well, okay, until you've got the entire sector colonized, I suppose?)
I really like the hammerhead start with ITU; it feels storied in a way that the other starts (aside from Spacer) don't. Here's this ship that you could not possibly have outfitted yourself. Where did you get it? Perhaps it was a decommissioned military vessel that you burned bridges acquiring as part of a retirement package. Maybe it's an ancient hand-me-down from your mother, and from her mother, and so on back for generations, which has been refit and retuned so many times by so many different people that it's no surprise it's above stock specifications. Maybe it was a lucky find at a tech mining site, that you kept quiet about until you could round up a crew to get this completely pristine domain-era warship off planet under your command.Suggestion: If Hammerhead (with free ITU) start stays in the next release, I suggest it gets ITU built-in for free.
(You could build it in yourself. If I'm going to go customizing these starting variants, I'll probably just remove the ITU from it since that'd make more sense, imo :))
The more ideas you have on those points, the more I want for the game to cheat against me if I use them. Do this, do that, do everything wonderpoints. If I can cheat, so should the game.How about the option to invest story points in the deployment screen before a battle to purchase certain combat features. Since these story points are consumables, they would come with something like that 100% bonus to experience. Some ideas:
Was thinking of similar-ish things, though I'm not sure about in-combat effects. But, say, something to get a beat-up flagship back to reasonable readiness before a crucial engagement...
Interesting! I like this a good bit, actually - especially if I end up adding a bunch more industry-buffing items with a dergaded and pristine version, that could be a systemic way to get the best version - at a reasonable price. Any thoughts on what the UI flow for this would be? I.E. where would the buttons go?Starsector will become early access, open world, survival, crafting game, to finally catch up with the times, I see! I think that unless you're planning on making a completely new interface for it, my best bet would to extend Custom Orders screen utility. Doing this from cargo screen wouldn't work, since you don't really use anything from there, making it a campaign ability would be fairly weird, and using intel screen to handle this would be oddly hack-job-y. Custom Orders seem to be the easiest interface to be repurposed for that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you decided against it, on the ground of not being good enough.
(Not so hot on the core upgrades, since they make less "sense", where for the other stuff you could reasonably suppose to get the best parts from all of the low-quality units. Still, this also does run the risk of making pristine finds a lot less exciting. Could *possibly* be balanced with a high enough story point cost, but I don't know.)
Since raiding become for blueprints become acceptable without save scumming, I don't think this is necessary.Spend a story point to re-visit a ruin you've already scavenged once - only works once per ruin, and - here's a key part - every planet that you have survey data for at game start counts as having been scavenged once. (So you can still loot Maxios for random goodies, but only if you're willing to part with a story point. Edit: and scale bonus XP based on what you get; if it's just commodities and weapons, 100% bonus XP, all the way down to no bonus if you get an alpha core or a capital warship blueprint or something similarly valuable.)
Interesting! The bit with scaling bonus XP is necessary, yeah, but I don't know if it'd be enough to counter the save/loading this seems to incentivize. I think just in general spending a story point on something where you don't know the outcome with certainty is trouble - an estimate of bonus XP is always going to be wrong at times.
I could see doing something like that, yeah; was half-thinking about it already. Having big content like this behind skills is something to approach with care, let's say.I would prefer quests or some specific things that are still open enough to allow multiple ways of completion. For +15% CR skill, for example, you would have to attain cooperative standing with any of the factions, so that they lend you their skilled officers or kickstart your own training facilities.
The nice thing is the Automated Ships skill could play nicely with this - e.g. the +max CR bonus from it could be reduced to 50%, with the other 50% coming from the quest chain, for example, with both granting you the ability to recover them. Then you'd be able to use them at a low level with either the skill or the quest, and at a high level with both. Something like that could work. But in the (current) absence of the quest... well, definitely an idea to keep in mind for later.
Per the blog, you can use them to unlock the elite levels of combat skills.And respec, for the first time! I almost missed that green button.
I do not need ITU to build it in? That would be nice.Suggestion: If Hammerhead (with free ITU) start stays in the next release, I suggest it gets ITU built-in for free.
(You could build it in yourself. If I'm going to go customizing these starting variants, I'll probably just remove the ITU from it since that'd make more sense, imo :))
In terms of being a story point sink, the core upgrades is vital. You only ever truly need one pristine nanoforge, for example, but you can always use more alpha cores. (Well, okay, until you've got the entire sector colonized, I suppose?)
As for making it make lore-sense - perhaps this is something you can only do if you have an alpha core on hand already to oversee the component redistribution? Perhaps this sort of upgrade is a matter of getting the right networking together - quantum-synchronizing the lower-grade cores so they operate as a unit - much like how in the modern world, computer clusters or cloud computing have largely overtaken singular supercomputers? Maybe it even requires a specific building (Black Research Facility) that all but guarantees Pather interest - and requires heftier bribes for the Hegemony to ignore? (I'd imagine that, like the Planetary Shield Generator, this is something you'd find via quest, rather than just build. I'd also imagine that Tri-Tachyon already has one that you can use for a fee.)
Where to put the UI... that depends a bit on the requirements. If you need a Black Research Facility, then maybe that just adds a person to the local comm listings? If I were trying to mod this in, that's probably how I'd do it.
The other "obvious" option would be to add a fourth tab to custom production: ships/weapons/fighters/special, with the "special" category being for random unique stuff that frequently has non-credit costs or requirements that aren't just "has heavy industry somewhere". This would also let you tie upgrades into the blueprint system - maybe you start with the blueprint to create Beta Cores from Gamma Cores, but the rest are things you'd need to find?
I really like the hammerhead start with ITU; it feels storied in a way that the other starts (aside from Spacer) don't. Here's this ship that you could not possibly have outfitted yourself. Where did you get it? Perhaps it was a decommissioned military vessel that you burned bridges acquiring as part of a retirement package. Maybe it's an ancient hand-me-down from your mother, and from her mother, and so on back for generations, which has been refit and retuned so many times by so many different people that it's no surprise it's above stock specifications. Maybe it was a lucky find at a tech mining site, that you kept quiet about until you could round up a crew to get this completely pristine domain-era warship off planet under your command.
The more ideas you have on those points, the more I want for the game to cheat against me if I use them. Do this, do that, do everything wonderpoints. If I can cheat, so should the game.
Let me correct myself, then: I want the game to cheat harder, if I cheat harder. Is that better?
Item Upgrade. Something like:
- 2x Gamma Core + 2x Story Point = 1 Beta Core
- 2x Beta Core + 4x Story Point = 1 Alpha Core
- 4x Damaged Nanoforge + 1x Alpha Core + 4x Story Point = 1 Pristine Nanoforge
- 4x Damaged Nanoforge + 1x Alpha Core + 2x Story Point = 1 Synchrotron Core
The more ideas you have on those points, the more I want for the game to cheat against me if I use them.
Just signed up to say that this is the update that will finally convince me to start playing. I bought the game a couple of months ago, but I felt the skills weren't interesting enough to keep me motivated. This patch will fix this, can't wait. Any news of when you plan to release the new skills? If you include only these in the next patch to launch it sooner would be awesome.
So as I started reading, I was getting really disappointed with the skill overhaul. I am never a fan of limiting choices and level caps. The current system is fantastic in my opinion. But if there is one thing ive learned over the years of following Alex and the development of Starsector, is that Alex is an amazing developer and always has something up his sleeve! WOW! Story points sound amazing and offset the changes to the current skill system. I really really like how they are a new system that can be used in unique ways.
One thing that worries me is that my character will feel more... perhaps not 'overpowered' but more like a 'protagonist' from outside the universe with these story points. One thing I really like about these sorts of games is feeling like I'm just a small fish in a big sea, not special or exceptional except in the choices I make. I understand it's meant to be sort of fourth-wall breaking in a way, making playthroughs more unique, but is there any way other fleets can/will gain some of these bonuses so that it doesn't seem quite so magical?
And, yeah, there actually are some bonuses in a similar vein that other fleets get. One example is, you can hire mercenary officers - on temporary contracts - using story points; these let you exceed the maximum officer limit for a time. Higher-end NPC fleets make use of the same basic mechanic, also going above the officer cap. (This is instead of them becoming made up almost entirely of capital ships past a certain point, btw.)
[...] So, basically, the answer to your question is that "some of those kinds of things will be in the game, but probably not for the reasons that you want them to" :D
Reloading after battle as a story point sinkThat means I cannot hoard points. I just spend them immediately on builtin hullmods or other top picks then save scum without any points for the game to take away (unless it starts tracking negative points).
I love the idea, but in practice, I don't think it will work out much better than simply spending SP to increase a ship's OP.This may be more useful. Either way, the ship becomes a rare one that will be hard to replace, unless SP are easy to gain and stockpile.
Reloading after battle as a story point sink
I know that sounds crazy, but I think story points can be used to create an ideal middle-ground between iron mode and save-scum mode. Story points are the perfect price to pay in order to reload and revise history. They could be used to undo crippling defeats, but they're difficult enough to earn to disincentivize tedious reloading. As a fourth-wall-breaking method of influencing the game, it makes perfect sense that story points could be used to revise history.
This could be implemented in such a way that a story point is lost even if the game is shut down 'unexpectedly' by saving SP somewhere other than the save file, preemptively deducting one point whenever a battle starts (GUI would not show the deduction), and refunding the deduction once the game is saved. This way, one SP would be lost any time a player fights a battle they choose not to save on the first try. I'm not sure what the best way to handle cases where someone reloads without having any story points in the bank, but there are workable solutions, such as SP debt or removing progress toward the next SP.
Problems with permanent hullmods for SP
I love the idea, but in practice, I don't think it will work out much better than simply spending SP to increase a ship's OP. People are likely to choose the same hullmods whether they're permanent or not, with the caveat that low OP mods will be seen as inferior picks. In the end, the only difference between a ship with permanent hullmods and a ship with additional OP is that one is more flexible. But how meaningful is that flexibility? Why would someone want to remove the mods they think are most important for that ship?
Retrofit hullmods - Permanent hullmods with normalized effects
The problems with permanent hullmods could be fixed by reducing and normalizing their effects in such a way that they're roughly balanced in spite of all having the same price (0 ordnance points and 1 story point). This would make choices about hullmods much more interesting, because the best mod for the ship is no longer the best choice for a perma mod. You don't want a Dominator to have retrofit heavy armor, because then it couldn't install the normal heavy armor hullmod, which grants a better bonus.
Interface for finding markets that are selling a specific ship
I imagine this could work well as a bar event as long as the selection of find-able ships is limited. Players could find some sort of broker or informant at bars who would offer to give the location of a ship chosen from a list of x randomly selected rare ships. I think this could be a very good QoL feature. Scouring the sector in a frigate in search of ships I want has never part of the game I enjoy.
Thinking of pairing this with a bar-event that gives you some access to manufacturing capacity, so you could build from blueprints - in a limited way - before getting your own heavy industry up. Need to see if I can make that work smoothly, though.Ooh, this would be very nice to have - I tend to play with Nexerelin enabled these days, just because it makes things overall more interesting - but Nexerelin causes slow faction relation degradation, so I often hold off on establishing a colony for quite a while.
Actually added a bar-event along these lines in the last couple of days :) Focused on blueprints etc, though, not specific ships.That's incredibly generous of you! Perhaps too much so. I would prefer some unlucky ships to be available only in limited quantities without raiding, but I know some people who just have to get everything in their game every time...
Thinking of pairing this with a bar-event that gives you some access to manufacturing capacity, so you could build from blueprints - in a limited way - before getting your own heavy industry up. Need to see if I can make that work smoothly, though.
Problems with permanent hullmods for SPOne different thing is that hullmods are ship-specific. Percentage increase to OP applies to all ships, but built-in hullmods apply only to the ship it's built in. Otherwise, it would make it closer to a flat OP increase per ship size, instead of percentage one. It's much better on low OP ships or when used on SO (though SO is the only hullmod that carries significant penalties and shoehorns a ship into a given role).
I love the idea, but in practice, I don't think it will work out much better than simply spending SP to increase a ship's OP. People are likely to choose the same hullmods whether they're permanent or not, with the caveat that low OP mods will be seen as inferior picks. In the end, the only difference between a ship with permanent hullmods and a ship with additional OP is that one is more flexible. But how meaningful is that flexibility? Why would someone want to remove the mods they think are most important for that ship?
It's limited to a subset of otherwise-rare ships, and you don't have much choice in what's on offer.
(Also some weapons and other items...)
Thats odd, because heavy industry is usually what i build first, concurrently with station and high command for defence, and i never have the issue of capital deathballs like you state. I may have to help defend before my high command hits, but its reasonable.No mods.
are you playing Nex or vanilla?
Without getting too far off topic, have you ever considered having limited blueprint production without a personal colony with Heavy Industry?
Thinking of pairing this with a bar-event that gives you some access to manufacturing capacity, so you could build from blueprints - in a limited way - before getting your own heavy industry up. Need to see if I can make that work smoothly, though.
I've always thought it would be cool if the player could get hired as an administrator for a faction world. Then maybe they could 'borrow' the local heavy industry. I also think this would be good for having a colony tutorial.
(Interesting, but, right, having to have two sets of effects for each hullmod - and trying to balance them - doesn't feel viable for what we'd get out of this.)Gotcha. I figured it might be a bad idea to make any significant changes to how hullmods work at this point in development, especially considering that GUI changes/additions might be necessary.
Actually added a bar-event along these lines in the last couple of days :) Focused on blueprints etc, though, not specific ships.Oh, nice! Those could be pretty neat events.
Thinking of pairing this with a bar-event that gives you some access to manufacturing capacity, so you could build from blueprints - in a limited way - before getting your own heavy industry up. Need to see if I can make that work smoothly, though.
Right. I agree that this is the biggest potential problem with the idea. Case in point:QuoteReloading after battle as a story point sinkThat means I cannot hoard points. I just spend them immediately on builtin hullmods or other top picks then save scum without any points for the game to take away (unless it starts tracking negative points).
I'm not sure what the best way to handle cases where someone reloads without having any story points in the bank, but there are workable solutions, such as SP debt or removing progress toward the next SP.
I've got half a mind to use up a story point when respawning - or perhaps to give an option for a better respawn at the cost of a story point - but, eh. It just gets weird since this sort of thing really encourages save-scumming and (as Megas points out) odd behavior as far as story point spending patterns.Hmm. What sort of thing? Were you referring to my reload penalty suggestion or your idea for buying better respawns?
Fundamentally, I don't like the idea of messing with what is and isn't in a savefile.That's very sensible, of course, but in this case the whole point is that it's not in the save file.
Consider cases where people, say, share savefiles.Right, so that's just a flaw in the example I gave for a means of implementation. SP would not be saved outside of the save file, as I originally described. Instead, a penalty flag would be recorded to indicate that an SP deduction should occur on the next reload. This is how the reload penalty system I made for ruthless sector works, so I should've known better.
If the player wants to save/load, that's 100% up to them.Well, I agree. That's why I'm suggesting an alternative to iron mode that doesn't attempt to prevent reloading.
I get what you're saying conceptually - it's an interesting thought! - but in practice I think it would lead to a lot of annoyance and bug reports.Maybe so. Failing to notify players when an SP is deducted after reloading could certainly cause some confusion, and reconciling save files with penalty flags could get messy in some cases. But anyway, I hope you'll seriously consider adding some sort of mechanic that gently discourages save scumming. I think a lot of gamers are sick of "do it again" being the only solution to every setback, especially among those of us who are more jaded.
I've got half a mind to use up a story point when respawning - or perhaps to give an option for a better respawn at the cost of a story point - but, eh. It just gets weird since this sort of thing really encourages save-scumming and (as Megas points out) odd behavior as far as story point spending patterns.Hmm. What sort of thing? Were you referring to my reload penalty suggestion or your idea for buying better respawns?Fundamentally, I don't like the idea of messing with what is and isn't in a savefile.That's very sensible, of course, but in this case the whole point is that it's not in the save file.
...
Right, so that's just a flaw in the example I gave for a means of implementation. SP would not be saved outside of the save file, as I originally described. Instead, a penalty flag would be recorded to indicate that an SP deduction should occur on the next reload. This is how the reload penalty system I made for ruthless sector works, so I should've known better.
Well, I agree. That's why I'm suggesting an alternative to iron mode that doesn't attempt to prevent reloading.
...
Maybe so. Failing to notify players when an SP is deducted after reloading could certainly cause some confusion, and reconciling save files with penalty flags could get messy in some cases. But anyway, I hope you'll seriously consider adding some sort of mechanic that gently discourages save scumming. I think a lot of gamers are sick of "do it again" being the only solution to every setback, especially among those of us who are more jaded.
I've always thought it would be cool if the player could get hired as an administrator for a faction world. Then maybe they could 'borrow' the local heavy industry. I also think this would be good for having a colony tutorial.
Functionally this is what a faction commission does. Access to the military market and a wage commensurate with your experience
I've always thought it would be cool if the player could get hired as an administrator for a faction world. Then maybe they could 'borrow' the local heavy industry. I also think this would be good for having a colony tutorial.
Functionally this is what a faction commission does. Access to the military market and a wage commensurate with your experience
That's not really what I was talking about. More like building/managing industries and defending against raids and stuff (i.e. the colony tutorial). Using the heavy industries would be a benefit of the job, but the idea is to actually have a job. Honestly it makes more sense than the faction just giving you money/access for no reason with no responsibilities.
Couldn't it have been both clearer and easier for the player to just have a button to replay the current battle/encounter, paying story points for it, instead of doing some tricks behind the scenes?Yeah, that would be clearer, but making it work would basically involve automatically saving and reloading specific parts of the gamestate, which could get pretty dicey. I don't think it would accomplish the same goal, either, because people could still just reload to avoid the SP penalty.
I am with Alex 100% that trying to solve reloading by screwing with saves won't end well. If you want to encourage players to play through a loss, do something like allow ship recovery on a loss at the cost of story points.Some ships need SP to recover, if one of his new pics are true.
If you want to limit the scalability of fleet bonuses then have them apply double to Officers or something. That way the ships you assign officers to reflects your fleets focus without unduly penalizing someone who just loves missiles or fighters or w/e.They're not being penalized - they're still getting a buff by picking up the skill. And the more fighters they have, the more things are affected by the buff, even if the buff is smaller. It's never penalty, it's just a bigger buff for builds that don't go all-in. And since the scaling is gradual, being slightly over the "optimal" doesn't turn the buff off (and calling that point "optimal" is pretty misleading anyway).
I like having the possibility to get every skill after enough commitment,We will be able to edit the skill cap in the next version like we can here via a change in the settings file AFAIK.as it is in the current system.
Not a fan of being limited to 15 skills, unless i missed something.
Yep!I will say that this game has spoiled me on how easy it is to mod and change many things!
I will say that this game has spoiled me on how easy it is to mod and change many things!
It would be interesting balance. Less skills, but better story point gain, or more skills, but more grind and less story points?
I think it's an assumption born of extrapolating from how things work now? Right now, if you mod in more levels, the xp cost per level continues to increase. If story points are per level, and increasing max level makes level costs continue to scale up, then increasing max level would also make story points harder to come by.It would be interesting balance. Less skills, but better story point gain, or more skills, but more grind and less story points?
Hmm, offhand, these don't seem like things that need to trade off vs each other. That is, more or less of either seem like viable things to adjust, but I don't think more of one would necessarily mean less of the other, if that makes sense.
In current system we have infamous aptitude skill point sinkhole but overall system was very flexible - even if some builds were stronger than other and fleet buffs much stronger than pilot buffs(making combat aptitude little underwhelming).
Thing is you could freely adapt skills to your way of gaming.
With new system we get rid of aptitude cost but we get forced to take lower tier skills if we want to get higher ones.
Now for example I can get skills for my preferable play stale - with new system choice will be very limited. Like if I would want play support character on missile cruiser I would still need go full into combat tree for a Missiles buff wasting 4 other points. And what if I really want only 2 first tier skills (that somewhat fit my current playstale)? I would need either go full into skill tree so I can invest 6th point into it or just drop it.
It seriously limiting all these fun or RP(not exactly min-maxed or optimal) builds that I enjoyed.
I do not like it. I do not like it at all.
Somebody please tell me I am wrong.
Unfortunately you're not wrong, I don't like it either. I get that some skills are stronger than others so they shouldn't be picked immediately, but just put a lvl requirement on them then. Why the hell would I spend 10 points out of max 15 if I want 2 best tech skills. And there's obviously going to be ones you're never going to utilize. I appreciate Alex to death and know he'll make it all work beautifully in the end but I just can't wrap my head around this skill ''tree''.
1: Do permanent logistical hullmods count towards the only 2 logistical hullmods per ship limit?
2: Will modding or settings allow for different maximum hullmod limits depending on hull sizes (1/2/3/4 etc), instead for the same N permanent max hullmods for all hull sizes?
As for admin skills, would they be aceable? Would there also be administrator training like officer training?
What about possibility to use Story points to jump over the skills requirements?
Like able to jump over some tier or lock skill down so its not change during respec?
Or maybe being able to get some skill from the same ier even without getting to max tier? It could be costly or limited - just open enough to allow more customization options.
Maybe instead of tiered ladder(1st tier one from two, 2nd one from two, etc) we could get tiered pyramid?
Something like 1st tier you get 3 one from two choices but need spend 2 points to advance to 2nd tier that have 2 one from two choices and then you get the last tier with one from two choice(you still need spend 4 points to get into tier 3rd). Or something like 1st tier having 4(or 6) free to choose skills when 2nd tier have 2 choose one from two skills and 3rd tier have one from two.
That would allow player pass over some skills that are unfit for his playstyle or current RP avatar.
How many of the skills/effects from the old system are in the new system? I assume you've recombined/reorganized a bunch of stuff but are all of the old effects/abilities still available in the new system or are some no longer available. I always though some of the skills in the old system would be better as rewards for story/quests, stuff like transverse jump or some colony benefits. I don't know if you've though about that at all?
I just want the ships to be balanced without these perma hullmods in mind. There needs to be enough OP for every ship so that a decent build can be fitted.I would not be surprised if the built-in mods replace LD3 and ships have the same OP as today. If so, most ships will need built-in mods to have a decent loadout. (Not looking forward to put built-ins on every Shrike to make them usable.)
I'm not sure if i missed some updates on the latest mechanics on how hullmods work to understand what's the advantage of 'permanent' hullmkd. Is permanent hullmod going to be OP-free? I see that you've been replacing the extra-op tech skills over the years. I agree that extra OP was too good and a generic must pick usually and this is a good way for player to still has that custom fit elite ship that is not possible normally.
Why do i still feel that the whole blog post is basically a trap to entice players into causing a massive AI rebellion?(especially after recently learning that using AI already can cause something to happen in the current version)
I just want the ships to be balanced without these perma hullmods in mind. There needs to be enough OP for every ship so that a decent build can be fitted.
I just want the ships to be balanced without these perma hullmods in mind. There needs to be enough OP for every ship so that a decent build can be fitted.
I'll probably end up tweaking the OP on *some* ships, but for most ships I think they're in a decent place. Open to suggestions/opinions as to which ships really, really need it.
Ships that absolutely need more ordnance points: Scarab, Shrike, Gemini (this one needs a lot more ordnance points), Gryphon, Astral.I just want the ships to be balanced without these perma hullmods in mind. There needs to be enough OP for every ship so that a decent build can be fitted.
I'll probably end up tweaking the OP on *some* ships, but for most ships I think they're in a decent place. Open to suggestions/opinions as to which ships really, really need it.
Medusa & Grypon (both of these need something beyond just more OP but I don't have any good ideas for what)Medusa might be fine with more OP. If not, lower DP cost to 10 or 11. It is not better than Hammerhead or Sunder.
Hmm, between the new Alpha core benefits and new Commerce, it looks like players are going to have so much credits. Are player faction fleets (related to the currently unused Orders tab) the main creditsink? Or are there other creditsinks planned?Not really? If anything the Commerce change is a nerf - keep in mind that, one, new Commerce still occupies an industry slot, and two, it *replaces* the current bonus income from high stability. In other words, if you don't build Commerce, you'll see a massive drop in colony profit - and if you do build it, well, that's one fewer industry you can build.
If I can just build refining or fuel processing or heavy industry and make as much if not more money, why would I build commerce?When you want more money after you kill all of core worlds. If exports are zero because everyone in core is dead, you probably want more income from your population. Just because core is dead does not mean there are no more enemies to kill.
Alex any chance that you consider adding option(disabled by start) to free skill point redistribution?
its already confirmed(if I am not wrong) that it will be possible to unlock it manually to get more level cap?
Also small suggestion. Not really on topic.
Can - if player put curse on space system - fleet aim for a Inner jump point not for a star gravity well?
Let me actually do that now. There, done. Not "inner" necessarily, just the closest one.That was fast.
Firstly, hi and happy to be a part of the community of starsector ^^
This is my first post and i'm not that good in english because i'm a french native speaker, so be nice with me please ^^'
.. and since everyone try to find a better name for them, why not Storytelling Point ? It's more accurate (in what you try to do with them) than story point and don't divaricate to much from the core meaning of the base name.
Secondly, after pondering a little, the skills system remind me a lot the one from starcraft 2 heart of the swarm, with Kerrigan able to remap her skill tree after each mission, and in the same game was present an idea that i loved : you unloked a third skill tree after one of the campagn mission. So why not unlock third option skills( one by one, not a full tree in one go) in the skill tree of starsector when the player meet a number of condition, like doing a certain story mission ? The skill in question would be a new specialized skill extending the way you can play, no more powerful, but interresting ( I just let that here, i know that it's a pretty difficult idea to implement but maybe, who know, it will give you other idea Alex ^^)
Well, it's all i've to say for now. Any chance that you give us a little bit of information about what's going on with the skill and story point system now ? Like how goes the playtest and some of your idea ? (A little bit greedy here ^^')
Keep the good work, you're amazing, Alex, you and all the people and modder working for starsector ^^ (And i'm pretty literal and peremptory in my comment but don't take it like that, i respect your work and i know that i'm not the professional here ^^)
It could be set up as "this ship benefits from the Carrier Group skill, but doesn't count towards the cap".
On a related note, does the Carrier Group skill count built in fighter bays?
On a related note, does the Carrier Group skill count built in fighter bays?
It counts them. Does mean that Shepherds have a bit of a downside when used purely for logistics, but, well, there's the Surveying Equipment hullmod and Salvage Rigs if an alternative is needed for this reason.
Hmm, carrier skills + terminator drones...If that happens, would be nice if Wasps and Mining Pods were beefed up too.
You know what might be interesting as an alternative? Have the Carrier Group skill only benefit (and only count) crewed fighters. That'd also serve as a way to let Remnant LPCs trend towards being a bit stronger than normal fighters without being an automatic "Well, I'm putting Sparks and Luxes everywhere now."
Hmm, carrier skills + terminator drones...
You know what might be interesting as an alternative? Have the Carrier Group skill only benefit (and only count) crewed fighters. That'd also serve as a way to let Remnant LPCs trend towards being a bit stronger than normal fighters without being an automatic "Well, I'm putting Sparks and Luxes everywhere now."
Hmm, carrier skills + terminator drones...
You know what might be interesting as an alternative? Have the Carrier Group skill only benefit (and only count) crewed fighters. That'd also serve as a way to let Remnant LPCs trend towards being a bit stronger than normal fighters without being an automatic "Well, I'm putting Sparks and Luxes everywhere now."
I don't know if that would work out well with mods though. As far as I know, Sylphon and Tyrador have a significant contingent of drones for their fleets. It'd also reduces the usefulness of wings like Wasp drones unless they were improved to match, which can lead to a situation of "take this if no carrier skills, avoid this if carrier skills".
The built-in hullmod idea that was stated earlier that can't be used by player ever similar to ATC for Paragon would certainly help avoid the Shepard dilemma. I'd say you could make it so that while it doesn't count any fighter bays for the skill, it also doesn't gain any benefit citing the nature of the ship as a non-combat civilian. Issue with that though is it could be confusing as to why a ship like the shepard doesn't get any bonuses from your skill, esp. when there's a skill that apparently improves civilian combat abilities.
Like with all the other fleetwide skills, it's everything in the fleet (that's not mothballed). Having reserve carriers not being an unmitigated positive is an intended feature of this, not a side-effect.
... Are fleets going to be much smaller in next release or just fleet-wide skills much less important? This seems to be quite a low value at battle-size 500. I mean my deployment capacity needs to be 200 dp at minimum, and preferably somewhat more.
Standard 200 battle-size may reduce my single time deployment needs, but then I'd need to prepare for multi round combat, given size of late bounties or expedition fleets, which also means extra ships.
So when do you plan to release this awesome update? A month estimate at least would be good, so I that I know not to stress about it looking every few days to see if its been uploaded ;D .
What constitutes a combat ship? Any ship which is not included in a Civilian Rally Point order?
Speaking of skill booster hullmods, here's a scenario. A ten hangar fleet constituted by one Astral, one Mora and one Condor. If player add a booster hullmod the Astral, Carrier Group will give maximum bonus as if there's only five hangars while adding the hull mod to the Condor or Drover will give less than maximum bonus as if there's more than six hangars.
How well would this arrangement work? While it still leads to hullmod spamming, it doesn't lead to spamming specialized booster ships. Additionally, it makes the player choose between skill booster hullmod against weapons/LPC's/vents/hullmods.
would this hypothetical hullmod also stop the effect from applying to the ship it's installed on? If it did, that could be potentially workable, though I'm not sure it's *necessary*. Also, not sure how it would be presented to the player just as far as the nature of the hullmod.I'm thinking of two kinds of hullmods - exclusion type (no effect, no OP cost) and emphasis type (effect and has OP cost). Of course, neither type of hullmod would make the applied ships' hangers counts towards the maximum.
Recently bought the game and have been loving it so far. Thanks for the work you guys have been putting in! I like the direction this skill update would take the game in general.
However, I would suggest restricting it to actions which don't involve immersion breaking behavior or if they do, have some in game explanation of the outcome. Like if you use a point to force a disengagement have the dialogue reference some brilliant maneuver you orchestrated or how you super charisma's the enemy commander to let you go.
Though, I am concerned that 15 levels will feel restricting despite the addition of the story points. I could be completely wrong as it isn't implemented of course but I'd feel more confident with more levels/options. I know it is important to balance the number of choices with the amount they affect the available mechanics of the game and that each choice should feel important and meaningful. I just get fearful when a see the word "streamline" or "simplify" when it comes to skill trees in games. I've always enjoyed more choice even if is a bit less impactful because the greater number of opportunities to make those skill choices usually leads to a greater sense of game progression for me.
Would it be possible to expand that system to also include activate-able abilities? I'm not sure if you'd need a new set of options to choose from or if you could have choices from abilities that already exist in game but I think it would be pretty dope to have options to make my ships even more unique/specialized.
First release Missile Autoforge Gryphon had! It was highly self-destructive (CR Burn instead of one charge), but insanely powerful if you knew what you did. (Of course, Onslaught/Paragon could solo anything without such tricks when skills were that strong at the time.)Would it be possible to expand that system to also include activate-able abilities? I'm not sure if you'd need a new set of options to choose from or if you could have choices from abilities that already exist in game but I think it would be pretty dope to have options to make my ships even more unique/specialized.
I've thought about that a bit. Something like that would have to be extremely restricted, as certain systems would be far too powerful on other ships. And in some cases, the data files for the ships have to support the system, i.e. the extra engine nozzles on the Eagle/Falcon that activate when Maneuvering Jets are on, that sort of thing. I guess one might have a set of "general-purpose" ship systems that could be swapped in, but... it just seems really difficult to avoid combinations that would be clear-best and extremely overpowered. Could still be a fun thing to try at some point, though.
Off Topic
Stumbled upon this gem a week ago, best purchase since gnomoria, gj guys.
Someone should write epic store ...
Just very briefly, officers giving fleetwide skills is troublesome because it heavily disincentivizes the player from getting those skills themselves.So... Exactly how it is now with combat skills and, to a lesser degree, administrators and alpha cores?
Privyet Alex,
I hope we will be able to mod those skills to add downsides to them, also having certain skills as a requirement for certain game aspects like specific industries, general diplomatic actions, financial interaction, Research (x3 litcube stock exchanges & jourabes mayhem overhaul ) wouldn't be bad albeit probably scope breaking ¯\(°_o)/¯.
Just very briefly, officers giving fleetwide skills is troublesome because it heavily disincentivizes the player from getting those skills themselves.So... Exactly how it is now with combat skills and, to a lesser degree, administrators and alpha cores?
I literally responded to that a few posts back? :) With combat skills, that's just straight up not the case since officer skills don't let you pilot a buffed ship. For admins, having personal skills lets you have more skilled-up colonies.My bad, I missed that.
Combat skills available on officers = it's a choice what to invest in, since your personal piloting have a huge impact*, and regardless, it's an additional ship-with-skills.*Assuming the piloting player isn't garbage and is better than 6 additional officers before spending more than 3 to 6 skill points. Otherwise, it's better to ignore Combat tree completely and let officers have combat skills (which you can also get, but it's already established that you can't make them worth it)
To Alex:
Dear Board Admin,
Any chance this simple machines board could embrace the glory of UTF-8 in the near future ?
Your sincerely,
Random Person on the net
Free Hardened Shields and Targeting Unit on my Paragon? Well, color me red cuz I'm fully erectWithout current Loadout Design 3, ship probably needs one built-in mod to roughly break even. With two, ship may come out ahead, but that price is paid per ship, not one-for-all like Loadout Design 3.
Now, I'm a min-max kinda guy, and if the bonus exp from permahulling ships is additive and applies to the player, then I can see myself fielding 10 kites in a redacted battle for that sweet 5 mil exp (going by current numbers). I'd rather said bonus was not present anywhere and, instead, the curve was worked out to not scale out of proportion, since having a text field tell you "THIS GOOD" already ruins any semblance of immersion.
Created this account just to say this is genuinely dissappointing.
I strongly beleive you should be working towards making the game much more open ended by adding lots of scaling. The whole idea of starting new runs over and over will ultimately kill the replayability of this game. The 'runs' take long enough you get invested, this isn't really a roguelike as much as you may view it as one. The runs are too long and the game is too punishing if you don't load.
Gearing the game towards this idea of restarting just suggests there won't be enough content/story in the game to make a good sandbox and that's what you really need. I really hope you reconsider the direction of the endgame.
I didn't read this whole thread so I hope this isn't too repetitive but I LOVE story points. The idea that they can help the game keep its flow is especially great.
I only got into this game recently (30 hours of gameplay over the last 4 days...) but I'm really excited for your future design ideas.
Will there be bonuses for purchasing all skills of an aptitude?
Will Alpha Core still grant non-production bonuses to structures like Patrol HQ/Space Port/Battle Stations or do story points do that now?
Random story point uses I thought of:
- Between engagement rounds, partially repair a ship and restore its CR, and reload missiles
- Allow recovery of disabled/destroyed player ships even if the player retreated from the battle
- Free restoration of a ship, or perhaps removal of a specific D-mod
Speaking of story points.... what about letting players disassemble AI cores to get them? Gamma would net only 1, Beta 2 and Alpha 4. Or maybe 2/4/6?
I thought it was scarce but unlimited, is there a cap to story points a player can get per campaign?Speaking of story points.... what about letting players disassemble AI cores to get them? Gamma would net only 1, Beta 2 and Alpha 4. Or maybe 2/4/6?
Generally speaking, I wouldn't want you to get story points from anything easily repeatable beyond XP; that goes against the grain of them being a resource with limited availability.
In addition, consider that "AI Core drop rate and availability now ties into <everything story points can do> as a balancing factor" is... probably not good, let's say. That kind of balance dependency seems like it's just asking for trouble.Players can spend story points to gain AI cores from battles against [REDACTED]?
How well would making the effects of some skills increase with player level work? It doesn't have to increase on single every level, could be on even or odd levels, only after Level 5, at 10 and 15 only etc.....
As for some story point use ideas....
*Use at bars or comm relays and get intel you can't normally find?
*During raids, spend to increase marine performance/reduce losses/more loot. Maybe options to spend more than one point?
*Clear suspicion from black market trading? Reduce tariffs for one day?
*Reduce sensor profile for a week? Reduce CR loss and hull damage from space hazards for one week?
Hello Alex
It is probaly too early to ask for any numbers but how high are the CR limites for the automatic Ships. And are those CR limites reduced by the amount of ordnance/maintance or by the ship class in general? Also is it possible to increase the CR limites by any way (maybe a communication center/central processor unit on a colony [of course totaly harmless])?
Of course i dont intend to fight aSpoilerthird ai war.[close]
with friendly regards,
someone who doesnt has omega
The basic idea for the Automated Ships skill is the maximum CR of the automated ships in your fleet is based on the strength of the automated ships in your fleet. The way it's currently tuned is that a REDACTED battleship will be pretty strained - IIRC it maxes at around 50 CR for one? CR can be increased by officer (or in this case, AI core skills) and there's a fleetwide skill that boosts it, as well. Putting an AI core on it increases the strength, though, so the maximum CR drops, so that part of it ends up being a bit of a wash.This feels counter intuitive, sort of like gamma cores reducing demand worked — you put on a rare thing on a ship/industry to make it better, but it looks worse off, even if it increases its total power (or, in the case of gamma core, just reduces a bit how much the global market value that colony adds due to its demand).
Basically, a REDACTED battleship is not generally going to be at peak power - still good, but there's some incentive to use smaller REDACTED ships instead, since you'd be able to get them to higher readiness.
I don't think that's actually true, at least nowhere near to the same extent.Alex, have you ever thought of splitting the flagship skills from the fleet and logistics skills, with separate skill points for each? That way you wouldn't have players feeling like they are being pushed into being a cheerleader for their fleet while the AI gets all the fun buffs and toys
Fleetwide skills available on officers = it's an actual mistake to get them on your character (barring, as mentioned, significant changes in working around this).
Combat skills available on officers = it's a choice what to invest in, since your personal piloting have a huge impact, and regardless, it's an additional ship-with-skills.
This feels counter intuitive, sort of like gamma cores reducing demand worked — you put on a rare thing on a ship/industry to make it better, but it looks worse off, even if it increases its total power (or, in the case of gamma core, just reduces a bit how much the global market value that colony adds due to its demand).
I also think that people will look for ships that, at their baseline, have the most advantage over human ships, like Scintilla or Radiant.
Alex, have you ever thought of splitting the flagship skills from the fleet and logistics skills, with separate skill points for each? That way you wouldn't have players feeling like they are being pushed into being a cheerleader for their fleet while the AI gets all the fun buffs and toys
how it *feels* is a major component.This. Very much this.
It feels like if a player wants to roleplay a character that's not a crack pilot, they should be able to do that.Which is why my version of this idea has always been the "Flag Officer", where the player simply doesn't get combat skills, but can instead assign a regular officer to their flagship and get access to combat skills that way.
But then, not letting officers have fleet-wide bonus skills disincentivizes the player from the entire Combat skills tree. Maybe let officers have fleetwide skills but say, only one or two per officer?
Which, yes, kinda kills the roleplay option of "I'm an elite ship captain, not a fleet commander" - but that's been dead since we got out of Corvus and found that, in the larger sector, you -have- to have a fleet to get anywhere. I had a lot of fun back in the Corvus days running around with an Odyssey, a single medusa escort, and five wings of wasps - but that sort of fleet is simply not viable anymore.
Fuel Range on a single Odyssey with the fuel skill. You can go pretty far with a single ship if its the right shipLol. Nice joke there; of course I didn't mean that in terms of literal range. :-P
Fuel Range on a single Odyssey with the fuel skill. You can go pretty far with a single ship if its the right shipLol. Nice joke there; of course I didn't mean that in terms of literal range. :-P
(You can also always bribe the expeditions away; mentioning it because it sounds like you might be overlooking that option.)If Free Port is on, the frequency of expeditions is too much for bribing to be a useful option once they reach a million per event (assuming no cores to break limits).
You're probably right. But bribing the expeditions gets more and more expensive each time, and having to plan to bribe the major 'civilized' factions to leave your brand new colony alone that still size 3 and only has two buildings seems like something you shouldn't need to plan for, and letting them disrupt it was the cheaper option. There's no option to not export stuff and not appear on the global market to avoid attracting their attention though, or alternatively only sell to the black market.
If Free Port is on, the frequency of expeditions is too much for bribing to be a useful option once they reach a million per event (assuming no cores to break limits).
Yeah... not really a good option when trying to grow a size 6+ colony bigger in my lifetime. Free Port is almost half of all population bonus. Free Port could provide no extra income, and I would still use it just to get a large size 7+ colony as quickly as possible. Turning off Free Port for annoyance or babysitting avoidance when my faction is more than a match for any major faction does not seem like a good idea. It just makes the best or optimal option the most annoying to use, but the player does it anyway to get the best reward. Basically, instead of boring-but-optimal, it is annoying-but-optimal.If Free Port is on, the frequency of expeditions is too much for bribing to be a useful option once they reach a million per event (assuming no cores to break limits).
Thankfully, that's easy enough to avoid by toggling Free Port off :)
I've even registered =D
This game is great. And it's been developing in right directions so far, but…
The coming changes in skill system are a bad turn, as I see it. Let me explain. The feel of Starsector is always a feel of realism so far. About pirates, factions, player story development and skills. As in real life, when we need some skill – we lean it. We spend time grinding books about that exact staff and eventually we gain knowledge of “managing a settlement”. We do not lean metallurgy or waste recycling but how to manage a settlement to it not to starve and gain profit. And this is a great part about Starsector. I learn a skill that I need right now like I would in real life. When I start my game as mercenary in a wolf and plan hunting pirates, fighting factions - doing combat staff or just know, that I will fend of hostilities and not run, first skill points go to maneuverability and speed. I start in cruiser – I dump them in weaponry and armor to tank and kill faster. When I want to play early game as an explorer, I dump points in ability to save fuel and sensors. No, this time I play, as a trader, I learn wide fleet skill to make me faster to outrun all trouble. And this how game progresses. I learn what I need to make my stories. At a time I played a military hero who was fighting for others and decided to fall of and fight for himself, dump his last points in colony management and it was perfect that he had not to learn salvaging, he despised salvaging, he even killed those space graveyard robbers on sight. The free skill system is what makes half of role-play in Starsector and that you are about to kill with MMO like linear professions. At least I hope you make it possible for mod makers to revert such changes back, otherwise it will be a huge loss for a game.
As for “story points” as described, it's more like a cheat reward for gaining levels. In my opinion it must be about forging stories. You deliver food to a starving colony – you are a kind man, people heard of your deed, take 1 point. You deliver food to a starving faraway hostile colony – take many points, people think of you, as an “honorable man who cares about them”. You save a distress call, take your point. You answer a faction call to rescue an expedition fleet on the edge of the map god knows what from – fuel loss, supplies shortage, enemy blockade – you save them – take your points. Helping fend of raids gives you points. Helping raiding, committing atrocities earns you point (or even bad points that kicks in randomly to *** you up in return).
Story points must be about forging a story, making you do stuff, not hoard EXP. That way my upgraded Onslaught will feel like a part of story, earned for my deeds, bad or good. Not just another reward for grinding.
By the way, about evading scan bonus – it can be even better. You specialists use story point to forge same fake id for a certain faction (or all factions for many points). All patrols of that faction no longer bother you. But the length of the buff start degrading as you get in sensor range of a faction fleet. The more fleets you pass, the faster it expires (because high ranking officers start asking questions, they eat their bread not for cute eyes). You mast activate bonus out of sensor range of any ship and loose that bonus the same way, otherwise a standing hit with a faction that caught you. That would be awesome mechanic and fully explain all this cheaty smugglers lurking around.
EXP boost smells like some lootboxes or premium accounts, by the way. You reach level cap fast enough already, it will wind away all feel of progression. And if story points are exp-earned, it's better make them separate from level progressing, maybe story-exp amount based on difficulty of missions and battles.
I think that's it for my humble opinion. I truly love this game.
Second skill acquired is randomly selected...
Two (or more) staff officers having the same skill, or staff officer and player having the same skill, bonuses and limits do not change in any way.
I lean toward the current open and independent system rather than the directed and structured system you intend to implement. The act of making something simpler and easier for people to understand, often strip it of the depth and complexity.
I'm still hung up on the frigate portion of the post.For me, it is peak performance, then size of the enemy. If AI wants to play coward, I want to outlast them so they lose if they try to run down the clock. Small ships run out of peak performance too quickly. No fun to retreat ships one at a time due to peak performance expiring seconds apart - big CP sink. Later, endgame fights are against something like ten capitals and the rest mostly cruisers. I need a similarly large fleet to fight that.
I think a major reason as to why people simply drop frigates come late game is their propensity to die off so easily. Why bring, say, 3 frigates with a very real chance to be destroyed when I can just bring 1 destroyer, that is both more survivable as well as cheaper in terms of supply cost?
- one skill gives them MASSIVE bonuses to their combat stats so they can actually do something to bigger ships and not be instantly obliterated the moment they sneeze at them
- another skill makes it so frigates are ALWAYS recoverable and can never have more than 1 D mod OR never get D mods but their recovery isnt guaranteed.
I lean toward the current open and independent system rather than the directed and structured system you intend to implement. The act of making something simpler and easier for people to understand, often strip it of the depth and complexity.
I agree with your concerns around depth and complexity but I'm not sure they are entirely warranted. It's a tightrope, and if missued it can be used to mask lazy design. Honestly I think the Skillpoints in Starsector as they exist now might go a little too far in the direction of complexity of the sake of complexity. There are a relatively limited number of 'optimal' skill builds, and you are punishing yourself if you deviate from them. Think of it like the skill system in post 3rd edition D&D. It 'seems' like it offers a lot of choice, but say you are playing as a thief for example you are actively punished by the mechanics if you don't keep your lockpicking and trapfinding skills maxed out every time you level up. It's complex, there are a lot of numbers to track, and it is balanced to a tee, but the tradeoff is that any deviation from the presumed balance is a severe handicap. Compare that to a system where at each level you are presented with two mutually exclusive options. Now you have a choice with some meaning.
Not only that, but as a designer if offers the benefit that you only have to balance two skills against each other, not every skill against 40 other skills. I mean you can't completely ignore balance within the whole spectrum, but it certainly can take a backseat. You don't need to worry about balancing direct damage vs. colony management for example.
The main reason I may like the new skill system is purely that skills might end up interesting.
Just scratching my itch: story points were in "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura" as "fate points".
Starsector is too long of a game to replay over and over again to try different builds. I would not mind it for much shorter games like DoomRL/DRL, but not for Starsector. I am likely to stick with only one or two games, due to time, and being able to redo skills will be nice. No decision paralysis or otherwise saving skill points. No need to be locked into three ships all game if I play carrier specialist.
It takes me... maybe about a week or more to go from start to end. My feedback topics on new releases tend to be about a month after release date. I do not have unlimited time to play Starsector, and I have a life to deal with. I do not want to burn away my life to play every last character build in each game from start to end. I did such dedicated play with Diablo 2, and I do not want to go through that experience again.
My point was if the game is too long, I would not have time to try out more than a few builds. Currently, I stick to few games because the Starsector is long. Starsector is not DoomRL where I can finish a game in about two hours (barring the Ao100/Ao666 challenge games). Respec in long games is nice, because I do not need to spend too much time grinding through early-game hell to do what I want.
I generally dislike achievement systems, especially if they gate content.
That is like saying extra context is bad because I don't have time to play.Extra content is not bad, but it is meaningless if player cannot experience it due to time constraints, and being unable to respec skills in a long game is not good.
I played Nexerelin (and its ancestor Exerelin) up until the 0.8.x releases, but I do not see how a mod is relevant for no-mod play. If Starsector cannot stand on its own and needs mods to be good, then it is a bad game.
Extra content is not bad, but it is meaningless if player cannot experience it due to time constraints, and being unable to respec skills in a long game is not good.
In particular, I do not like building a carrier specialist because I am locked to three or four carriers as my flagship for the whole game. Unless one of the carriers is a godship that is so far above everything else, I would not want to be stuck to a number of ships I can count on one hand. (Spark Drover does not count because player needs many of them.) At least with warships, I have a nice variety to choose from for various purposes.
If you playing in vanilla and you are not playing the carrier specialist, you usually fly capital ships. There isn't much choice in the capital ships you can fly either.Before mid to late-game, capitals are usually not an option. I need to make do with whatever ships as I acquire them, and warships are much more common than carriers. Even late after I get the capitals I want, I still occasionally use smaller ships when they are more useful, and the skills are still useful for them. With carriers, player has what? Drover, Heron, Mora, and Astral?
I fly the paragon for like 99% of some of my games. I don't complain. I love that ship. ;)
The game should be good without mods. If I pay money for a game, I want a game, not a game engine that needs third party support to polish it up. I should not need to rely on mods to have a good game. If I need to mod a commercial game to have a good game, I rather play make-believe and say "I WIN! GAME OVER!" and look for a better game that does not need mods (or a free game where community support and development from anyone with the dedication is the point).
Respec during the game means I do not need (to make or download) a third-party tool to cheat that feature in for me.
Considering the limitation of a small Indie developer, people shouldn't be overly demanding.Unfortunately, that will probably be unavoidable if or when Starsector hits mainstream. Starsector really needs to be top-notch to set itself apart from the mass of other forgettable games.
If you under the impression Commercial games mean quality, I wouldn't think so. Many gaming companies are delivering bad unfinished games full of bugs, then sell you the rest of the game as DLC, has terrible business practices and poor customer service because it is often profitable doing so.Which is a reason why I mostly abstained from modern gaming since the last decade. It was not always like this.
Will the new skills be adjustable via a settings file? As I know I'm personally a massive fan of capital on capital action in the late game and I would really love to be able to edit the settings for the skills so that they function with a capital centric fleet because as you've said so far the default settings are more set up for a few capitals instead of a lot of them like I enjoy for the big epic fights you can get into.
The issue with giving story points for actions is the player would feel like they *have* to do these actions for the story point reward. Imagine needing to respond to every distress call - and to your earlier point, some of the things the player would feel forced to do would likely go against the sort of character they're roleplaying.
It pretty much has to be tied to something more abstract and general-purpose (i.e. XP). In any case, part of the reason they exist is to give you a little more of a reward as you gain XP - since there are fewer levels, and they take longer to gain, since overall XP is similar-ish, so decoupling them from XP would be counter to that goal.
I don't think this necessarily means that a player would inevitably always feel obligated to do everything they came across, however, if some events gave unique rewards like that. From my viewpoint, that really depends upon the nature of the design. If everything you do in the game results in story points anyway, then choosing not to do something doesn't feel like you are missing out as long as its because you want to do something else that contains roughly the same reward. Experience works this way already and I get that's a factor in tying it to there as well.
Would the same issue exist if both were possible? It kind of depends upon how valuable/universal story points are when tied to the things you can do with them in the campaign. If they effect everything and you always want more then yeah that could be problematic unless actions from every play style would result in story points. Hmm, but that kind of seems to be double dipping the design implementation and dev effort merely for the sake of less abstraction (As a player preference I typically dislike abstraction and consider it a necessary evil that should be avoided whenever possible)...
Right, yeah - either it's universal (and then why not tie it into XP? not exactly the same, but close enough)
or (more likely) it's not, and then it really shapes what the player will want to do. I'm just not crazy about those kinds of meta-incentives - you end up with some regardless of what you do, really, but I don't want to add major ones on purpose.
Well as long as it's simple to change it should be good. Does mean I'll need to look into how to mod things more properly though :PWill the new skills be adjustable via a settings file? As I know I'm personally a massive fan of capital on capital action in the late game and I would really love to be able to edit the settings for the skills so that they function with a capital centric fleet because as you've said so far the default settings are more set up for a few capitals instead of a lot of them like I enjoy for the big epic fights you can get into.
It's not a text file tweak, but it can be done with a simple mod that changes some static variables (where those thresholds are specified).
You could also still get a bunch of capitals! You'd just get lower bonuses per ship, but, I mean, more capital ships is still more capital ships.
Right, yeah - either it's universal (and then why not tie it into XP? not exactly the same, but close enough) or (more likely) it's not, and then it really shapes what the player will want to do. I'm just not crazy about those kinds of meta-incentives - you end up with some regardless of what you do, really, but I don't want to add major ones on purpose.
Have to be honest, I'm pretty confused here because to my knowledge negative incentives haven't come up regarding this. Am I missing something?
Don't feel bad about it. There is a very fancy science behind why people hate nerfs and will turn into foaming animals at the mere scent of one. The entire world will be changing with the skill overhaul anyway, so I don't think that saying buff or nerf at this time is really appropriate.
| (http://bucket.bluegartr.com/9c82cd6da9933d6b8f269cdc72d80ddd.jpg) | Yes, lets just wait and see how things will play out before we critic something that isn't there yet. What is important is finding good fun gameplay elements, and pushing the limits on them as much as possible. It is great when a skill choice dramatically changes how someone plays, but the really hard part is making sure it isn't the only way to play.Considering that this is an upcoming expansion of gameplay and this isn't dota I very much doubt that the upcoming versions META will be any less flexible. |
Apologies if I wasn't clear - what I mean is, I don't see how your comment related to what you were responding to.
They could, for story purposes, also be recorded in a little log, so you could see all the great feats you've accomplished over the course of your story, and recall how you escaped a patrol at the last moment with a cunning trick, performed an marvel of engineering integrating a hullmod, subtly inspire an event that distracted the port authorities so they didnt notice your back alley dealings, or managed to hide those stolen kidneys at the last second, ect.
Hi there - welcome to the forum! I'll keep this a bit brief since a lot of this was, indeed, hashed out in the almost-30 pages of this thread.
First off, I totally get that this is somewhat subjective and you're well within your rights not to like it. That said, personally I think this system is a huge improvement. You've still got a lot of choices, but now they're about what you want to do, where in the old system a lot of the choice gets bogged down in figuring out an optimal way to spend the points (i.e. combat skills - "what gives you the most power for X points" is a question that largely has a right answer, so a lot of the choice there is somewhat superficial). Plus, the new system makes it possible to have more powerful/fun skills since they don't all have to try to be balanced against each other.
The skill pool is actually increased, not reduced! There are 40 where there were... 28, I think?
The "use story points for a lateral movement" approach doesn't really work out - skills generally power up as you go up in tier, and it would be an absolute no-brainer to pick both tier 5 skills, for example, if you could do that. Even if the story point cost was really high - you can get more story points by grinding, and you can't get more skill points. That sort of thing is an extra "option" that ultimately reduces choice, and a higher story point cost would necessitate grinding and prevent you from spending story points on other fun things.
Your effort to stop people from making optimal builds will futile though
Snip!
The skill pool is actually increased, not reduced! There are 40 where there were... 28, I think?
There is also the aspect that I'm also quite concerned about, which is that the specialist options will make a player feel "Obligated and Locked" into playing into their choice, and only that choice. As one of the examples cited, I adore phase ships, but some times I dock mine up for a change of pace (part of this being that theres no phase capital, though as a new player I do also like just trying out other ships). I understand that you can replace skills for an SP, but I would honestly feel obligated to do so every time I wanted to change things up.That is better than it is now, which is player cannot change skills ever once confirmed. That means if I pick carrier skills, I am married to one of the few dedicated carriers in the game, and need to start another game and build another character. Building up multiple characters in Starsector without cheating tools takes too much time, or at least more time than I allot for the game. Even after I build several characters, I need to toggle games if I want to play one specialist now, then another specialist later.
By icon count, yes! Though, in my head I kinda included each of the 3 subsequent upgrades within those skills to be it's own thing. In that vein, I kinda saw it as going from "50 potential skills" to "15 potential skills". Or rather, 'choices'... I think that's more direct to the point of what I meant, and is what makes me a sad panda :'( . But your right, it is 100% a personal preference, I do prefer deep and complex character building with a long but consistent path of improvement. In essence, it feels like the players character will ultimately grow less, though I do acknowledge that there will be more growth via Story Points in the means of how they apply them to ships, commanders and scenarios.There aren't 52 potential choices and not every skill has upgrades. Some have just waste levels that prevent you from getting the actually good benefit at the end, some skills are pretty mediocre to consider on their own. In addition to that, you don't need any skills to succeed in any kind of career, so the skill choice quickly devolves into "essentials" and "everything else". I mean, is there any reason not to take things like Fleet Logistics 3 or Loadout Design 3? Not only they are quite good on their own, but it also decreases opportunistic cost of other skills in those trees, and they both have quite some useful ones. So, after you get all the "there's no reason not to take them" skills, then the real choices begin, after you've spent about half of your skill points.
And as some one else pointed out, the effort to stop min/maxing is indeed ultimately futile, and personally I actually dont have a problem with it. IMHO, theres 2 ways to play, optimally, and creatively. As long as both are equally effective and viable, then it's all good. Just another personal choice.
That said, ultimately, I'll have to wait to get my hands on it to really form an opinion.
There is also the aspect that I'm also quite concerned about, which is that the specialist options will make a player feel "Obligated and Locked" into playing into their choice, and only that choice. As one of the examples cited, I adore phase ships, but some times I dock mine up for a change of pace (part of this being that theres no phase capital, though as a new player I do also like just trying out other ships). I understand that you can replace skills for an SP, but I would honestly feel obligated to do so every time I wanted to change things up.
As a final question, I'd like to ask if you've considered instead of 2 choices, if there could be 3. I think this would be an excellent balance, as you could have two specializations, then a truly generalist option that was a bit of both, but as good as neither. I think that would eliminate this as a concern, because if the player wasnt sure yet, they could go the generalist rout, then if they found they really preferred one side or the other, they could dive into that once they were sure it's what they wanted to do.
I mean, is there any reason not to take things like Fleet Logistics 3 or Loadout Design 3?Never picked first one. It needs you to max Leadership. What it gives you if you dont spec into fighters? 4 extra officers and something for speed (cant remember...)?
Never picked first one. It needs you to max Leadership. What it gives you if you dont spec into fighters? 4 extra officers and something for speed (cant remember...)?Up to 6 additional officers (Officer Management), a fleet-wide buff to fighters (Fighter Doctrine), a fleet-wide speed boost (Coordinated Manoeuvres), some flagship buffs to fighters, a raiding/colony buff (Planetary Operations) and some gimmick stuff (Command & Control). Roughly in order of importance. There's also the fact that, on its lonesome, Fleet Logistics gives you: at level 1, some QoL stuff and a very good buff to colonies, at level 2 it's a useful decrease of running costs and another very good buff to colonies, finally it gives you fleet-wide bonus to all combat capability and another good colony buff at level 3. Fleet Logistics is like two skills rolled in one.
Why must you use colour black?
(http://bucket.bluegartr.com/9c82cd6da9933d6b8f269cdc72d80ddd.jpg) Yes, lets just wait and see how things will play out before we critic something that isn't there yet. What is important is finding good fun gameplay elements, and pushing the limits on them as much as possible. It is great when a skill choice dramatically changes how someone plays, but the really hard part is making sure it isn't the only way to play.Considering that this is an upcoming expansion of gameplay and this isn't dota I very much doubt that the upcoming versions META will be any less flexible.
However, below 100% accessibility, it's going to be more than 15-30% income increase. At 50% accessibility, it would make it 65%/80%, for an actual increase of 30%/60% higher income.Yes, i understand how it works. So... do you often have access less than 100%? I mean: if we dont concider spending all Alpha's for extra colonies and use em in Megaports instead. Because if we use AI as managers access stat is even more pointless, because you can have a lot more colonies.
Then again, I spend my points by going for things I actively want, instead of looking for things I can give up most easily.In my first playthrough i played like that. My current one differs for 1 or two skillpoints.
I really wanna try i build with maxed impact mitigation.Here we have some builds, but you dont do any real choices here. If you wanna max missiles - you pick missile skill. If you wanna max armor - 2 armor skills. Etc.
May be one with Missile spec (dont like missiles, actually, but need to try).
One carrier spec.
And now (because of this discussion): something with maxed Coordinated maneuvers.
I wouldn't miss this chance to name "Story Points" as "Farer Points," but I'm still nostalgic about "Starfarer" :)
Absolutely love the design changes and the additions! I'm not really a fan of skills in games when the game, itself, has a heavy focus on combat because that will often muddy the waters in one way or another. However, if the new system really does promote unique experiences as apposed to being generic progression for the sake of progression, then I'm STOKED!!
Is there any chance that—instead of reducing beam range—High Scatter Amplifier's balance factor could just reduce damage the further a beam travels? That'd be a bit more organic. Also, I think short beams just look plain silly ;D
Can we hope for this year?I think everyone can surely agree with this, NOPE. Only one blog post so far, no patch notes of any kind, it's gonna take a while unfortunately. But I am very curious what is being worked on right now, last blog post was more than 3 months ago.
What are skills that will make small fleets and frigates powerful? For the first one, we know that leadership skills give huge bonuses to small fleets.
(It's also moddable, yes, but the skills aren't suitable to "you can pick any one you want", so a "proper" change to them would also rebalance them entirely, which is of course much more involved.)
Does the code currently support two (or more) mutually exclusive (or stacking) Elite upgrades to the same skill? Because even if it's not in the default implementation I could some really cool mutually exclusive sidegrades as Elite skills. Having the flight deck skill elite into mutually exclusive "Bigger bonus, less decks allowed" and "same bonus, more decks allowed" for example comes immediately to mind.
1) Can we increase the 15 level cap as to pick more skills?
2) Can we add new skills in addition to the existing ones? The new UI seems to be a little less flexible than the old one.
3) Can/will we need to replace an existing skill from the list?
4) Can the permanent hullmod limit (of 2 right now) be increased using a skill?
5) How does the permanent hullmod play with the dock exclusive hullmod? Will assigning "Expanded Cargo Holds" to a permanent slot remove it from the dock exclusive count (coincidentally dock mods also have a limit of 2)?
What are skills that will make small fleets and frigates powerful? For the first one, we know that leadership skills give huge bonuses to small fleets.
So much this....I am waiting eagerly for this one...
Let me guess... the other tier 5 technology skill (that is not Automated Ships). I bet its name is Loadout Design.4) Can the permanent hullmod limit (of 2 right now) be increased using a skill?
Yes! There is actually a skill hat does this.
Yes and no :)Guess that makes sense, since that "add to built-in limit" smells like WhizKid from DoomRL.
So I just read the blog. Very, very interesting!When it is nearly ready, Alex will post patch notes. Sad to say, going off of previous versions, this release is quite a ways off
Do we have an approximate release date or did I miss the download link somewhere
I hope it's the latter ;)
So I just read the blog. Very, very interesting!When it is nearly ready, Alex will post patch notes. Sad to say, going off of previous versions, this release is quite a ways off
Do we have an approximate release date or did I miss the download link somewhere
I hope it's the latter ;)
There are plenty of not "here and now" uses for story points - for example, a key one is making hullmods free and permanent - so this isn't an outlier. The reason is particularly needs to be a story point in this case is that an additional skill point is far too high a price, while a story point can always be afforded eventually but still feels like a bit of a sacrifice, hopefully making it feel earned.
I guess if permanent story point sinks are so good I will want to use them all the time this isn't an issue
-snip-
Annnyway. Is there any thing like this in the works/planned?
That's good enough...Annnyway. Is there any thing like this in the works/planned?
There isn't, sorry :) A phase capital, on the other hand, hmmm...
Re: story points and skills, investing in any of the aptitudes creates more opportunities to spend story points. For combat it's obvious with the elite skills. For leadership, one of the skills grants your officers an extra elite skill (or you get more officers), so in either case, that's more points that could be spent there.
There's more than one fighter-related personal skill.
I REALLY like the idea of perm hull mods, as one of the things that this game has been missing in my eyes is the EV feel of "this is MY ship" and that should help with it. Giving me a reason to care about the a specific ship or hull, which i'm hoping combined with the ability to focus more on frigates at least allows us to make some of the "missing" ship roles (like having a very powerful frigate/destroyer for some of the tech classes).
I really dislike them, as it gives me an even stronger reason to reload a save if one of my 'special ships' is lost. It also disincentives experimentation; I could pick up that new ship I've never seen before, or I could use an actually good ship thanks to all my permamods.. The system actively encourages swapping out ships, selling old ships that are now junk d-mods from lost battles (when money is tight), and this new system discourages both trying new things and losing battles, they're at odds with each other.Same here. Everything I thought about story points (with regards to ships) before the release came to pass exactly as I feared.
Hmm. My thoughts:I REALLY like the idea of perm hull mods, as one of the things that this game has been missing in my eyes is the EV feel of "this is MY ship" and that should help with it. Giving me a reason to care about the a specific ship or hull, which i'm hoping combined with the ability to focus more on frigates at least allows us to make some of the "missing" ship roles (like having a very powerful frigate/destroyer for some of the tech classes).
I really dislike them, as it gives me an even stronger reason to reload a save if one of my 'special ships' is lost. It also disincentives experimentation; I could pick up that new ship I've never seen before, or I could use an actually good ship thanks to all my permamods.. The system actively encourages swapping out ships, selling old ships that are now junk d-mods from lost battles (when money is tight), and this new system discourages both trying new things and losing battles, they're at odds with each other.
I wonder how well it'd work if you could uninstall S-mods for a partial refund, and losing S-modded ships without recovery did the same?Any problem caused by story points can be solved with more story points.
Hmm. My thoughts:I REALLY like the idea of perm hull mods, as one of the things that this game has been missing in my eyes is the EV feel of "this is MY ship" and that should help with it. Giving me a reason to care about the a specific ship or hull, which i'm hoping combined with the ability to focus more on frigates at least allows us to make some of the "missing" ship roles (like having a very powerful frigate/destroyer for some of the tech classes).
I really dislike them, as it gives me an even stronger reason to reload a save if one of my 'special ships' is lost. It also disincentives experimentation; I could pick up that new ship I've never seen before, or I could use an actually good ship thanks to all my permamods.. The system actively encourages swapping out ships, selling old ships that are now junk d-mods from lost battles (when money is tight), and this new system discourages both trying new things and losing battles, they're at odds with each other.
The issues involving s-mods being a sunk cost aren't too big individually; e.g. you can test a new ship in a few battles even if it's strictly weaker than an old s-modded ship. Perma-losing a ship already cost a potentially hefty chunk of credits before, but both credits and (with RC12) story points are renewable resources, although losing both at once definitely increases the hurt.
But together they add up in the direction of "once a ship gets s-modded it stays in the fleet forever".
I wonder how well it'd work if you could uninstall S-mods for a partial refund, and losing S-modded ships without recovery did the same?
That's good enough...Annnyway. Is there any thing like this in the works/planned?
There isn't, sorry :) A phase capital, on the other hand, hmmm...
Re: story points and skills, investing in any of the aptitudes creates more opportunities to spend story points. For combat it's obvious with the elite skills. For leadership, one of the skills grants your officers an extra elite skill (or you get more officers), so in either case, that's more points that could be spent there.
There's more than one fighter-related personal skill.
I hope you will remove story points from scavenging. It really hurts the scavenger carreer... in fact it basically removes it from the game.
Mainly because story points for scavenge makes no sense. I saw several times tiny useless ships heavily damaged (systems and hull) that needed story point to get... why would I pay a SP for a useless ship... even brand new I would not even use that (or sell it since they give no money, even early game. Cost too much supplies to be worth it.). And then I see a big very useful battleship, in fact one of my favorites, hanging there in hyperspace where I can salvage it for not SP at all and it has absolutely no system damage and quite repairable hull damage. It makes no sense. I hate random trash. Please, no more SP for scavenging except in dialogs and other game story related events.
Please remove the need for SP when scavenging, I would like to play scavengers again in Starsector.