Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[intrinsic_parity]

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.

[StormingKiwi]

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.

[Alex]

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.)

[Plantissue]

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.

[MaGicBush]

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..

[Goumindong]

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.

[Nighteyes]

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.

[Darloth]

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.

[Alex]

but I hope we can mod in additional whole categories somehow. Maybe a scrolling list.

Yep, already possible!

[Thaago]

... 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.

...

 

[Goumindong]

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)

[Harmful Mechanic]

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.

[Grievous69]

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.

[cerebus23]

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.

[cerebus23]

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 . 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.