Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Skills brainstorming  (Read 10555 times)

Althaea

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2017, 04:35:07 AM »

Reading 101

Don't really think you can talk about that, given that I did already address your points in my first post already. I was not exactly "missing" that key point as much as I was dismissing it entirely. While the gap could perhaps be widened and in doing so enhance the gameplay, currently Officers are not really comparable to a high-combat player character.

And I don't get a tech-focused officer would function. Would it stack with your skills? If yes that would be crazy OP, if not there's only 2 skills that affect only the piloted ship, not much variety there. And having aptitude points for officers too is just needless complication. Maybe reducing their max level would be ok, but there's no need to make it work exactly like a player.

I'm admittedly presuming more combat skills for Tech being added in the future (as opposed to or in addition derelict-hacking or whatever).

And agreed on the aptitude points. Just throwing that out there in case an officer completely specialized in a given aptitude would be too harsh. Another alternative might be to have specializations limit officers to three points in one aptitude's skills and two points in the other aptitudes.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 04:53:32 AM by alguLoD »
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2017, 05:03:15 AM »

While I agree that Officers are not as strong as combat-focused (or truth be told any) player, it's only due to better piloting and better skill selection for player.
Raw *amount* of ship-skills a player can afford without skipping fleetwide essentials is actually somewhat lower than what officers get.
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2017, 05:23:34 AM »

Some of the fleet-buffing skills are not just considered bonuses, but outright essential - officers, carrier doctrine and loadout design most prominently. There are three skills in technology that are essential for a build oriented around improving the flagship, and between one and four in Leadership, depending on your spec.

Carrier skills are useless to those that don't use carriers. Leadership tree doesn't really offer much (if anything) for no-fighter fleets.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2017, 06:59:12 AM »

Combat skills today are nowhere near as powerful as they were in pre-0.8 because the bonuses are smaller.  Also because player cannot be much faster than the enemy to overtake cowardly AI.

Yes, flagship with all personal skills is a bit stronger, but my flagship still struggles to punch above its weight, though not as much as an unskilled ship.  However, all that extra combat power does little to fix the greatest obstacle - forcing fights!  My combat boosted Paragon or other big ship has trouble against small ships because the AI refuses to engage until it has the numbers to swarm and kill my flagship.  (Before 0.8, bonuses were big enough that a battleship could survive, but not today.)  Combat skills merely delay the inevitable.  If I pilot a smaller ship, the boosts are not enough to let it punch above its weight.  I used to solo capitals with a Medusa, and solo cruisers and Onslaught with a Wolf, with pre-0.8 skills.  I cannot do that today.  Actually, cruisers are still tough opponents for Medusa even with Combat skills.  (Also, Medusa has trouble forcing fights against some frigates.)

When trying to solo fleets, the best success I had for that was with a carrier flagship because most fighters are faster than frigates and force fights.  To make the idea work, I need max carrier skills from Leadership plus Helmsmanship 3 from Combat so my carrier can run away with zero-flux speed while fighters are "Engaged".  (I also have no assault weapons and add Unstable Injector so that my carrier is fast for its class.)

The greatest obstacle to soloing fleets is forcing fights against a cowardly AI that fails to perceive and exploit an overwhelming advantage.  You can have all the firepower and defenses you want, but if one side or both plays coward, then the fight may come down to who runs out of peak performance/CR first.  Before 0.8, with the combination of Augmented Engines and enemies charging in for the kill, there was usually no trouble forcing fights against the AI, and it was glorious.

All the discussion about flagship affecting battles, player can do that with an unskilled flagship too.  Combat skills does not make your flagship significantly better enough to justify the cost of building a Combat specialist.

@ alguLoD:  You cannot quadruple your resistance to EMP.  Only the Resistant Flux Conduits hullmod offers EMP resistance.  Before 0.8, Damage Control reduced EMP damage, and it was great.  Probably so much that the benefit was removed in 0.8 so that ships cannot be immune to EMP today.  Resistant Flux Conduits is a near-universal top-tier hullmod, nearly up there with ITU and Expanded Deck Crew.

I like to dip into Combat.  I get Combat Endurance 1, Evasive Maneuvers 1, and Helmsmanship 3 minimum.  Combat Endurance 1 is great when fights are decided on a timer, and they sometimes are given the AI's cowardice.  I like to get Damage Control 2 and Defensive Systems 2 too, but lack of skill points make those choices hard - hard enough that I usually do not take them and leave points unspent.  If I dip much into Combat, then I cannot afford luxuries like more officers in Leadership, Navigation in Technology, or any of Industry.

Aside, if I know for certain that my flagship of choice is not a carrier, the Gunnery Implants would be a no-brainer for me.  However, if my flagship is an unarmed carrier (because they are the best at killing fleets), then all of those juicy weapon bonuses are worthless to me.

Thunders are glass cannons that take too long to regenerate (but they have the best offense for 8 OP).  They are most useful for EMP if you do not have Claws to spare.  Otherwise, more durable (or cheap) fighters tend to be more useful.

@ TrashMan:
I agree Loadout Design 1 is useless.  Loadout Design 2 is useless without Loadout Design 3, due to lack of OP.  Once player gets Loadout Design 3, he can often afford super-max vents and Loadout Design 2 becomes useful.  However, even if 1 and 2 are useless, 3 is so good that it is almost always worth the cost for everyone.  (Without Loadout Design 3, ships tend to have barely enough OP to afford the basics and none of the advanced stuff like Converted Hangar, bombers, and weapons more advanced than Open Market stuff.)  It is that good.  Only Electric Warfare 1 is a better perk because an automatic -10% to 20% malus to shot range to many late-game fights really hurts, and preventing that is great.  (All carrier fleets are not as good as they should be due to AI faults, so having non-carriers to tank for carriers is a good idea.)  #3 perk, probably Fleet Logistics 3, is a distant third.

Fuel is a big deal, maybe about as much or more than supplies.  For some people, the tandem is too much, especially if they use slow pokes like Prometheus.  (I would gladly take the +5 to Sustained Burn, since that is my default mode of travel even for pursuing enemies.)  I really, REALLY want Navigation, but because Navigation has no use in a fight (unlike Fleet Logistics), I pass it up because I there are not enough skill points to get everything I want for combat.
Logged

Althaea

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2017, 07:28:16 AM »

I'm not going to spend too much time on this - Internet debates are something I find exhausting nowadays, especially when results are unlikely. I disagree with certain commonly held notions regarding combat, and while I've seen a fair few others agree with me over Discord, they are not here in this thread, which was largely filled with negative viewpoints re; the power of the Combat aptitude. More trying to show that counterpoints exist than win a debate.

I will say, to be clear, that my bottom line is this: I agree fundamentally that Combat isn't as good as Technology or Leadership, even if I think it's good on its own, and certainly fun. I don't usually have a problem with the cowardly AI, but that might be simply because I use carriers in more of a support role and also make extensive use of LRMs.

@ alguLoD:  You cannot quadruple your resistance to EMP.  Only the Resistant Flux Conduits hullmod offers EMP resistance.  Before 0.8, Damage Control reduced EMP damage, and it was great.  Probably so much that the benefit was removed in 0.8 so that ships cannot be immune to EMP today.  Resistant Flux Conduits is a near-universal top-tier hullmod, nearly up there with ITU and Expanded Deck Crew.

"Quadruple EMP resistance" is somewhat imprecise terminology, and my bad - my only excuse is that I was trying to keep my post flowing and readable. You can also halve damage received by weapons and engines (which includes EMP damage, AFAIK) and also increase the hit points of your weapons and engines. This means your systems last a lot longer before they go away and need to be repaired.

A lot of people seem to subconsciously filter out those perks because they don't have flashy effects - I've seen those levels referred to as effectively empty. But Ordnance Expertise 2, Evasive Maneuvers 2, Helmsmanship 2 etc. do have an effect that I never really appreciated until I tanked a Terminator drone's full ion pulser salvo to the side without deleterious effects.

Thunders are glass cannons that take too long to regenerate (but they have the best offense for 8 OP).  They are most useful for EMP if you do not have Claws to spare.  Otherwise, more durable (or cheap) fighters tend to be more useful.

Yeah. Thunders aren't very specialized fighters and lack raw power, with that high replacement timer being a considerable drawback on top of everything else.

It should perhaps be noted that I mainly use them on Drovers or (early on) Geminis. Reserve Deployment does marvels for their sustainability. Then they become useful for when you hit up the tactical map and send them off to give a nasty dose of EMP and kinetics against troublesome but isolated enemy ships.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2017, 07:44:04 AM »

I like Helmsmanship 2.  I would get that for any ship I pilot.  I probably would have passed on 3 until I learned that Engaged fighters put flux on the carrier, and getting zero-flux speed bonus on a carrier is great because squishy wizard carrier can kite enemies now.  Because carriers are a dominant power in 0.8, even those with built-in drones (e.g., Tempest) or Converted Hangar, I consider Helmsmanship 3 a must.

Combat Endurance 2... I generally want my ships off the map instead of bleeding CR until it is zero.  This is a case where I want that skill in Industry that halves the CR threshold for malfunctions, but have trouble affording.  Ordnance Expert is nice, but not enough to justify the points for my character.  There are not enough points for me to take it.  It may be a good skill for officers.

As for engines and weapons, I like Damage Control 2.  When combined with Automated Repair Unit, they repair so fast that getting knocked out does not matter much.  Even Damage Control 2 alone is good.  (Damage Control 3 may be good too, but I cannot afford it due to lack of points.)

Reserve Deployment is a very powerful ship system.  I certainly abuse it.
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2017, 07:54:48 AM »

I think the thing about Combat skills is that they're quite nasty if you have multiple Officers tapped out at level 29, their absolute limit, and a bunch of Officers; they make a pretty big difference... if the Officers have some of the must-haves, like Helmsmanship, Gunnery Implants, Ordinance Expertise, etc.

I think that the problem here is largely that the game's approach to player leveling isn't working well; a player can stack up to become a decent individual killing machine, but only at the cost of hurting the fleet's performance so significantly that it's not attractive, because of the "entry fee tax" of having to put three points in (and 12 to get into all the skill trees).  

I usually have to skimp on Combat skills to take only the most powerful skills, which make a difference but aren't exactly heroic.

So, one fix is to simply give the Player more points to use, or lower the leveling thresholds and the soft cap, so that progression is faster and leads to more points being available before the (nearly) endless grind hits.

Another fix, probably a better one, would be to give the Player larger bonuses for the personal skills than the Captains get.  It's not that complicated; the Player's the central actor in the story we're telling as we play, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as it doesn't lead to the Player soloing everything with ease.  I'll probably try that approach in the next version of the Rebalance Pack.

Then there are a bunch of minor "filler" bonuses that don't mean much unless you have a lot of skills.  It might be better to distribute them across the three levels, like they used to be.  Not sure what's the right answer there; while each one of those bonuses is pretty weak in isolation, they're still pretty strong in combination.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 08:26:47 AM by xenoargh »
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2017, 08:28:22 AM »

Also, player does not specialize by skill tree, but by what role he wants to do, and the best roles need to cherry pick the most relevant skills from at least three trees.

If you want to be a carrier specialist, you need Combat 3 for Combat Endurance 1 (because some carriers always lose peak performance regardless of ship size; e.g., Astral loses peak performance even when an enemy frigate is present) and Helmsmanship 3; Leadership 3 for Fleet Logistics, at least two fighter skills, and maybe Command & Control (if abusing Fighter Strike); and Technology 3 for Loadout Design (because carriers are very OP hungry, even more than other OP hungry ships).

If you want to be a generalist, you probably want Combat 2 or 3 for Combat Endurance 1, at least Helmsmanship 2 (preferably 3 if you spend much time in a carrier); Leadership 3 for Fleet Logistics and Fighter Doctrine (because Fleet Logistics is good and fighters dominate 0.8 ); Technology 3 for Loadout Design 3 and probably Gunnery Implants 3 (and also obligatory Electronic Warfare 1), maybe Navigation 3 because of fuel discount and campaign quality-of-life; and maybe some Industry for combat, looting, or surveying.

About the only character I can think of that might not spend so much on empty aptitudes is the Combat specialist who want to try to win with only personal skills, and that is clearly sub-optimal because it ignores Loadout Design 3 (more OP) and ECM (less shot range really hurts), and it does not help the fleet at all.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2017, 08:49:38 AM »

So, one fix is to simply give the Player more points to use, or lower the leveling thresholds and the soft cap, so that progression is faster and leads to more points being available before the (nearly) endless grind hits.
I would like to pick one skill from each tree, preferably a must-have for everyone, and make that an aptitude.  Combat Endurance gets restored to the aptitude it used to be.  Pick one among Command & Control, Officer Management, or Fleet Logistics for Leadership aptitude (probably Fleet Logistics).  Make Loadout Design the Technology aptitude because everyone wants more OP.  Pick something for Industry.

Even with this, we probably need more skill points when we get more skills to fill out the skill trees, like maybe outpost management when that feature is ready.

Higher level cap, like 50, would be nice.  I hit level cap of 40 before I make it to endgame and obtain my first capital.

Quote
Another fix, probably a better one, would be to give the Player larger bonuses for the personal skills than the Captains get.
I like this too.  If player sacrifices fleet competence by focusing on personal skill, he better be a monster that can force fights and/or punch above his weight like he used to before 0.8.  On the other hand, that might just exacerbate carrier flagship power (with faster speed, more peak performance/CR, and fighter bonuses) meaning player can kite even better and wipe out things with fighters more easily.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 09:07:35 AM by Megas »
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5078
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2017, 09:24:29 AM »

Yeah, agreed on those points.  I think that wasting 12 points merely getting into the Skills is a large part of the problem.  That's pretty easy to fix; I could just write some code setting all those to filled at start and see how that effects things.  I suspect it's the difference between feeling like we're squeezed into the perfect cheese-build and feeling like we're allowed to generalize enough to matter.

One of the things I'd like to see, long-term, is for Industry skills to be something we can put on Outpost Commanders, or for them to be another type of Mercenary Captain we could buy- one that splits between Industry and Combat, so they're not-so-great as pure-combat Captains, but they can contribute to areas the player doesn't want to spend points on.

Perhaps a way to go about this would be to:

1.  Make Technology all about fleet-wide improvements; move Gunnery Implants into Combat and put a few new things in Tech to keep it very attractive, like unlocks for a few neat power-toys.  I think people will tend to get in there anyhow for the OPs.  I'm glad that there are no longer any fleet-wide buffs in Combat, too, but I think that the top-end buff from Ordinance Expertise (less OPs per gun) would be welcome back in Tech.

2.  I think Leadership is finally relevant-enough that it doesn't need more cheese, other than my OCD desire to see all of the Skill bars be filled.  I'm actually quite happy that Carrier-centric builds are so competitive; that's a welcome change!

3.  I don't think Industry should get touched; there's no point talking about buff / nerf there yet, until we know what its implications will be.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2017, 09:39:07 AM »

I suspect it's the difference between feeling like we're squeezed into the perfect cheese-build and feeling like we're allowed to generalize enough to matter.
"Perfect cheese-build" sounds funny, but that is how I feel.  If I want to build anything from a cheese specialist to a generalist competent at everything, I feel squeezed into the one perfect cheese-build (for that role) with little variation and no room for campaign luxuries like Navigation or Surveying.

1.  Make Technology all about fleet-wide improvements; move Gunnery Implants into Combat and put a few new things in Tech to keep it very attractive, like unlocks for a few neat power-toys.  I think people will tend to get in there anyhow for the OPs.
All of my characters would go Technology just for Loadout Design 3 (for more OP) and Electronic Warfare 1 (for ECM defense).  They are the best two perks in the game for everyone, and Technology will always be very attractive as long as those two perks stay as they are and no other perk becomes universally vital.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 09:56:17 AM by Megas »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2017, 03:07:40 PM »

Someone may have mentioned this idea already, but if not, here goes...

* Eliminate current aptitudes because they eat skill points for no benefit and officers do not need to get them.

* Collapse effective aptitudes down from four to two:  Personal skills and Management skills.  Personal skills are everything officers can take and affects the ship only.  Management skills are fleetwide or campaign skills that only the player can take.  (Reasoning:  Nearly every best build cherry-picks from three or four aptitudes, and Leadership and Technology at 3 are practically given.)

* Player gets a pool of points for each aptitude.  With two, he has two pools of points.  At max level, player has as many points in his personal pool as officers get for personal skills, and player also has similar amount of points in his Management skill pool.  (Reasoning:  Why must player who wants to be the best be delegated to buff-bot while AI officers get all of the fun and exciting powers.  If I want to be a warrior leader, I want to be heroic paragon that can lead and fight, not a wormy puppet-master or wimpy mascot or nurse good only for boring but practical powers.)

This way, high level player gets the must-have fleetwide skills and enough of the fun personal stuff officers can enjoy, unlike today where player must get empty aptitudes, fleetwide stuff, and maybe a few fun personal things or quality-of-life features with leftover points.
Logged

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2017, 11:52:50 PM »

Someone may have mentioned this idea already, but if not, here goes...

* Eliminate current aptitudes because they eat skill points for no benefit and officers do not need to get them.

* Collapse effective aptitudes down from four to two:  Personal skills and Management skills.  Personal skills are everything officers can take and affects the ship only.  Management skills are fleetwide or campaign skills that only the player can take.  (Reasoning:  Nearly every best build cherry-picks from three or four aptitudes, and Leadership and Technology at 3 are practically given.)

* Player gets a pool of points for each aptitude.  With two, he has two pools of points.  At max level, player has as many points in his personal pool as officers get for personal skills, and player also has similar amount of points in his Management skill pool.  (Reasoning:  Why must player who wants to be the best be delegated to buff-bot while AI officers get all of the fun and exciting powers.  If I want to be a warrior leader, I want to be heroic paragon that can lead and fight, not a wormy puppet-master or wimpy mascot or nurse good only for boring but practical powers.)

This way, high level player gets the must-have fleetwide skills and enough of the fun personal stuff officers can enjoy, unlike today where player must get empty aptitudes, fleetwide stuff, and maybe a few fun personal things or quality-of-life features with leftover points.

You want to be both a great leader AND A great front-line fighter?
I'd say no. You simply want the player to have everything. What is the point of picking skills if you'll get everything in the end? There is no choice or point to it.

I might as well just give myself all the skill points trough cheats.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2017, 02:34:52 AM »

You want to be both a great leader AND A great front-line fighter?
I'd say no. You simply want the player to have everything. What is the point of picking skills if you'll get everything in the end? There is no choice or point to it.

I might as well just give myself all the skill points trough cheats.

Max-skills officer is endgame baseline. Officer-less ships are fodder. Piloting fodder-ship or being below baseline is just not fun.

And not "getting it all" can be implementing by making both personal and fleetwide skill pools significantly larger than whatever amount of points a player/officer can get. Which means you will still need to specialize in piloting certain kind of ships and specialize overall fleet composition.

I also like point-by-point re-spec after max level idea, that was already mentioned in thread. This keeps choices important, but allows some flexibility. Unlike current situation of having to pick only skills that are perfect for endgame, with no right to error.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 02:43:17 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skills brainstorming
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2017, 05:59:35 AM »

@ TrashMan:  I never mentioned getting everything at the end.  I want at least enough skill points to get as many personal skills as a level 20 officer plus enough skills to get fleetwide essentials and/or some campaign quality-of-life.  Currently, I need to pick mostly fleetwide essentials then pick either a few personal combat skills or campaign quality-of-life stuff with relatively few leftover points.

Player has 42 skill points max.  9 to 12 will be eaten by empty aptitudes, so let us say 30 for skills in worst case scenario.  Compared to officers you have 8 or 9 more points than them.  That means if you want to spend as many as an officer on personal skills, you have three max skills for fleetwide stuff, which is not enough.  This means if you want to be optimal, you are forced into a buffer or force multiplier role like a cleric or bard.  If you want to spec yourself into a warrior role because it is more fun, you lose potential power and shoot yourself in the foot.

I have tried characters with nothing but personal skills.  They are fun to use, but unfortunately do not perform significantly better than an unskilled character (because enemy still kites like an trolling coward until they have an overwhelming advantage), unless those personal skills are fighter skills (which are in Leadership, not Combat) and I am married to Drover, Heron, or Astral in the game.  If I use a carrier, then I need to run like a dirty coward until fighters passively kill all.  Either way, my fleet suffers because I have no points to make them better.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3