so I’ll give you fair warning now: if you don’t want to know anything, stop reading.
2: I kinda hate the word and concept of “lore” as applied to videogames, though I’ll use it. It feels like a failure somehow if “lore” is a strongly separated concept from the media work itself. This probably has structural roots in media works being consciously acted upon nowadays as intellectual properties that must have profitable derivative works spun off, and… save this rant for another day. (And I say all of this as someone who played Brigador and spent all my money on lore unlocks before anything else, so don’t take me too seriously.)Up until now, I thought lore meant "everything that isn't the main story (though side quests might not count as well)". I guess I don't watch movies enough, or other derivative works, to associate lore with that.
I must admit, I do feel like I read a thousand words that ultimately said nothing.Indeed.
Let me use a question asked by TheDTYP in the forum as a starting point:
On the other hand, the number of skill points put into a skill branch could represent accurately the competency of our "Han Solo" at a specific type of actions, and could be used as a floor check for some specific special dialog options (with the story points as a fall back option).
For example having a special "notice the hidden door" dialog option unlocked to a captain that spent 8 skills in the technology tree could be an interesting twist, as long as there is still a decent option to players' characters that cannot pass that check. Or an intimidate option to force a surrender for having spend 12 points in combat...
(Also, congrats on completely derailing the 11th Starsector tournament's stream!)
Up until now, I thought lore meant "everything that isn't the main story (though side quests might not count as well)". I guess I don't watch movies enough, or other derivative works, to associate lore with that.
Thank you David, genuinely love reading about this and can't wait to see what you've got for us!
Quoteso I’ll give you fair warning now: if you don’t want to know anything, stop reading.
I... actually think I'm going to stop reading there? The idea of playing a new game of SS with no idea what content is coming up is just way too appealing. I still remember the very first time I went exploring when the outer worlds became a thing.
We did try a bit of this! I even wrote the first part of the major mission arcs going in under the assumption that we'd be using skill categories as a cue for options. It's probably the best version of skill checks, but it still didn't really feel like it was going to meaningfully contribute to the game. As I say in an edit to the blog post, it feels neat and elegant as a solution, but it doesn't really add to the experience.If we are talking about skill checks required to solve a particular problem, then yes I 100% agree it won't contribute positively to the game since it would force taking potentially sub-par skills for a particular build just to have access to some content.
(Now that said, a modder could go and try to prove us wrong!)
There are choices to make: some change your outlook immediately. Some don’t matter. Some don’t seem to matter until they come up again way laterThis worries me a bit. There's nothing more annoying and immersion breaking than being presented with dialogue options and thinking "okay, but what am I actually choosing here..."
we don’t as a rule do skill checks in dialogThanks!
How about instead we assume the player’s space captain is a generally competent person.
Imo that is the best way to go about it. The narrative becomes too messy otherwise since a lot of the choices a player likely has to make won't make sense under that context. If the narrative is built to that context, the amount of complexity becomes too high and effectively creates a "you need multiple endings representing each narrowly defined path" constraint that would quickly become unmanageable.SpoilerNow let’s temper some expectations: Factions will come into play, the player will interact with prominent figures from most of the factions, but we’re not making players swear loyalty to them as part of the primary storyline. That said, having a commission or extreme reputation with a faction one way or another will impact certain situations.[close]
SpoilerHow about instead we assume the player’s space captain is a generally competent person. Then instead of locking out options based on skill restrictions, let us take a positive route and allow the player choose the way in which they excel at the time of the choice as it comes up naturally in the dialog. Let the player lie and send a fake cryopod to the mercenary demanding they hand over the VIP, giving the player enough time to make their escape – AND take a finders fee of 20k credits from the merc. If that’s who the player wants their player to be, that is.[close]
Media created purely and cynically in-anticipation-of or in-reaction-to viewer feedback is generally… bad (and is absolutely a certain level of Hell for any creative person).
As an example that I'll put in spoilers just in case it happens to be too close to an actual plot arc or something:Variation of E, sat bomb the colony until it is destroyed. Who needs planet killers when all the player needs is enough fuel?
Spoiler
Luddic Path world is causing trouble for the sector at large and something must be done. You the player can:
A) Talk them down from further aggression.
B) Station a blockade to prevent anyone from leaving the planet.
C) Pay pirates/mercenaries to increase their raids on the planet and distract them.
D) Invade with your forces and capture the planet yourself.
E) Use Tri-Tachyon's Planet Killer device and blow the world out of the stars.
The Player chooses E.
Now, if the next time the player stops at the local bar on Tartessus and his contact goes "Hey what will it be this time, Han?" instead of standing in shock/outrage at the appearance of the infamous butcher of Chalcedon then it is going to feel really weird.
Will there be randomized outcomes for choices that do not use story points?
I think I have an unhealthy obsession with saturation bombing.
I always wanted a text adventure in starsector
Nevertheless, I think it is fairly imperative that on some level the sector reacts to the personification of the character archetype in some way that is outside the scope of the narrative.
...
The above concept is what I think skill checks were originally designed for. It is a way of simulating reaction to archetypes by enabling/disabling options based upon prior choices. It is very possible to do that without marrying the skill system and dialogue though.
Warning: me just rambling mostly off-topic below this point.
...
In short: The senselessness of the event is ironically the driving force for the rest of narrative. It makes a powerful statement and you genuinely don't see it coming because it's so against the norm of a traditional epic.
You guys put in saturation bombing. What is the fun of it if we cannot use it for anything more than a non-standard game over like later Ultima's Armageddon spell?I think I have an unhealthy obsession with saturation bombing.
(*Takes a note* And this is why you're an important point of reference.)
Not for whether a choice is correct or not but more like "Open a container and get 2 plasma cannons on one playthrough and 100 organs on another". Or "your target's a Legion in the far north east vs a Conquest just 40 ly west of the core", to add variety to quests. Instead of "roll at least 47 or don't get anything".Will there be randomized outcomes for choices that do not use story points?
If we ever 'do a dice roll' for these, it'll be done at mission generation, not in response to a player choice made. I guess at some point we made a policy choice to not do random percent chance of success type resolution because it feels like something that prompts players to reload if they don't like the result. Better to skip that step.
No, base it on number of skill points invested in an aptitude instead. No "this skill is only good for two checks so I won't puchade it next time" kind of viability issues"
I'd also be fine with skill choices having some impact on option prices - anyone can spend a story point to do X, but if you've got the right skill, you get a bit more bonux XP off it.
If however skill checks are used as a way to get alternative and more flavorful solutions to a situation, to get hints and extra intel about some events, or maybe even more subtle: alternate lines from some characters depending on the player's specialty, then I would tend to say they can have a place in the game.
[edit] Skill checks could also be used the other way around, to warn a player that they may have troubles with a particular assignment if their combat skills are too limited, the travel might be arduous without logistic skills, you might get the option to get extra help at low level and so on.
There's nothing more annoying and immersion breaking than being presented with dialogue options and thinking "okay, but what am I actually choosing here..."
Btw, have you guys ever seriously considered text to speech options? I would love the option to have stuff read to me from time to time. And a computerized voice would even be thematically fitting.
Of all the writing presently in the game, my two favorite pieces are just tiny little descriptions, but I'd still like to praise them.
First, the description of the Gremlin-class frigate. And secondly, the short little bit of text describing the experience of flying through an inert ring.
The Human Hive is the best faction, by the way.
The writing in starsector is somehow my favorite part of the game, David, so I dug the blog! glad to see a brigador shoutout in the footnotes. Will we get any brush-ins with Orcus Rao or Marshal Baikul Daud?
I was saying that in the context of "number of skills in a skill tree", not with specific skills checks in mind. If the skill checks are flavorful rather than hard block, if should be enough to determine if someone is a good enough "Mercenary", "Strategist", "Engineer" or "Administrator", depending on how many points they invested in each skill branch.If however skill checks are used as a way to get alternative and more flavorful solutions to a situation, to get hints and extra intel about some events, or maybe even more subtle: alternate lines from some characters depending on the player's specialty, then I would tend to say they can have a place in the game.
This is one of those things that would be super cool, but I don't think makes sense for an indie game of this size. With 40 skills in play, the development time cost vs. payoff in terms of how many players would see that content vs. putting that effort somewhere else doesn't make it worthwhile. In a project of a certain scale, maybe with 10+ developers you could probably assign writing these as someone's full time job for a couple months and make it really shine. Alas!
Thanks for putting my mind at ease! I'm glad you mentioned trust in particular, because that's really at the root of the issue. Dialogue options that can't be trusted subvert their own purpose.There's nothing more annoying and immersion breaking than being presented with dialogue options and thinking "okay, but what am I actually choosing here..."
Ah, the example you raise is an interesting one - one of our 'quest experiments' - and I think critically examining it is worthwhile. It does potentially let the player lose themselves an opportunity; I think we've been more conscious of this sort of thing in work that's gone into this upcoming patch.
My hope is that players can trust the game enough that they will be able to make choices as role-playing rather than trying to consciously min-max (w/ the consideration that one can roleplay as a power-hungry captain of course). This is our challenge to meet, basically.
I was saying that in the context of "number of skills in a skill tree", not with specific skills checks in mind. If the skill checks are flavorful rather than hard block, if should be enough to determine if someone is a good enough "Mercenary", "Strategist", "Engineer" or "Administrator", depending on how many points they invested in each skill branch.
"There’s a light cone, and the range of possible endings falls somewhere within it."
I see that someone has studied/learned about relativity!
And you have the gall to worry about "a thousand intense physics nerds" tearing you apart with "their fascinating equations."
:D
Be strong. We will be looking forward to the great update coming soon. And the Moders will help you to develop that RPG story later.
This game will become immortal thanks to its loyal Mod community.
When are we likely to see a physical release next year? Is it going to be a 1.0 job or another 0.9.8 xxx
For example, possibly first quarter, most likely 3/4th quarter & it will be a 1.0 product or another minor increment towards 1.0?
I really like this thought-through approach to storytelling. Having played through Divinity Original Sin 2 recently, where it felt like they just chucked in as much as they could, it's refreshing to see storytelling actually edited and thoroughly considered.
Just to echo another poster, your writing really sticks with me. One stand-out is the description of the shipboard mutiny after a planet is destroyed, where the captain shoots himself upon realising what's happened. All in the "true and accurate history" post rather than actually in-game, but it was so vivid and made a real impression. Really looking forward to seeing more of your writing!
Having been playing the Arkham Horror (AH) LCG recently, the story decisions during those campaigns could be a good reference for Starsector. While AH has many skill checks during gameplay, they are never used during the narrative sections, which I think is for the best. Having a random chance to pass/fail during a narrative section is often frustrating and undermines the player's agency to make decisions; additionally, it makes even less sense in a game like Starsector, where skill tests aren't used anywhere else in the game.
This is one of those things that would be super cool, but I don't think makes sense for an indie game of this size. With 40 skills in play, the development time cost vs. payoff in terms of how many players would see that content vs. putting that effort somewhere else doesn't make it worthwhile. In a project of a certain scale, maybe with 10+ developers you could probably assign writing these as someone's full time job for a couple months and make it really shine. Alas!
Arguably these kind of flavor options are even less deserving of Dev time since there is no actual gameplay impact, but sometimes it's the little details which help to elevate the whole. Also when doing this you are not obliged to implement a whole system but can just add a little dialogue when it feels appropriate. Or not ;D
Right! This is about where we got to when we boiled down the idea of strongly engaging with the skill tree in dialog. The questions from this point are basically:
- Does the player know that there are alternative options?
- Do you tell them explicitly via greyed out text w/ tooltips?
- Do you offer 5+ options per decision point (one to match each skill + one neutral or negative) or a lesser or greater set? (This may center every decision around the skill categories - is that desired? Or only use it when applicable? Is that too few opportunities and too specific to be good value vs. dev time?
- Do you open dialog options by ranking skill category choices proportionately (ie. what the player has most of), or by absolute number of skills (which demands a certain min. player level for an option?) Does a low level player get nothing vs. a high level player getting all options vs. does it not matter?
There's a lot of smaller questions here, and they have to be answered with a surprising amount of dialog infrastructure as well as content. Question is, is all of that worth what would be gained? Better yet, do the options the skill categories suggest make sense in terms of the story being told - maybe skill-driven dialog works well for engaging with already existing game mechanics type things in the world, but maybe not with what the narrative dialogs are doing.
With all of this, I hope to explain some of the reticence we eventually came to after exploring this area of the design. (And, while I love Disco Elysium's super granular skill-driven dialogs - not that you're suggesting that, I just got excited about it when I played that game - I realized pretty quickly that we couldn't possibly take their approach.)
...
Speaking of text interactions, I starter playing the game "Between the Stars" that includes hundreds of small written encounters and random "crew interaction" events. Those really do a great job at livening up the otherwise barren world (especially the ongoing events that act as some sort of secondary passive quests), and I particularly love how they do text-based wreck exploration and boarding. It's a shame that the game is otherwise not great due to a terrible UI, camera and controls, but those encounters are what is keeping me invested. It's probably worth a look if only to get some inspiration.
Looking forward to seeing if my particular playstyle is represented in the story choices. Apparently that playstyle is smuggling huge quantities of weaponry, soldier and drugs to terrorists and black marketeers for money. And then using that money to fund expeditions into outlying stars to scavenge dangerous and prohibited technology. I honestly failed to realize I'm a sci-fi bad guy.
My suggestion would be to change that pirate fleet to a pirate-flagged scavenger fleet that, critically, actually has some scavenged loot already in its holds that you can get if you beat it. Then you'd have a choice between an alpha core versus a chance at additional random blueprints.
That's still an objectively worse option to send it back than just keeping it, though, since you would have to fight the fleet to get those rewards at what is generally still an early-game point in time (unless you mean that in addition to being just a scavenger fleet, it's also not that large) while keeping the Alpha Core has no additional challenge/downside....Early game? The fleet guarding the cache can spawn with [REDACTED] battleships.
...Early game? The fleet guarding the cache can spawn with [REDACTED] battleships.
Sure, sometimes it doesn't - I've seen it as small as a single cruiser with supporting destroyers/frigates - but even a [REDACTED] cruiser isn't exactly a pushover.
I feel no small amount of trepidation because this is both a change and it is a particular story about particular characters in a way the pure sandbox certainly isn’t. This necessarily constrains your – the player’s – experience of the game-fantasy and the meta-game fantasy of an “unfinished game” which has the potential to become everyone’s dreams in a free-floating quantum state… until you see it for real and it turns out it isn’t quite what you dreamed.
Arguably these kind of flavor options are even less deserving of Dev time since there is no actual gameplay impact, but sometimes it's the little details which help to elevate the whole. Also when doing this you are not obliged to implement a whole system but can just add a little dialogue when it feels appropriate. Or not ;D
There are times when the possibility of doing little details like this is too good to let pass by. Sometimes it gets pretty indulgent, and Alex or I will put in rather more effort than seems entirely responsible to make some detail work.