Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: trademark2 on August 12, 2019, 11:04:03 AM

Title: The new skill system
Post by: trademark2 on August 12, 2019, 11:04:03 AM
The new skill system, some of it looks good, but it seems dumbed down compared to now. I really was dissapointed when I read this line:

"Finally, updating a system is a great time to simplify it, so that’s a goal as well."

Simple systems are more limited than complex systems. That's what makes them simple, there are less options and its faster to understand. So, its great that a new player only sees the two options. But here are a couple things:

1. From a roleplay perspective the current system is somewhat superior. I can say hey, my character is good at salvaging, and later, he picked up some skills in utilizing heavy armor. Whereas, the new system will just be the same progression every time. This is bad for how immersive the game feels.

2. It feels good to be able to have levels in abilities. From a customization standpoint, I can put in as much or as little of myself as I want to any particular skill. This is also part of how real the game feels. It is completely logical that I might be just have a little skill in one area, and have completely mastered some other areas. If we move to a binary choice simplified system, this goes away. To reiterate, right now the character can develop in any way I want. With this change, its going to be the same fixed progression of choices every single time.

3. Leveling up feels fun. Leveling up is good. Only having 15 levels is bad. The only reason to go to 15 levels is because the simplified system is too dumbed down to accommodate the sensitivity of the options currently available. For story points, I really like this theoretically, but to finish this point it is not the same as leveling.

4. The story point options... I don't feel like i fully understand the dev vision of this yet. But, generally I think it may be an issue to put permanently put power from levels into ships. If this is standard practice then what about the ships you find, or the ships the AI is using. It doesn't feel like a level playing field, and thematically it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Getting the ability to run away for free, while it might be useful, is also a huge balancing issue, and also doesn't make a lot of sense thematically.

As someone that just started playing this game 2 days ago; Yes, I was overwhelmed by the options. And yes, I died a lot. But, even though I was overwhelmed, the amount of options and customization still made me more excited to play the game and figure everything out. If i had installed after these simplification changes, I certainly would not have been overwhelmed, but I also would not have thought as highly of this game. 'Making it simple' should never be a goal in game design in and of itself. Instead it should be 'making sure it is not too complex', or 'making sure it is understandable'.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Grievous69 on August 12, 2019, 11:38:55 AM
I already voiced my opinion on the blog post thread but I completely agree with you. I hate when simplification leads to dumbing down choices just so it's ''easier for most people''. One can be achieved without the latter. Also this isn't really a game for people who are super lazy to read stuff, so the argument for having less choices in the beginning doesn't make sense to me. And last thing that bothers me is the 15 level limit as you mentioned. Like that isn't even half of the skills. Even if they are super strong and useful it'll still leave a bitter feeling in the end. Alex already mentioned similar skills will be at the same tier, so it's gonna be ridiculous to spend so many precious points just to have synergy. I suppose we just wait to see and hold our pitchforks until the update.

EDIT: Good example for what I meant with the synergy thing is Heroes of the Storm. Unlike other mobas where you purchase items, here you are given talents to spend on a certain level, basically skills here. Now there are some talent trees where you have all 3 or 4 talents for the same ability. So if you don't like using that ability, *** you, if you do, then *** you again since you can only pick one because they're not spread apart. Sure in the next update we could just not pick skills we don't like, but what if it's before a skill you really want? And that is that *** feeling you get when you need to forcefully take something.

P.S. I still love you Alex  :-*
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Alex on August 12, 2019, 11:51:12 AM
Simple systems are more limited than complex systems. That's what makes them simple, there are less options and its faster to understand. So, its great that a new player only sees the two options. But here are a couple things:
I already voiced my opinion on the blog post thread but I completely agree with you. I hate when simplification leads to dumbing down choices just so it's ''easier for most people''.

There's complexity and then there's depth. A simpler system can be more deep than a more complex one, if the system's complexity is distributed in a better way. It's possible to both simplify something, make it more accessible initially, and to also make it deeper.

In the case of the new skill system, it clearly offers less total options than the old one, but it offers more of the meaningful options, because a lot of the theoretical options the old system offers are, well, pretty meh.

I feel like this is a super common misconception, with "simplifying" something being treated as somehow a bad thing. But talk to any designer, and that's always the goal. I think the reason for it, again, is confusing complexity with depth. Consider that any system could be made more complex by adding on a bunch of random things to it that do a bit, but in the end don't matter all that much. That doesn't sound good, does it? It's adding complexity without adding meaningful options stemming from the complexity.

That's the heart of it; some complexity pulls its weight as far as adding meaningful choices, and some complexity does not. The goal of any simplification - and of any original design, at that! - is to remove (or never add in the first place) the complexity that doesn't pull its weight. This, in turn, leaves *more* room to add meaningful complexity. This is why simplification is good.

Some things, of course, get left on the cutting room floor, but what's gained from it more than makes up for it.


This turned into a bit of a rant, sorry :) I just can't help but cringe a bit when I see "dumbing down" thrown around when simplification, most of the time, leads to literally the opposite, either directly in the mechanic in question, or by leaving more room for complexity elsewhere. If I could pick a misconception about games to go away, it'd probably be this one. Basically, I think the way to think about it is to equate "simplification" with "making the complexity count for more".

Edit:
@trademark2 - welcome to the forum, by the way!
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Grievous69 on August 12, 2019, 11:59:52 AM
I think we can all agree here that needless complexity is not a good thing, but that wasn't mine and I'm pretty sure trademark2's point. And yes simplification CAN be good, althought by now I think I have PTSD from all of the ''we're gonna streamline this'', ''we're making the UI simpler/cleaner'' that ultimatively just ends up like a total mess. Sorry for being a sceptic but I'm yet to see something good come out of simplifying things that were completely fine before.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: SCC on August 12, 2019, 12:05:23 PM
I will wait with rating the whole system until I see the new skills. If the new skills allow for more interesting or impactful skills, then I'd gladly take it. If the new skills aren't worth enough, though, then it would be step backwards, since flexibility is sacrificed for not enough power to be worth it.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Alex on August 12, 2019, 12:09:42 PM
EDIT: Good example for what I meant with the synergy thing is Heroes of the Storm. Unlike other mobas where you purchase items, here you are given talents to spend on a certain level, basically skills here. Now there are some talent trees where you have all 3 or 4 talents for the same ability. So if you don't like using that ability, *** you, if you do, then *** you again since you can only pick one because they're not spread apart. Sure in the next update we could just not pick skills we don't like, but what if it's before a skill you really want? And that is that *** feeling you get when you need to forcefully take something.

Yeah - I've been careful to put "generally good", not really objectionable skill options at pretty much every tier, so that there's always an option you can feel ok with at worst. Like, if a tier had a choice between "improve phase ships!" and "improve carriers!" and you just don't care about either but want the skill from one tier up so have to pick one? That'd be bad, and that's something I've taken pains to avoid.

P.S. I still love you Alex  :-*

<3


I think we can all agree here that needless complexity is not a good thing, but that wasn't mine and I'm pretty sure trademark2's point. And yes simplification CAN be good, althought by now I think I have PTSD from all of the ''we're gonna streamline this'', ''we're making the UI simpler/cleaner'' that ultimatively just ends up like a total mess. Sorry for being a sceptic but I'm yet to see something good come out of simplifying things that were completely fine before.

That's fair - I guess where we disagree is the "fine before" bit; to me a *lot* of the old skill system is pretty blah.


I will wait with rating the whole system until I see the new skills. If the new skills allow for more interesting or impactful skills, then I'd gladly take it. If the new skills aren't worth enough, though, then it would be step backwards, since flexibility is sacrificed for not enough power to be worth it.

Totally fair! Well, maybe not "power", necessarily, but I hear what you're saying. What I mean is that, say, if part of the goal of the redesign was to reduce the overall power of skills (it wasn't, generally), then you could still have a more meaningful set of choices with overall skill impact still being lower. E.G. if all the combat skills were really overpowered but undiffereniated, then a step down in power while increasing differentiation would still be worth it in terms of offering meaningful options.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: TaLaR on August 12, 2019, 12:14:26 PM
I haven't seen new system in full detail to judge it as simpler. There are actually quite few points that I consider somewhat freely-relocatable under current system. Most go into must-have skills.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: intrinsic_parity on August 12, 2019, 12:54:35 PM
Yeah the old system was definitely not 'completely fine', there were many options but not that many choices in the end. I think the new one seems very promising.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Drithaan on August 12, 2019, 01:04:07 PM

That's fair - I guess where we disagree is the "fine before" bit; to me a *lot* of the old skill system is pretty blah.


I think there are a lot of advantages to the new system, but there's something inherently satisfying about the iterating skill points from the old system.... it's like when you level up in D&D 3.5 and get to start assigning skill-points. Yes, it's more cumbersome than just picking a list of proficent skills at level 1 like in D&D 4.0 , but there's a feeling of being more involved in your choices, even if the outcome might be the same. Part of that pain is that going from 50 levels to 15 *feels* like progression and choice are being removed, even if logically there are more meaningful choices to make than before, because many of your choices might be "I am leveling this skill to 3, so my next 3 levels are already decided". You make one choice, but you are rewarded for it 3 times.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Sundog on August 12, 2019, 01:09:35 PM
If the new skills allow for more interesting or impactful skills, then I'd gladly take it. If the new skills aren't worth enough, though, then it would be step backwards, since flexibility is sacrificed for not enough power to be worth it.
Yeah the old system was definitely not 'completely fine', there were many options but not that many choices in the end. I think the new one seems very promising.
Yeah, I think that's the gist of it. If it's done right, the new system has the potential to offer more meaningful build diversity. Making it more digestible for new players is just icing on the cake.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: DatonKallandor on August 12, 2019, 01:22:47 PM
Keeping in mind that talking about specifics at this point is entirely stupid, since we don't have any of the numbers or details for all the skills, much less tried the new system in practice....

I love what Alex has shown. It looks like a huge improvement over the current one. Hopefully it's what we get and the overhaul isn't scrapped.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Thaago on August 12, 2019, 01:27:27 PM
I have recently found a character build I had dismissed before (light combat -> recovery industry -> more combat and leadership) is incredibly powerful for how I like to play these days. Some of the 'must have' picks really weren't 'must have' at all, or at least can be saved until quite late in the game.

So I think the old skill system definitely has less builds than the number of combinations - some skills are a lot better than others. But it has many more builds than most people give credit for, because a lot of 'conventional wisdom' when it comes to skills only applies to specific play styles. For other play styles, the skills shift in strength and a whole new set of builds becomes viable.

That said, I'm really looking forward to the new skill system. I've always enjoyed progression ladder type systems, and the ability to spend story points and really specialize looks quite fun!
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Sundog on August 12, 2019, 02:09:53 PM
I love what Alex has shown. It looks like a huge improvement over the current one. Hopefully it's what we get and the overhaul isn't scrapped.
I wouldn't worry about it being scrapped. I'm convinced the reason this game is so good is that Alex practices a perfect balance of considering player feedback and sticking to his guns.

But it has many more builds than most people give credit for, because a lot of 'conventional wisdom' when it comes to skills only applies to specific play styles. For other play styles, the skills shift in strength and a whole new set of builds becomes viable.
In general, I think the current tree has more flexibility than people tend to give it credit for, but for individual players I suspect it's very ridged. For example, I'll never take any of the flagship carrier skills because I don't like to pilot carriers. Some people think the combat tree is under-powered, but I'll spec into it heavily no matter what. For each playstyle there's more or less an ideal build. I'm not sure the new system will be able to address that or if it's even possible to do so, but I think it explains a lot of the dissatisfaction with the current system.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Megas on August 12, 2019, 02:27:09 PM
May biggest complaint with the current skill system is Industry.  All of it is obsolete by endgame when player has all of the blueprints and has enough income to replace losses with pristine ships and still have leftover profit after expenses, and has enough alpha cores to govern as many colonies the player wants.

I like the colony skills and want to specialize it them, but it takes valuable skill points away from combat, which is the meat of the game, and I can get all of the benefits of max colony skills after farming enough alpha cores from Remnants and installing them at colonies.  I would like to build a character with a powerful empire without cores, but I also like to build a character that can match a level 20 officer.  I also like to get Transverse Jump.  I cannot do that... unless I completely dump Industry.  Colony skills are the weakest link since alpha cores do everything colony related for free.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: trademark2 on August 12, 2019, 02:49:42 PM
Simple systems are more limited than complex systems. That's what makes them simple, there are less options and its faster to understand. So, its great that a new player only sees the two options. But here are a couple things:
I already voiced my opinion on the blog post thread but I completely agree with you. I hate when simplification leads to dumbing down choices just so it's ''easier for most people''.

There's complexity and then there's depth. A simpler system can be more deep than a more complex one, if the system's complexity is distributed in a better way. It's possible to both simplify something, make it more accessible initially, and to also make it deeper.

In the case of the new skill system, it clearly offers less total options than the old one, but it offers more of the meaningful options, because a lot of the theoretical options the old system offers are, well, pretty meh.

I feel like this is a super common misconception, with "simplifying" something being treated as somehow a bad thing. But talk to any designer, and that's always the goal. I think the reason for it, again, is confusing complexity with depth. Consider that any system could be made more complex by adding on a bunch of random things to it that do a bit, but in the end don't matter all that much. That doesn't sound good, does it? It's adding complexity without adding meaningful options stemming from the complexity.

That's the heart of it; some complexity pulls its weight as far as adding meaningful choices, and some complexity does not. The goal of any simplification - and of any original design, at that! - is to remove (or never add in the first place) the complexity that doesn't pull its weight. This, in turn, leaves *more* room to add meaningful complexity. This is why simplification is good.

Some things, of course, get left on the cutting room floor, but what's gained from it more than makes up for it.


This turned into a bit of a rant, sorry :) I just can't help but cringe a bit when I see "dumbing down" thrown around when simplification, most of the time, leads to literally the opposite, either directly in the mechanic in question, or by leaving more room for complexity elsewhere. If I could pick a misconception about games to go away, it'd probably be this one. Basically, I think the way to think about it is to equate "simplification" with "making the complexity count for more".

Edit:
@trademark2 - welcome to the forum, by the way!

Thank you for the welcome,

well I think a couple things.

I will give the system a chance as others have, maybe my initial reaction was too strong, but like others here I too feel i have PTSD from this school of game development theory.

I do agree with you about depth vs complexity. I just came from dominions 5 so in terms of complexity this game seems very simplified already in comparison, so I don't see that as a huge problem with this game currently. But even if this methodology has the perception that it is too simple, that is still an issue to think about, and I do believe it may be somewhat justified in this case, as if this change goes through you will only ever have two new options to pick from when you level as opposed to canvasing the board for synergies.

There's nothing that says every skill has to be meaningful. All the skills are all at least marginally useful, and it is something that is satisfying to many players to try to determine which skills we should be going for. A skill point has a variable amount of value and can be placed anywhere, and we get to decide! Maybe there are actually only a few builds that will be the 'meta' but a new player will get the fun of trying them and getting to determine that (or not, and looking it up). Situational skills add flavor and depth that won't be there otherwise. They can also balance out higher level skills, that would otherwise be too powerful in terms of the benefit gained from a skill point. It is satisfying to many many players is to try to determine what builds are good, and theorycraft. You may say that is true with the new system as well, and I am sure it will be! I am sure you have built the best system possible with that methodology, but the fact is that when you level-up, instead of having the whole board, now you are going to have a total of just two new options to pick from, and I daresay that 3 skill points on the old board would be worth 1 on the ravamped board.

While there may be some of what you speak of - the illusion of choice in a world where there are only a few good options (honestly though I haven't felt that way at all with the current options, and it may be that you see it that way because you know the game so well) - that illusion is still important. If it feels like you have more choices than you actually do, thats a good thing, not a bad one. The inverse is true as well. But again - I don't think the aspect of choice in the current system is an illusion. Being able to synergize any combination on the board has a ton of depth,, it isn't needless complexity. Many players have found different build combinations as mentioned in this thread.

I have recently found a character build I had dismissed before (light combat -> recovery industry -> more combat and leadership) is incredibly powerful for how I like to play these days. Some of the 'must have' picks really weren't 'must have' at all, or at least can be saved until quite late in the game.

So I think the old skill system definitely has less builds than the number of combinations - some skills are a lot better than others. But it has many more builds than most people give credit for, because a lot of 'conventional wisdom' when it comes to skills only applies to specific play styles. For other play styles, the skills shift in strength and a whole new set of builds becomes viable.

That said, I'm really looking forward to the new skill system. I've always enjoyed progression ladder type systems, and the ability to spend story points and really specialize looks quite fun!

This is where the 'meaningful choices' Arguement Falls down.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: intrinsic_parity on August 12, 2019, 03:23:47 PM
My problem was always that you had to choose between and balance skills that did such drastically different things. Some skills gave benefits like +1 burn and transverse jump that mostly just reduced the tedium of travel, and those have to be balanced against combat skills that make combat more enjoyable, and colony skills that make boatloads of money, so I'm choosing between having fun in one part of the game and being more powerful in another. I just don't think that's a good choice from a game design perspective.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: StormingKiwi on August 12, 2019, 03:28:07 PM
I agree with the premise of the OP. I think the skill system proposed doesn't look that great. I'd prefer something closer to an RPG, where the level of skill you have at particular tasks determines your efficacy at that particular task, they are developed throughout every level, and then at level up you earn perks.

I think a system where you choose perks at level up which support your skills is important.

I don't think the current system is at all well designed.
While there may be some of what you speak of - the illusion of choice in a world where there are only a few good options (honestly though I haven't felt that way at all with the current options, and it may be that you see it that way because you know the game so well) - that illusion is still important. If it feels like you have more choices than you actually do, thats a good thing, not a bad one. The inverse is true as well. But again - I don't think the aspect of choice in the current system is an illusion. Being able to synergize any combination on the board has a ton of depth,, it isn't needless complexity. Many players have found different build combinations as mentioned in this thread.


Illusion of choice is actually bad, it means there are poison choices to make.

My problem was always that you had to choose between and balance skills that did such drastically different things. Some skills gave benefits like +1 burn and transverse jump that mostly just reduced the tedium of travel, and those have to be balanced against combat skills that make combat more enjoyable, and colony skills that make boatloads of money, so I'm choosing between having fun in one part of the game and being more powerful in another. I just don't think that's a good choice from a game design perspective.
This is a really good point.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Alex on August 12, 2019, 03:35:25 PM
I will give the system a chance as others have, maybe my initial reaction was too strong

Thank you :)

but like others here I too feel i have PTSD from this school of game development theory.
But even if this methodology has the perception that it is too simple, that is still an issue to think about

See, that's the thing! I'd really go so far as to say that this is just how game design works, period. The approach can produce good or bad results, depending on many factors. You can end up with something that's overly simplistic. In the case of the old skill system, the aim was the same - but it ended up in a place that was, imo, over-complicated for what it delivered as far as choices.

The base approach is really just "let's get the most value out of the complexity we put in". I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where that's not sensible. Another way to put it - which makes more sense in the context of cleaning up or revising existing mechanics - is "simplifying things". Which doesn't focus on the value that brings, so I can see how it feels like "taking away", but that's still not what it is.

I do agree with you about depth vs complexity. I just came from dominions 5 so in terms of complexity this game seems very simplified already in comparison, so I don't see that as a huge problem with this game currently. But even if this methodology has the perception that it is too simple, that is still an issue to think about, and I do believe it may be somewhat justified in this case, as if this change goes through you will only ever have two new options to pick from when you level as opposed to canvasing the board for synergies.

(I love Dominions! Played a bunch of MP games, starting with Dom3 all the way through 5. It's good stuff.)


I have recently found a character build I had dismissed before (light combat -> recovery industry -> more combat and leadership) is incredibly powerful for how I like to play these days. Some of the 'must have' picks really weren't 'must have' at all, or at least can be saved until quite late in the game.

So I think the old skill system definitely has less builds than the number of combinations - some skills are a lot better than others. But it has many more builds than most people give credit for, because a lot of 'conventional wisdom' when it comes to skills only applies to specific play styles. For other play styles, the skills shift in strength and a whole new set of builds becomes viable.

That said, I'm really looking forward to the new skill system. I've always enjoyed progression ladder type systems, and the ability to spend story points and really specialize looks quite fun!

This is where the 'meaningful choices' Arguement Falls down.

I'm not sure what you mean. Heck, even the quoted post is, I think, saying the opposite :)


My problem was always that you had to choose between and balance skills that did such drastically different things. Some skills gave benefits like +1 burn and transverse jump that mostly just reduced the tedium of travel, and those have to be balanced against combat skills that make combat more enjoyable, and colony skills that make boatloads of money, so I'm choosing between having fun in one part of the game and being more powerful in another. I just don't think that's a good choice from a game design perspective.

Yeah, it's tough to evaluate because so often you've got "apples and oranges" type comparisons. With the new system - and this isn't really part of the system, but how the skill effects are designed, and how the skills are paired - I've tried to make the comparisons easier to make.

Skills at each tier will roughly affect similar things (so, you're not choosing "affects ship" vs "affects fleet", etc), but also - generally - do so in ways that are different enough so that you can pick which one you want based on what you want to do.

I.E. you wouldn't, say, be forced to pick between hull damage reduction and armor damage reduction - that's a muddy choice, and there's often a straight-up "better" answer. You might, instead (combat tier 3, iirc) pick between Impact Mitigation (reduces damage in several ways) vs Ranged Specialization (increases the damage you deal at long range).

(You still have to pick which of the aptitudes to put the next point into, of course, and that *can* be apples-and-oranges, but that can also be a more thematic choice, or it's a choice you've already made at some prior point, so it shouldn't factor in as much.)
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Plantissue on August 12, 2019, 04:15:07 PM
I prefer simplicity; I see no need for complexity for the sake of complexity. Clarity on the other hand is always a laudable goal. Often complexity is used to hide options in the name of extending gamelife. I see no need for starsector to follow down that route.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: MaGicBush on August 12, 2019, 04:59:53 PM
Without reading the replies I totally agree with the OP. I am only a few days in on playing as well, and I actually like the level system the way it is at the moment. The first thing I noticed was how customizable it is and that adds to replay ability. I hope the new system is designed in a way I can still level up in any way I want to and focus on various things with one character. It also seems odd to only have 15 levels in a game like this..
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Goumindong on August 12, 2019, 05:25:19 PM
Without reading the replies I totally agree with the OP. I am only a few days in on playing as well, and I actually like the level system the way it is at the moment. The first thing I noticed was how customizable it is and that adds to replay ability. I hope the new system is designed in a way I can still level up in any way I want to and focus on various things with one character. It also seems odd to only have 15 levels in a game like this..

It should

The new system has the same four specialties and each specialty has 5 tiers. Each tier has two options. When you level up you may select up any tree to any point you have unlocked and open one of the options on the next tier. When you get to the end, you can fill in again to get everything if you want.

Each option, more or less, represents an entire skill as you would see today (ranks 1-3). So you will be able to effectively max out 15 skills, whereas you could max about 13-15 with the current system.

Certain skills can also be elite unlocked with story points.

The end result should be more varied builds and less degenerate strategy

Once you hit level 15 you will continue to advance in levels(indefinitely) accruing story points which can be used for long term or short term bonuses.

Edit: Its also worth noting that the current skill system has a lot of what we might call fake complexity and imposing restrictions does not necessarily mean that the system has less complexity. It can actually increase real complexity. For example. Right now at level 1 you have, realistically 2 options. 2 points in an aptitude and 1 in a skill or 1 point in an aptitude and 1 point in 2 skills. Over 4 skills. With 5ish options for each skill. This is a decent number of choices. But at level 2 you have much fewer options. You will want to advance down those skills. You're almost certainly 2/(1,1) or 2/(2). The first choice was big (4x16) but the second choice was derivative on the first. Whereas with the new skill system you have 8 options at level 1 and 8 options at level 2 and 8 options at level 3 and so on and so forth. (until you're filled in one then its 7 options). This is likely to produce more options at each level than you have in the current system. Which only starts with a large number of options. But then quickly falls by the wayside due to the clear optimization choices.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Nighteyes on August 12, 2019, 09:30:04 PM
My only real problem with the current system is upgrading tiers. You get nothing for spending that point except access to higher tiers for your next points. It's just kinda strange. I wish upgrading those tiers gave some kind of stock upgrade, like 5% more ship damage, 5% more shield health, 5% more industry output, or whatever.

It just makes every point exciting and gives that immediate benefit.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Darloth on August 15, 2019, 01:33:49 PM
The affinity points used to give small bonuses like that.  They were removed for some reason or other, mostly that they didn't add much.

I liked them as they made them feel a lot less like dead points.

The new skill system might be better, but I hope we can mod in additional whole categories somehow. Maybe a scrolling list.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Alex on August 15, 2019, 01:34:23 PM
but I hope we can mod in additional whole categories somehow. Maybe a scrolling list.

Yep, already possible!
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Thaago on August 15, 2019, 09:53:52 PM
... yes the new skill system looks so simple. Certainly no nuance to be had from the interactions between multiple branches, the marginal utility of specialization, the balance between skills at the same level, planning future fleet builds including the vastly important matter of which style of flagship to use, and the short term/long term decision making that will go into how to spend story points.

Yup, its definitely a dumbed down system, nothing to see here, move along.

...

 ::)
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Goumindong on August 15, 2019, 10:47:11 PM
The last word of KISS is stupid for a reason.

As an aside: old WoW (which had to explain to people that a lot of what they remembered about the game was wrong) is not “complicated” it was “grindy”. And darksouls and its alikes arent “complicated”(theyre pretty simple really) they’re difficult (of a certain type and structure of difficulty that makes it rewarding to master)

Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Harmful Mechanic on August 16, 2019, 12:17:12 AM
I wonder how long some of these newbies are really going to stick around themselves. Or how much they're going to bother actually learning about the game by reading scripts and spelunking in the API.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Grievous69 on August 16, 2019, 05:22:42 AM
Again, especially when the game is indie and so already pretty simple/basic by nature.

Who exactly is that kind of development for, a basic indie game with basic systems?

Excuse me what the ***.jpg If anything AAA games are the ones that are super dumbed down and basically tell you all the time what you need to do and where. And how the hell are Souls-like games ''less handholding and simplifying'', those games are just muscle memory. They're not hard because they're complicated, they're hard because they require good mechanical skills and for you to die a couple of times to see what each enemy does. On the other side, you'll see a bunch of indie games with complex mechanics that require you to not to be a total brainlet (like Starsector for example).


Edit: Not trying to sound like some wannabe hardcore oldschool WoW player (I didn't play classic myself until recently) but i am a mature, cognitively sound, perfectly functioning human being capable of more than the bare bones of game development, with a temperament to suit when presented with something new and with even an ounce of depth and i argue with the examples above, that this will be the majority of people who will try/play this game and that is the average person in general.


This is something an AI would say when trying to convince ''fellow'' humans.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: cerebus23 on August 16, 2019, 05:39:12 AM
AAA games have gotten to the point that the only way for them to make more money is to open up new markets and demographics, if you want and yes one way to do that is to pander to the lowest common that exists all across humanity, the average intelligence and time/money to put into luxury activities like gaming.

So they "dumb down" to appeal to a wider audience and sales pick up, they just never stop at a little dumbing down and now they to the point a 3 year old can play many AAA games wo any difficulty cept maybe eye hand coordination but the mechanics of the game? child's play.

Indy games are niche, they not going to have mass appeal less they one of those "golden" titles that drops at the right time with the right combination of stuff to appeal to gamers and normies. So their bar to "dumbing down" is much lower you just do not want to make your game so obtuse it confuses players at that point, long as you sell enough copies your gonna be able to make the game you dreamed of, and make some money on top win win for everyone.

But ONE DAY some of these indy devs will become the villians we see the AAA industry being now.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: cerebus23 on August 16, 2019, 06:09:52 AM
AAA games have gotten to the point that the only way for them to make more money is to open up new markets and demographics, if you want and yes one way to do that is to pander to the lowest common that exists all across humanity, the average intelligence and time/money to put into luxury activities like gaming.

So they "dumb down" to appeal to a wider audience and sales pick up, they just never stop at a little dumbing down and now they to the point a 3 year old can play many AAA games wo any difficulty cept maybe eye hand coordination but the mechanics of the game? child's play.

Indy games are niche, they not going to have mass appeal less they one of those "golden" titles that drops at the right time with the right combination of stuff to appeal to gamers and normies. So their bar to "dumbing down" is much lower you just do not want to make your game so obtuse it confuses players at that point, long as you sell enough copies your gonna be able to make the game you dreamed of, and make some money on top win win for everyone.

But ONE DAY some of these indy devs will become the villians we see the AAA industry being now.

Interesting take.

There's making a game too obtuse and then there's removing any semblance of any depth or decisions for the player at all, so much so that there's only a few vague orders for the rest of your fleet in combat with the rest of it being fully automated, the economy being a simulation of a simulation of an economy and now most of the character and officer development being taken out.

You think doing this kind of thing to a game, dumbing it down to this point - is good for a niche indie game?

The thing that niche/indie usually has going for it over triple-A is the depth, take that away and..

Well as a person that wants people to play games yea i want games playable, but as a hipster i want the cool stuff for myself its complicated :P. jk.

but lets look at dark souls a game that is considered "hard core" and somewhat niche as a result but got broader appeal because gamers were kind of hurting for that "gamer" experience, dark souls is one of the punishing and rewarding games you can play because you can get gud and win the game you feel like a god when you struggled on boss for 5 hours, or your fell off the walkway in blight town for the 500th time and your raging.

Now there ton of people say well dark souls needs an easy mode, (cough dl a trainer), that its too hard, but we got those games devil may cry or bayonetta is where the "dumbing down" of dark souls would lead and gamers mostly say get gud.

Balance as in most things is probably best but it hard to keep balance and what do corporations or bottom lines care about balance? they cant.

I not played the old builds to see the old skill system to compare to the new the current is there but it boils down to what ships you like to fly gun/carrier and that is going to determine the bulk of your fleets because if your not carrier spec because your not flying one why, and the rest is making money or being able to govern, and the govern ones can be gotten around with cores late game for sure.

And there is the added complexity of fitting you ships and composing your fleets and managing your "fatigue" and supplies. More going on that the skills tree for sure and is the skill tree really where you need a ton more complexity? i would vote diplomacy and ai personally the skill stuff mostly works ;p.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: SCC on August 16, 2019, 06:17:31 AM
That's quite some argument about a few % here and there. If the new system will bring more skills like Sensors, Navigation, Field Repairs or Control & Command (however niche it is), I will be more satisfied with it than with the current system. If it remains mostly stat buffs, like it is now, it won't be much of an improvement. You will continue to do everything you do now, just certain things will be easier. Might as well play on easy mode.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: Whiskiz on August 16, 2019, 06:41:57 AM
That's quite some argument about a few % here and there. If the new system will bring more skills like Sensors, Navigation, Field Repairs or Control & Command (however niche it is), I will be more satisfied with it than with the current system. If it remains mostly stat buffs, like it is now, it won't be much of an improvement. You will continue to do everything you do now, just certain things will be easier. Might as well play on easy mode.

a few % here and there?

From +3 command points to increasing burn level by 1, from increasing fleets speed in combat depending on how many ships you bring, to the same for ECM. From reducing amount of D-mod rolls on ships on average to increasing chance for certain ships to have a higher chance to be recoverable after battle, from increasing colony production by 1 to abilities like neutrino detector, from unlocking certain hull mods on command to being able to have more officers and administrators.

That's quite some exaggeration ;)

In other news i tracked the post down on the new skill setup myself and saw "I think reducing the number of options at any given point will also make for more impactful and considered choices for players of any skill level."

And i had to lol. If you're wanting to make it more impactful, don't give us a level/skill every 2min then (like many people have posted, the progression being too fast) instead of taking most of them away. :D

The story points, elite effects and respeccing sounds cool so far.

Man, that entire thing looks pretty cool i must say.

Making smaller hulls useful again if so chosen (i appreciate this more so as a battletech/mechwarrior fan) having alot more unique options - from redacted/derelict ships to AI officers, (while also providing incentives to not mass use and abuse) making mods on hulls perma and all the other story point options while noting and solving the problem of ship stacking etc because of specific bonuses. respeccing and story points with story points also being farmable and more numerous, making up for less skill points in total and even going the extra mile and thinking of the potential problem of hoarding them and already coming up with a pretty damn cool solution to it. General, specialization and elite skills and more.

I take it all back haha.

You can never be too sure in this day and age though, with everyone busting a nut over "simplifying" and "making more streamlined" and all the rest of the triple-A mainstream garbo.

Nicely done.
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: SCC on August 16, 2019, 11:33:24 AM
From +3 command points to increasing burn level by 1, from increasing fleets speed in combat depending on how many ships you bring, to the same for ECM. From reducing amount of D-mod rolls on ships on average to increasing chance for certain ships to have a higher chance to be recoverable after battle, from increasing colony production by 1 to abilities like neutrino detector, from unlocking certain hull mods on command to being able to have more officers and administrators.
Have you noticed that I mentioned skills like these as exceptions to percentage buffs?
Title: Re: The new skill system
Post by: dgs6686 on August 22, 2019, 11:14:54 AM
Personally I really hope that the fleetwide bonus skills will either be removed or rolled in to just investing points in the tree. For example, for every point you invest in the 'Industry' tree you would get 5% more salvage, rather than having a skill specifically dedicated to increasing salvage. Some of the fleetwide bonuses such as ECM and coordinated maneuvers are just too powerful imo, but you almost have to take at least ECM because you will be at such a disadvantage if the enemy fleet has it and you don't. When you have ECM and the enemy doesn't they can't even fight back... ECM as a ship mod would make way more sense than as a skill point.

I think this is a good chance to trim some fat, streamline the system, and re-tune / re-think some of the more powerful skills.