4
« on: December 17, 2015, 10:19:04 AM »
Having played around with it for some time, ever since it was introduced, I have mixed feelings about the skills system as implemented for both players and NPCs.
It is a plus overall since it gives you non-economic progression; this is a huge plus for Ironman games where a single slipup can cost you your fleet. But at times it feels like the skills system is dominating the gameplay and resulting in what is to my mind big negatives.
It is not hard to level up. A single battle can gain you multiple levels. Your captain (and your officers) rapidly level past the officers being deployed in AI fleets, and their impact on ship performance becomes more and more noticeable. The player rapidly outpaces NPCs and outmatches them on statistical grounds. In some cases this can change certain NPC enemies from a significant threat to a complete joke just through leveling. Even the Lion's Guard has a 'base' level of 7 (as defined in the files); the player and their officers can outmatch that very quickly.
I'm uncertain to what degree NPC levels might advance over the course of regular gameplay, but that brings up another problem: The Skill system begins to dominate combat gameplay. It is hard to underestimate the synergistic boost ships attain when they are rocking increased OP, increased efficiency (+%flux, etc.), and hugely important bonuses like flat range increases. You start to see destroyers with the speed of a fighter and the flux/firepower of an 'unskilled' cruiser. Particularly suffering from this is the Combat Readiness system; crew skill bonuses range from mediocre to meaningless compared to what a ship gains from a skilled captain. Fighter gameplay is also a noticable casualty; they simply do not benefit nearly as much as ships and so their relative effectiveness decreases. They also suffer very noticably from bonuses provided by skills, like improved autoaim, stronger armor, and increased range on PD weapons or steady beams. Poor NPC officers are at a disadvantage against highly experienced Player officers, even without considering the aforementioned synergy effects. God help the ships without officers; maybe they can use the captain's cabin for additional lifeboats.
I am less certain about this next bit, namely about how points do not feel important individually. You are constrained by the Aptitude system but it does not take long to hit max on at least one category. The really gamechanging bonuses are often at the 'milestone' levels. This is a bigger problem for officers than for players; you pick a new skill category, gaining virtually no improvement - then you advance it to (4), gaining a small statistical. Next you advance it to (7), gaining a nice statistical buff and what is often a very important milestone buff. Finally you hit (10) resulting in a powerful statistical buff and two milestone effects. Essentially, every level you invest in a skill gives a larger and larger return. Minmaxing is the only way to play for officers, and it's doubly curious since they are not subject to the same constraints as the player (to some degree reinforcing how special and OP the player is).
I'd like to draw a parallel to Mount & Blade, since I feel that game is closest to Starsector in basic gameplay. In Mount & Blade, most skill stats were actually non-combat stats and many had a significant impact on gameplay. A single point was important to the effectiveness of any given skill, and it behooved players to take at least some level of competence across the board. In comparison Starsector rewards minmaxing in order to get powerful milestone buffs, which occur on top and in addition to regular statistical bonuses.
To be fair, Starsector's skill system is very apparently not done, but that does not preclude criticisms of its current implementation. 0.7.1 is still really awesome, hoorah for space, hoorah for laser beams!