Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mordodrukow on March 27, 2021, 06:07:43 AM

Title: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on March 27, 2021, 06:07:43 AM

Spreadsheet for better representation:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IWhaeedEB2xDvt9qDsTHY4SFBVtaqz83ShVbu1miYFk/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IWhaeedEB2xDvt9qDsTHY4SFBVtaqz83ShVbu1miYFk/edit?usp=sharing)

First of all: TY, Alex and guys, for your great job. You all are truly awesome!

Second: i just started my first playthrough in 0.9.5 30 minutes ago, so, this is opinion about how new skill system sounds (are descriptions understandable and how useful skills look for me), it is not experimental-based. When i complete my playthrough, i ll update this (maybe).

Third: feel free to left your impressions (based on theorycrafting or real experience) here to collect em in one topic.

1. Really cool that all skills have some quotes. I like to learn more about SS lore.

2. All specs say, that "some skills can be made "elite"", but Leadership spec has no such skills at all (while Combat has elite options for all of it's skills).
    Also, since we will have 56 skill points just by getting 15 level, i ll concider "elite" upgrade as free (or something close to free...).
    Also, i ll not mention hull mods, unloked by skills, because you can buy em anyway, so, the real value here is also around zero (unless the rarity of mods was revisited).

3.1. Combat.
3.1.1. Helmsmanship. Piloted ship: +50% maneuverability, +10% top speed. If elite: 0-flux boost works if ship doesnt generate flux.
         or
         Strike commander. Fighters on piloted ship: +50% hp for missiles (bombs, etc.), +20% dmg vs everything but fighters and frigates. If elite: +100% target leading accuracy.

         IMO: Helmsmanship bonuses are really good. In 9.1 almost all of my ships had those (and some also needed hullmod for maneuverability). Elite bonus is strange: it doesnt work when shield is up anymore (i tried), so, it looks less useful. But at the same time, if you actively switch shield state, it will work, and it is good in terms of gameplay.
                Strike commander has one essential bonus, and it is 20% extra dmg. I dont know how target leading works, but i dont think you cant play as carrier without it and extra HP for projectiles. I like that we need to choose between extra speed and fighter dmg, because, you know... fighters...  >:( I hope, that fighters will generate flux to disable 0-flux boost (because current skill system still allows to pick both skills).
         
3.1.2. Target analysis. Piloted ship: +10% dmg to destroyers, +15% to cruisers, +20% to capitals. If elite: +100% dmg to weapons and engines.
         or
         Point defence. Piloted ships and own fighters: +100% dmg to fighters, +50% dmg to missiles. If elite: +100 to range of point defence weapons.

         IMO: again, i like to see bonuses against carriers, but i think, 90% of players will pick extra damage over Point defence, because you can have an escort. Elite bonus of Point defence is interesting, because it can make some PD weapons actually better in regular combat than normal weapons (some of PDs already better...)

3.1.3. Impact mitigation. Piloted ship: +150 armor for DR calc, -25% armor dmg taken, -50% weapon and engine dmg taken. If elite: -50% kinetic dmg taken by armor.
         or
         Ranged specialization. Piloted ship: ballistic and energy weapon deal increased dmg at range. From +0% at 800 to +30% at 1600 and above. If elite: +30% ballistic and energy weapon projectile speed.

         IMO: interesting choice here. It is 3rd tier, so, it already requires to sacrifice a lot to pick both sides. Extra armor can do a lot, less dmg to weapons and engines is also good. Even elite bonus is nice. Yes, it makes small numbers even smaller, but it allows your armor to last longer, so, you dont need to trade flux.
                But the range is meta (well, at least it was in 9.1). Sadly, bonuses start from 800 (so, in fact you want at least 1200), which means that this skill is mostly for ballistic users or for the Paragon. Also, it is not clear whether the distance dependence of the bonus is linear (needs better description).

3.1.4. Shield modulation. Piloted ship: -20% dmg taken by shields, 15% hard flux dissipation while shield is active. If elite: -30% HE dmg taken by shields.
         or
         Phase mastery. Piloted ship: -50% phase cloak CD. If elite: +100% top speed while phase cloak active.

         IMO: not so interesting choice, because phase ships cant use shields. The only real choice you doing here: will you pilot phase ship in current playthrough or not. And even that is not so important, because both skills are not permanent, so, you can respec.
                Also, both skills need better description. 15% hard flux dissipation while shield is active - does it mean "15% of current hard flux" or "15% of your regular flux dissipation"? Yes, we know the answer, but new player does not. And for the second skill: how long phase cloak CD is without it, and what bonus to speed phase cloak gives without it (if any).

3.1.5. Systems expertise. Piloted ship: ship's system gets +1 charge, +50% charge regen, +50% range, -30% CD (if any). If elite: +30 seconds to POT.
         or
         Missile specialization. Piloted ship: +100% missile and ammo capacity, +50% missile HP. If elite: +50% rate of fire for missile weapons.

         IMO: i dont understand what missile spec does here at tier 5 if it has no bonus to dmg. System expertise looks way more interesting, and i ll definetely try build something around it, but i have feeling, that it is not so important (to be at tier 5), and easily can be skipped. In fact, if you dont wanna wrap around Combat line, you dont need it. But maybe i m wrong...

3.2. Leadership.
3.2.1. Weapon drills. All combat ships + carriers + militarized civ ships: +10% weapon dmg (Maximum 10% at 90 or less total combat ships recovery cost).
         or
         Auxiliary support. All ships with Militarized subsystems: +900% to combat effects of Militarized subsystems, Escort package and Assault package (Maximum +900% at 5 or less total deployment recovery cost for ships with Militarized subsystems).

         IMO: so, another 10% bonus dmg, i ll take it.
                Auxiliary support looks funny. It gives colossal bonuses, but only for few frigates. You will have an opportunity to pick in combat few tankers with 3000 range PDs. Is it worth a skill point? I dont know yet... But imo, 5 DP is too little. Also, this skill need better description for effects dependence.

3.2.2. Coordinated maneuvers. All frigates and destroyers with officers (inc flagship): each deployed frigate gives +6% to nav rating and +50% to command points recovery rate, and each destroyer gives half of those values.
         or
         Wolfpack tactics. All frigates with officers (inc flagship): +20% dmg to ships larger than frigates, +120 seconds to POT, ship is almost 100% recoverable. Flagship only: +100% to command point recovery rate for frigate, +25 to 0-flux speed boost for destroyer.

         IMO: i guess, Wolfpack tactics is strictly better, because you need extra range in addition to speed, and the first skill doesnt give it. Yes, maybe you can use extra CP to coordinate ships to focus damage etc., but we all know how good is AI, and also Wolfpack tactics adds extra dmg, so, we dont loose much. At the same time, it adds POT, which is essential for small ships. And also it makes frigates recoverable, which is also important (i never played frigate fleets in 9.1, because i dont want my ships to die).

3.2.3. Crew training. All combat ships + carriers + militarized civ ships: +15% max combat readiness and +30 seconds to POT for combat ships (Both maximum at 180 or less total combat ship recovery cost).
         or
         Carrier group. All ships with fighter bays: +50% fighter replacement rate (Maximum 50% at 6 or less fighter bays in fleet).

         IMO: +15% CR is great, 30 seconds is not much, but also valuable, 180 DP looks short, but it is 2 Paragons and some escort, so, maybe it is ok. The problem is: it depends on total fleet points, not on deployed ship points. So, at least there will be problems with trophy ships that impose penalties. Also, why does this number (180) doesnt scale from Battle size setting? And also: it is better to describe the formula. How much will i have with 250 points? Or 300?
                Carrier group, well... i like that we opt at 6-10 fighter bays per entire fleet. It is the number i d like to see. Not like, you know... 40, like it was in 9.1.

3.2.4. Officer training. Fleet: +1 to max officer level, +1 to max number of officer's elite skills, +2 command points.
         or
         Officer management. Fleet: +2 to max number of officers, +2 command points.

         IMO: in 100% of my playthroughs in 9.1 i used 6 officers and never was care about it. It is possible, that somebody will want to create a fleet composed of frigates, and will need 10 officers instead of 8. But i think, in most situations Officer training will be strictly better. Maybe OM needs bonus to command points recovery per officer. Like 10% or maybe 15...

3.2.5. Space operations. Governed colony: +30% accessibility, +25% fleet size.
         or
         Ground operations. Governed colony: +100% effectiveness of ground defences, +2 stability. Fleet: +100% effectiveness of ground raids, -25% marine casualties in raids.

         IMO: colony rules has changed in 9.5, so, it is hard to evaluate both skills. I have feeling that Space operations will be more useful. +2 stability is good, but when it works for all colonies. And if it works only for one, it will be useful mostly for new colony development or to deal with unrest on planets which were hit by Ludds.

3.3. Technology.
3.3.1. Navigation. Fleet: -30% terrain movement penalty, +1 max burn, additional +1 for sustained burn. Unlocks Transverse Jump.
         or
         Sensors. Fleet: -25% detected at range, +25% sensor range, +3 to burn level at which the fleet is concidered to be moving slowly. Unlocks Neutrino Detector.

         IMO: it doesnt even funny. Maybe stealth in this game is OP, but my experience tells me that it is not. I ll concider not picking 2 burn and transverse jump if Sensors will increase sensor range by 80%, or, maybe, 50% and give ECM rating...

3.3.2. Gunnery implants. Piloted ship: +100% target leading accuracy for autofiring weapons, +15% ballistic and energy weapon range, +6% ECM rating of fleet for frigate or +3% for destroyer. If elite: -50% weapon recoil.
         or
         Energy weapon mastery. Piloted ship: energy weapons deal up to +50% dmg at close range, based on the firing ship's flux level (full bonus at 600 range and below, no bonus at 1000 and above). If elite: -10% flux generated by energy weapons.

         IMO: now, thats the choice! In fact, it will define playstyle, and i ll definetely try EWM at least once. The only thing i want to say: what does "based on the firing ship's flux level" mean?! Can we get a formula?

3.3.3. Electronic warfare. All combat ships + carriers + militarized civ ships: every deployed combat ship adds 2% to fleet's ECM level (maximum 20%).
         or
         Fighter uplink. All fighters: -50% crew lost due to fighter losses in combat, +25% top speed (both maximum at 6 or less fighter bays in fleet).

         IMO: i like that ECCM is gone, because ECM is already counter to itself.

3.3.4. Flux regulation. All combat ships + carriers + militarized civ ships: +20% flux cap and flux dissipation for combat ships (max 20% at 180 or less total combat ship recovery cost).
         or
         Phase corps. All combat phase ships: -30% flux generated by active phase cloak, +180 seconds to POT (both maximum at 30 or less total combat phase ship recovery cost). Fleet: +50% to fleetwide sensor profile reduction from phase field.

         IMO: i think, thresholds in both skills are too low. Especially second one. Single Doom is already 35. Which "all" combat phase ships must enjoy those bonuses? Harbinger and Afflictor? Also: need formulas.

3.3.5. Special modifications. Ship loadouts: +10 to maximum flux capacitors, +10 to maximum flux vents, able to build 1 more permanent hullmod into ships (3 instead of 2).
         or
         Automated ships. All automated ships: allow to recover and use botships. They can be captained only by AI cores. Man combat readiness 100% (at 30 or less total automated ship points, which is the sum of deployment points and AI core cost (10 for Alpha)).

         IMO: again: 30 point threshold for automated ships sounds like you will have one Alpha-Radiant with 40% CR. Because, why will you want to pick any other ship? Because of curiosity, i guess...
                Special modifications looks better. In fact, 1 extra build-in hullmod equals to 10% extra OP we lost now. 10 extra vents and capacitors is interesting change (was 20% in 9.1), because it is almost the same number for capitals, but way bigger number for smaller ships. I like it. Really.

3.4. Industry.
3.4.1. Bulk transport. All ships: +50% to cargo, fuel and personnel capacity (max at 2000, 2000, 5000 respectively), +1 to max burn for non-militarized civ-grade ships.
         or
         Salvaging. Fleet: +50% resources (but not rares) from derelicts, +20% post-battle salvage, -75% crew lost in non-combat operations.

         IMO: Bulk transport has too small thresholds. I started new game as scavenger (5 ships, only one of them is cruiser, no capitals), and i already have 30% of those numbers (except for personnel). But the saddest part is: Salvaging is even worse, because you dont get extra rares, and you will just throw away all "resources", because extra cargo capacity is in the opposite skill.

3.4.2. Damage control. Piloted ship: ship is almost 100% recoverable, -25% hull damage taken, -50% crew lost due to hull damage in combat, 50% faster in-combat weapon and engine repairs. If elite: 25% of hull and armor damage taken repaired after combat ends, at no cost.
         or
         Reliability engineering. Piloted ship: ship is almost 100% recoverable, +60 seconds to POT, +15% max combat readiness, combat readiness degrades 25% slower due to 0 POT. If elite: -30% overload duration.

         IMO: those skills are good. But second one is better, because why build a game plan around taking damage when you can get other bonuses and not take damage?

3.4.3. Containment procedures. Fleet: -75% crew lost due to hull damage in combat (max 75% at 60 or less total deployment recovery cost), -50% fuel consumption or -25 units to fuel consumption, whichever is lower, +25% fuel salvaged, Emergency Burn no longer reduces combat readiness.
         or
         Makeshift equipment. Fleet: monthly supply consumption for ship maintenance is reduced by 50% or 100 units, whichever is lower, -50% resources needed to survey planets. Unlocks Remote survey.

         IMO: both skills save you some space and some money. Not much. I, personally, will prefer fuel. 25 units means around 1/5 or 1/6 of your total consumption in late game. 100 units of supplies... i dont remember my expences, but i guess, it will be around 25%. Slightly bigger than fuel, but you can live without supplies some time, while without fuel you are in trouble.
                About Remote survey. In 9.1 there was no point to use it, because you wanted to explore all planets anyway. Maybe now it will be useful, need to check.
                And again: formulas.

3.4.4. Field repairs. Fleet: +100% ship repair rate outside of combat, 50% of hull and armor damage taken repaired after combat ends, at no cost (max +100% and 50% respectively at 60 or less total deployment recovery cost), recovered ships have fewer D-mods on average, chance to remove a D-mod from randomly selected ship in a fleet every two month.
         or
         Derelict contingent. All ships with officers, that also have D-mods: 15% chance per D-mod (up to 5) to have incoming hull dmg reduced by 90%, -10% crew lost due to hull dmg in combat per D-mod (up to 5), +3% max combat readiness per D-mod (up to 5), +5% minimum armor value for DR per D-mod for unshielded ships (cant exceed original value).

         IMO: Field repairs gives good bonuses. Faster repairs and free armor and hull work well. I tried, they really make difference. The problem is 60 point threshold, which soulds like a joke. But then we get free D-mod repairs and skill becomes useful again. But... We need to know the chances. Fixing 1 D-mod per 2 month with 20% chance doesnt worth it. 50% - still small, but ok, i ll try. And i think, it will be better to give bigger chances for smaller ships and for low-tech ships. It will make sense, and in combination with Wolfpack tactics will allow to make viable frigate fleet (at last).

3.4.5. Industrial planning. Governed colony: All industries supply 1 more unit of each produced stuff. All colonies: +50% to max value of custom ship and weapon production per month.
         or
         Colony management. All colonies: able to govern 1 more colony and manage 1 more admin (both 3 instead of 2).

         IMO: cant say anything here untill i check how colonies work. 1 extra unit of production means a lot when we talk about big planets, so, the question is: will it be essential or not.

Overall i like the changes, but i think, some numbers need to be tuned.



UPD. As i promised, updating my opinion after playing a bit. Before i start, need to mention:
1) it was pretty long playthrough. It is not over yet, but i already have 3 capital ships, and almost completed the story line (i think... i dont really know how long it will be, but the ship is already mine). I still have zero colonies, so, no opinion about them.
2) i started in RC9 and i want to finish it as it is. Maybe some things already different in last version.

So, lets start.
First of all, my overall impression about new system. It is kinda weird. I see it was developed to achieve some goals. They were declared in blog post, and i even remember some of them. I have no opinion about: is it bad to force us to make choice as it is now, or it was better in previous version. I m Libra, it is hard to me to define things as strictly good or bad (but if i do, there are serious reasons why), and new system is just different. It is new rules, and i must accept em, simple as that.

But if you ask me, what i d change in entire system, i have an answer: it would be good if after taking 5 tier in a line we will be able to pick any skills in the line, not starting from the very start. We already have only 15 skill points, it will not break anything. And about respecs: if skill was made an elite, it must remain elite if we remove it, but then change our mind and pick it again.

C1: OK. 20% dmg boost to fighters may seem a little low, because movement skill is awesome, but we cant boost dmg even more, because it can get out of control.

C2: I mentioned it earlier, and my opinion remains the same: why to pick Point Defence, if you can give it to officer? Few suggestions how to change it so it look more appealing: 1) Flat discount to PD weapon OP cost. Like -2/-5/-12 depending on mount size you use to fit this weapon. 2) Elite version allows weapon to penetrate fighters and missiles without losing the damage. Both in addition to current benefits.

C3: I use Impact mitigation and i think it is strictly better than Ranged spec. There are few reasons. 1) Ranged spec stars from 800, and needs 1600 range for full bonus. It means, it will work for few very specialized builds like Tachyon Paragon or Gauss Conquest. For regular builds you can get like +5% - +15% bonus. It is still something, but...

Impact mitigation gives you +150 virtual armor (pretty good, since you WILL have to drop shields sometimes), armor lasts longer, and, surprisingly, halved dmg to weapons and engines gives you a lot. Why? Well, may be it is just me, but i hate piloting ships without 360 degree shields, because my engines can go down from simple wind blow. Half of my playthrough i piloted Champion. It is great ship, but damn, its engine is a piece of paper. And it is while i have Impact mitigation! Imagine not having it! I mean: people saying: "Hey, shields are too good compared to armor!" You know why? Because engines can break if a childe throw a stone into them.

So, what i suggest: all engines HP boosted (not much, but at least 1.5 - 2 times more). And Ranged spec starts from 600, not from 800. IMO, it will be enough.

C4: Pretty OK. You choose one skill depending on what ship you wanna pilot. But. If you want to pilot phase ship, C4R is mandatory. I got Ziggy, and i swear, it is pain to pilot it without this skill.

C5: System expertise is nice. I dont think it should be on tier 5 (as well as missile spec), but i also dont think it should be close to start. Maybe you should swap it with C4, because shield boost is really important and deserves to be C5.

So. System expertise is great for right ships. I use it myself on Odyssey and i have an officer with it piloting Fury. In both cases the skill is awesome. I can make 3 consecutive dashes and get 4th one after 0.5 seconds after that. It really allows do engage and disengage, and the Fury is absolute beast when fighting vs the same size or smaller enemy. It can get enemy down fast, not mess around for few minutes while doing that. So, i can recommend this skill.

Missile spec... well... I m glad to see people being happy with that skill. Earlier i thought that we need dmg boost for it. But now, when i saw how much missiles i must deal with, i think it was correct to leave this skill without it. I mean: in 9.1 missed enemy reaper meant ruined combat, and it was really frustrating. Here in 9.5 i can take 3 or maybe 4, and still be ok.

But IMO, Missile spec needs some buff. I can suggest that: Elite: each missile weapon regains 1 missile depending on hull size. Every 45 seconds for frigate, 40 for destroyer, 35 for cruiser and 30 for capital. It aint much, but it is intended to be. It mostly benefits frigates, because frigate with single Reaper becomes frigate with multiple Reapers. It still benefits big ships, because they have greater PPT. And it is elite, so, it is unlikely that enemy will have a lot of those and make your life hell.

Overall i think Combat line is solid. Not much to fix here. Will i wrap around? No, definetely not. I dont want to use fighters or PD in current state. Will i wrap around if we will be able to pick any skill after Tier 5 is taken? Well, maybe... Mostly because of C3.

L1: L1R looks like a joke, i dont use it, i dont know is it good or bad, and i dont want to.

L1L is hard to evaluate. Right now i have Odyssey, Legion, Conquest, 3 Champions, Apogee, Fury and Medusa-sensei, and this skill gives me 4% dmg. It is not the biggest fleet in the galaxy, but it is not the smallest one as well. And 4% is equal to 12 extra CR. Pretty fair, yes? Well, yes. And no. Because taking +15 CR in 9.1 was equal around 6% of you total skill points pool. 1/15 is bigger than that. And keep in mind that CR gives you more than just damage boost.

So, IMO, the DP cap should be 120, not 90. OR there must be a cumulative bonus for each point in Leadership line. Something like: +5 CR and +15 sec to PPT per skill point invested (and L3 gives something else), but no more than 100 CR. OR the skill caps of each skill in line should rise with each point invested. It is my overall recomendation for entire line.

L2: IMO, the worst part of new system. No doubt, Wolfpack tactics is nice for the player, who wants to play frigate fleet playstyle. But what shoud i do if i dont want to use frigates or destroyers? AI is more agressive than ever, and small ships still die. Recovery and repairs are more expensive then before. I just dont want to play like that. Jesus, dont force me to do that, okay?! I know, that frigates can cap points and cheaper to maintain. I. Just. Dont. Want. Stop raping me!

L3: Both skills are good. But i dont want Tier 2.

L4: Both skills are awesome. But again: i dont want Tier 2. Also wanna mention: i thought, +1 officer level is strictly better, but since new system gives you more DP if you have more officers, it turns out, that +2 officers is strictly better. You can get Level 7 officers from the space, whats the point of left skill?

L5: I dont have any colonies yet, but IMO, 25 extra access or +2 stability doesnt worth it, since it affects only the gouverned colonies, and you need balls of steel to max both Leadership and Industry.

My overall opinion about Leadership line: it is kinda weak, but with changes i suggested in tier 1 it could become better. I have L1L, but think about removing it to go full yellow.

Will i wrap around Leadership line? Lol, no. Thank you very much. Will i wrap around if what i suggest will be implemented? May be! At least it will be a very good option.

Tech line: I ll start from overall opinion here. Entire line is great, but enemy's ECM levels are absurd. I recommend: make sensors range and ECM to be a one stat (like: +% bonus to sensors and the same penalty for enemy weapon's range). And give around 5% for each point invested in Tech line. And replace benefits of Sensors and Electronic warfare with something else.

T1: Navigation is strictly better here. I tired one stealth mission while doing story quests, and i dont want more. And -25% to detection range doesnt help. Neutrino detector also useless, because you will get one for free. And it is useless anyway. I tried to find one probe with it today. Spent half of a year. Still didnt find it. So, thank you, sir, i ll pass. Other two bonuses kinda okay, but definetely not better than what Navigation does.

What to do? Well, may be, you should accept what i suggested for entire line, but make ECM bonus equal to sensor's boost only for those who pick Sensors. THAT will be a hard choice. Also fix Neutrino detector. At least remove volatiles consumption and allow to use with sustained burn for those who picked Sensors.

T2: Gunnery implants is very valuable skill, nothing to say here. I wanna talk about Energy weapon mastery. I have pretty contradictory feeling about that. My plan was simple: build a plasma Odyssey with Systems expertize, Unstable injector (to reduce range a bit) and EWM. But it doesnt work, lol. You can get like +25%, and you need to rub on enemy to get this. Odyssey's shield is so big, you cant get close enough, you wanna keep some distance, because there are more enemies around, and they will kill you if you dont leave fast enough. Also, you dont wanna be close, because enemy will explode on death. And as a cherry on a pie: bonus depends on your flux level! Also mention, that extra 15% range from Gunnery implants will give you bonus damage (quite big bonus actually) too, because if you are out of range - you dont do damage. So, overall it looks like that this skill was designed for small phase ships. But. Elite version gives 10% flux discount, and damn, it is the the thing i need!

Overall, i think (about EWM):
- the flux condition should be removed
- max bonus should be 50/45/40/35 depending on hull size
- but range should be increased from 600-1000 to 800-1200

T3: Electronic warfare is the second worst part of new system, and we all know why.

T4: As for C4, there is no actual choice here if we play battleships. If we play phase ships, well... it is interesting. Could be. If cap for the right skill will be adequate. And for the left one. After some playing i see that 180 cap is ok. But ONLY if we have max battle size 300. IMO, it (and many other caps) just should scale of max size proportionally. And it will be fine.

T5: Very interesting pair of skills indeed. I ll start from the right one. It has very low cap. IMO, it should be 1.5-2 times bigger. Simple.

And for Special modifications. Well... It look like one of the most OP and one of the most useless skills at the same time. Seriously: if you pick it, it doesnt give you anything by itself. You still should pay for those extra vents and caps, and still should pay story point (well, it is the least of our problems) to get extra S-mod. When the skill was introduced, i thought: "Hey, what a cool skill!" Now i see, that it is not a privilege it is your duty to get the third S-mod, because without it you will have no room for those extra vents and caps. And also because entire game is balanced around you squeezing the maximum from your opportunities to just stay alive.

Also mention two things: there are not that much mods which cost 40 OP, and way less RELEVANT mods. Highly likely, you will get one of them as 1st or 2nd s-mod, so, in fact this skill gives you 20 or 25 OP (less than similar skill from 9.1). It looks like a hidden nerf for high-OP ships (ahem... Paragon... ahem...), and i like it, because it is a nerf, but it doesnt turn your sweet 4 large energy annihilator into dirty boot. I also like, that the skill gives strictly 10 extra vents and caps, because it benefits frigates more (but the price is also big). It is VERY well designed skill, IMO. A brilliant!

And again: will i wrap around? Idk. But from the all lines, it is the most attractive one to do so.

Industry: At first, i wanna mention: i hate that now military path is not profitable. I understand why. Because there were a lot of complains, that "industry skills do nothing, they just give you a bit money, and thats it" etc. And Alex desided: "Okay, you asked for it". And now we got... what we got. And i cant say it was bad desicion. But.
1) Bounties were overnerfed. They deserved a nerf, but not that big.
2) There is no point of doing that while we can raid people for millions, or just trade with them. For millions. Money is not a problem. But it will be if you wanna roleplay dedicated warrior (but dont want to raid). It is like comparing Fallout 2 playthrough with Thievery and without it. Still remember Leather Jacket as a quest reward. While i have way better equipment just because i steal everithing.
3) Some skills have VERY strange caps.

I1: I m using Bulk Transport here. If i ll take the other skill, i ll have +20% salvage. I already have +9%, so, it will be 18% more. It will not save me in hard battles, and i dont need it in easy ones. 50% extra from derelicts is just a waste, because we dont have enough space (and having 5-8 extra freighters can hit hard). Less crew losses? Well, it han be handful, but only if you lose ships, and if you do, it's already very bad, some extra crew members will not save you.

About bulk transport. Strange cap for personell, but overall caps are suprpisingly OK. I have two Colossuses and one Prometheus, and i have zero problems with inventory space.

For the other skill i recommend to return 15% extra rares.

I2: Well, i thought that Reliability engineering is a no-brainer here. I was wrong. 25% free repairs can save you a lot. But i will note take it from the principle. Because it is a good representation of modern business's dark side: create a problem, sell the solution. Alex hits you by the stick and says: "Hey, take this pillow! Just spend a skill point!" No, thank you.

In 9.1 i considered the free-repairs skill as good one. Mostly because it allowed me to faster recover from the battles. Not because it saved some money. Now i dont wanna think about it. And -30% of overload time is extremely valuable too.

I3: Another tier i was wrong about. I have no problems with fuel, but i have em with supplies. For my fleet it saves around 1/3 (was 10 per day, become 6.4). In fact, it always saves 100 supplies per month, thats how caps work. It is around 13k of cash per month.

While fuel skill can save you more, but you need really big fleet and fly a lot.

I4: Field repairs is nice skill, but with very strange caps. It will save you so little, so, you can consider it doing nothing. IMO, caps should be at least twice bigger. And for D-mod reduction... I m just using a bug when you can remove D-mod after entering Build-in menu, because *** current economics -_-. But if play seriously, a chance of removing random D-mod every two month doesnt worth it. At least, it looks so. If the chance is around 30% or better - it is nice skill (while you keep finding broken Astrals or keep looting really good ships from enemy). If it is around 5% or lower - i dont think so...

And the second skill is just a meme skill, i dont wanna talk about it. I didn't try it anyway.

I5: I guess, i ll take extra colony slots here. But since i have no colonies, i cant have any opinion yet.

Overall Industry line is strange. I understand that the goal was noble, but i have more bad feelings about new economics than good. I miss the skill which prevents some damage from the storms (seriously, yesterday i traveled 9 light years in the core and lost 216 supplies, This_is_not_OK.meme), caps are low etc. But at the end i decided to invest 5 skills into Industry and 0 into Leadership, because it is even worse.
Will i wrap around Industry line? Guess, i really want to, but have no skills for that.

So, thats it. IMO, entire system is not that bad as people say. But bounties should be a little bit profitable, repairs should be a little less expensive, and all other suggestions are written above.


UPD again, lol. I ended story line, and now i see why economics is balansed as it is. Well, it makes sense, but: 1) industry caps are little bit low anyway; 2) it is pretty hard to live in mid-game.

Also. Found info agout EWM. Turns out, it gives the bigger bonus the more flux you have. And well, it works good. Maybe even too good. Now i see, that it is REALLY hard choice. Maybe, one of the hardest, if you playing energy build.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Grievous69 on March 27, 2021, 06:39:43 AM

Quote from: Mordodrukow on March 27, 2021, 06:07:43 AM

Second: i just started my first playthrough in 0.9.5 30 minutes ago

Not to devalue anyone's opinions and feedback but come on. I know people are eager to say something about the new patch so why not play for a bit and then give feedback. This is basically a wall of text of someone who only read the skills without trying anything and then gave their thoughts. Which once again, is fine and perfectly legal, it's just smarter to actually try something in practice.

If I just opened the Codex and read about the new ships then came back here to say "x thing is broken, or worthless", people would give me strange looks for sure.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on March 27, 2021, 06:52:22 AM

Quote

why not play for a bit and then give feedback

I agree, and i ll do it later. But most of the things work just as they worked earlier. Maybe average fleet size is slightly lower now. Maybe there are less carriers in fleets. Maybe there are few new weapons. I count with that. And if colonies changed a lot - i m not giving any opinions about them.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Cy420 on March 27, 2021, 08:31:39 AM

elite upgrades are def not free as u will use story points for lots of other stuff,also you lose the elite skills if u respec and u need to grind out the story points for them again
but yeah combat having generally good skills that favor different playstyles, there no hard choice because it depends on what your ship is, and all skills have elite points so as I see the early game optimal spending of skills and story points are into combat as that will get you experience,money,reputation, all of it, for a good bang for your buck, while the other skill trees are some hard choices and compromises.
Also there's some permanent skills that lift the limit on officers, governors and hullmods, so you end up with 12 points to costumize your build in the endgame.
Alex wanted more meaningful choices in talents, but now it boxes you in, I dont get it why he got rid of the tier system. In the previous version I was looking forward to what skill to choose, in this version I'm looking at what not to choose because I need to make that point count, and that will lead to cookiecutter builds even harder than it was with the previous version. Mark my words the forum will be full of "best optimal builds" in no time instead of "what is your build". Skills were a flavour to how you played the game now they are dictating it, boxing you in.
Now you can be a fighter or a trader, but if you want to mix a bit of both you just going to gimp yourself. As i see for now, you will either go red+green for combat or blue+yellow for trading, mixing anything differently will just gimp you in every other aspect of the game. I wish we had the old skilltree back and just make the level 2-3 skills cost story points. That way you could have a template build and then the elite skills would define your "class".
Right now I will have to give up all my piloting skills if I want to make a colony that doesn't suck. And once i have my colony i am completely useless, i am just sitting there being a walking, breathing +% bonus.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 27, 2021, 09:56:03 AM

Quote from: Cy420 on March 27, 2021, 08:31:39 AM

elite upgrades are def not free as u will use story points for lots of other stuff,also you lose the elite skills if u respec and u need to grind out the story points for them again

Yep, you can't keep freely respeccing, especially the elite skills. You may go into the game with plan to reassign your build once or twice (and avoid elite-ing skill you know are temporary), but that's about it.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lord Heart Night on March 27, 2021, 04:19:42 PM

Quote from: Mordodrukow on March 27, 2021, 06:07:43 AM

         Automated ships. All automated ships: allow to recover and use botships. They can be captained only by AI cores. Man combat readiness 100% (at 30 or less total automated ship points, which is the sum of deployment points and AI core cost (10 for Alpha)).

         IMO: again: 30 point threshold for automated ships sounds like you will have one Alpha-Radiant with 40% CR. Because, why will you want to pick any other ship? Because of curiosity, i guess...
                Special modifications looks better. In fact, 1 extra build-in hullmod equals to 10% extra OP we lost now. 10 extra vents and capacitors is interesting change (was 20% in 9.1), because it is almost the same number for capitals, but way bigger number for smaller ships. I like it. Really.

This right here!
As soon as you have a single Radiant in your fleet, forget about any other automatic ship!
Seeing as Im rather sympathetic towards the [REDACTED] this has killed my game somewhat and would love to know how to remove that damned limit cos its currently killed my fun  >:( >:( >:(

(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg) (http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm)

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Warnoise on March 27, 2021, 06:31:35 PM

Writing a literal essay after 30min of gameplay...that's impressive

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Histidine on March 27, 2021, 07:50:17 PM

Pettable Remnants Automated Ships threshold is way too low; my one Brilliant with Alpha Core goes over the limit (35/30).
The only reason it's competitive with Special Modifications right now is because I don't have enough story points to toss hullmods on everything, and I expect that problem will fix itself in the long term.

(I don't mind having an NPC-only buddy ship though, especially if it's suitably powerful)

I feel like the limit should be a lot higher, and the 'point cost' of AI core use reduced or eliminated.


Also while we're complaining about things, I'm going to broken-record a bit about the ghost of Advanced Countermeasures still haunting us (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=12491.0)

Spoiler

Quote from: Histidine

Quote from: Alex

Advanced Countermeasures:

• Level 1: increased to -50% kinetic damage vs armor (was: 20%)
• Level 2: increased to -25% HE damage vs shields (was: 20%)
• Level 3: damage to fighters/missiles increased by 50% (was: 30%)

I'm not sure Advanced Countermeasures should even exist to begin with, in light of these changes.

My concern here is: You get things like HVD/Gauss Cannon being moderately effective against some ships' armor while doing nearly nothing to other, visually identical ships, without a readily available indicator of why this should be the case. Likewise with sending fighters against a ship and them Doing Something or getting swatted like flies.

The invisibility aspect is true of many other buffs. But at least with something like a ship having the zero flux bonus with its shield up or its missiles flying faster, the player can easily see what's going on even if they don't know why. The damage calculation is completely hidden except for the final output. And unlike, say, Heavy Armor, the bonus from Advanced Countermeasures doesn't even appear on the stats card.

[close]

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 27, 2021, 07:50:49 PM

Locusts with the elite missile skill are insane. They fire so fast.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Histidine on March 28, 2021, 01:35:28 AM

Whatever combination of skills made this Derelict fleet super hard to kill, I hate it:

Spoiler

(https://i.imgur.com/PcYBJV6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TuyUkmt.jpg)

[close]

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bobucles on March 28, 2021, 08:23:33 AM

Phase corps does seem a little sad. It's only good for 2-3 tiny ships or 1 big ship. Meanwhile, the 20% flux boost ALSO helps phase ships along with everything else.

Derelict contingent looks like a lot of fun for meme runs. 75% chance to take 0.1x hull damage? That's goofy AF, can't wait to try it.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 28, 2021, 09:39:06 AM

Quote from: Histidine on March 28, 2021, 01:35:28 AM

Whatever combination of skills made this Derelict fleet super hard to kill, I hate it:
...

Is that the 90% damage reduction from industry for D mods (% chance)? Number seems about right. Maybe some other things in there as well.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on March 28, 2021, 06:35:43 PM

I agree that we need formulas badly! Or at least something in game that tells us HOW it drops off.

Here are the drops after 6 carrier bays for Carrier Group:
43% at 7 bays, 38% at 8, 33% at 9, 30% at 10, 27% at 11.
I THINK that is logarithmic decay? Can't tell.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Hiruma Kai on March 28, 2021, 06:49:58 PM

Quote from: Midnight Kitsune on March 28, 2021, 06:35:43 PM

I agree that we need formulas badly! Or at least something in game that tells us HOW it drops off.

Here are the drops after 6 carrier bays for Carrier Group:
43% at 7 bays, 38% at 8, 33% at 9, 30% at 10, 27% at 11.
I THINK that is logarithmic decay? Can't tell.

Once you're past the cap, think of it as the skill giving you a pool of X bonus.  That bonus is divided by the number of ships you have.
50% * 6 decks = 300% pool of bonus for carrier group.


300% / 7 = 43%
300% / 8 = 38%
300% / 9 = 33%
300% / 10 = 30%
300% / 11 = 27%
300% / 12 = 25%

I'm pretty sure, in a fleet with more than 6 flight decks, you're getting exactly the same amount of bonus fighters recovered (in an absolute sense) as you are with 6 flight decks because of this.  Essentially turning the fleet skills in to a flat bonus that doesn't scale with fleet size.  Kind of like the personal ship skills, which don't scale with fleet size.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on March 29, 2021, 08:39:44 AM

Thanks for writing out all the skills on the forum. It's convenient for when I don't have the game open.
My takes on skills:
C1L: okay. More speed and manoeuvrability is generally useful and 0 flux bonus when venting or overloaded is useful.
C1R: situational. The only fighter buffing combat skill. It's probably good to avoid it, unless you plan on sticking to (battle) carriers.

C2L: good. It's old Targeting Analysis, but actually Ordnance Expertise.
C2R: okay. Not useless to warships, but the other skill is generally more appealing.

C3L: good. Half of EA and one fourth of AC smashed together. Good for low-tech ships and capitals.
C3R: okay. Decent on paper, but you need some mobility to take advantage of this skill reliably. It's also invisible to outsiders, as Nia mentioned elsewhere. I wish it was simply Gunnery Implants, because higher accuracy over longer ranges is easy to see.

C4L: good. One half of Defensive Systems.
C4R: situational. It's good for phase ships and only phase ships. Interesting buffs.

C5L: good. This is a very nice skill, but it seems to buff already good skills, while not helping much the weaker ones. Elite bonus is a joke, though.
C5R: situational. Good for low-tech and gryphon, passable for everyone else. While extra ammo and fire rate bonuses are nice, lack of speed bonus hurts.

Leadership:
L1L: okay. It's bonus damage, but it falls off pretty quickly. I kinda wish it it started falling off at 150 DP.
L1R: bad. On one hand, it makes your Venture into an uber tank and gives Atlas Mk II some room to breathe. On the other, you are better off with a skill that benefits more than one ship.

L2L: situational. Makes your fast ships faster.
L2R: situational. It gives some bite to frigates and, more importantly, more PPT, but only to officered ships. It's a shame it gives no bonus to destroyers.

L3L: good. Your human combat ships get more CR and the limit is reasonable.
L3R: situational/good. Fighters are generally useful, but limit per bay encourages using better fighters, which are expensive.

L4L: good. Better officers. More story point sinks, though.
L4R: good. Some bonuses apply to officered ships, so it's more synergetic with them.

L5L: good. Makes colonies personally governed more profitable and defensible.
L5R: I didn't raid yet, no idea how useful this skill is. It's so high in the tree, though.

Technology:
T1L: good. QoL.
T1R: okay. Gets worse rating simply because it doesn't help the whole game and all playstyles, unlike Navigation.

T2L: good. Makes long range weapons longer and better. ECM is just a bonus.
T2R: good. Incredibly synergetic with high-tech playstyle. Nearly no downsides.

T3L: good. Stronger for fleets with smaller ships, even if it's not a dedicated small fleet skill. Nice.
T3R: bad. Top speed is nice, but crew is cheap.

T4L: good. Good bonuses, reasonable limit, but civvies with milsub eat into the bonuses, which is annoying, because milsub is essential in most cases.
T4R: situational. Okay for fleets with a few phase ships. If you have none or have many, left skill is better.

T5L: good. Sorta LD3. Third built in/integrated hullmod is useful only for your mostest bestest ships, but more vents helps everyone.
T5R: preliminarily situational. Reason being that people complain about very low DP allowance, so the only other use is to get even more frigates for your wolfpack.

Industry:
I1L: situational. Traders might like it?
I2R: okay. Unless salvage was nerfed in this version, it's not necessary for exploring, but nice to have.

I2L: situational. Damage Control is for low-tech or extreme junkers.
I2R: okay. Fine for most ships, but especially good for small ship pilots.

I3L: good. More fuel and you can emergency burn with no CR penalty.
I3R: okay. Savings are smaller than with Containment Procedures, but not terrible, and it makes surveying planets better.

I4L: okay. It's bizarre there's a limit on this skill at all.
I4R: good. Best defensive low-tech skill in the game, but it makes ships in good condition paradoxically worse.

I5L: okay. It's probably better to have more colonies.
I5R: okay. Ditto. I'm not sure yet about colonies, though.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 09:24:44 AM

Quote from: SCC on March 29, 2021, 08:39:44 AM

I think I'll copy your formatting:)

My takes on skills:
C1L: Speed/maneuverability is always good, and this is the only unconditional way to get it. Elite allow zero flux boost while venting - excellent for player, but AI doesn't vent enough to leverage it.
C1R: The only carrier damage boost. Considering that there are only 2 carrier skills, and each officer'd frigate can be quite useful, I'm not sure pure carriers are even worth using officers on.

C2L: +10-20% damage, default pick.
C2R: The second carrier officer skill. Having your fighters (sparks) do double damage to enemy fighters is imo the only good reason to consider it.

C3L: Armor skill: at least doubles survivability of everything you put it on.
C3R: Pretty much Conquest and beams Paragon exclusive damage boost at range. But Conquest with it will be paper-thin...

C4L: Shields buff, default pick.
C4R: The phase ship skill. Don't bother piloting phase ships if you don't have it.

C5L: Usefulness varies a lot from ship to ship. Extremely good in some cases.
C5R: Missiles spec, but without speed or damage bonus. It works, I guess.

Leadership:
L1L: Small damage boost. Default pick since other option is bad.
L1R: Does nothing of value.

L2L: Unusable. Either you have CM frigates, but no WT to make your frigate PPT last. Or CM DEs, but you need too many to stack the effect.
L2R: The frigates skill. If you ever pilot or have any officer'd frigates in your fleet - take it.

L3L: CR boost, but weaker than in 0.91 due to DP cap. Still good.
L3R: Fighters are nowhere near as strong as they were, +3 bays of effective replenishment bonus is not enough to compare to the other option.

L4L: Good.
L4R: Since just putting an officer in a frigate already gives it quite significant buffs, I think this one is a bit stronger. Pity it's currently bugged and you can't hire 9th and 10th officers if you already have any mercs in fleet.

L5: Non-combat, don't care:)

Technology:
T1L: Default pick. I want my 20 speed.
T1R: Okay for early smuggler jump-start I guess? But after that I'd switch to navigation anyway.

T2L: Safe default pick.
T2R: Incredible for high tech ships except Paragon.

T3L: Absolute must have.
T3R: Nope, very minor boost. Can't compete against EW.

T4L: Default pick. This is the better option even for phase ships, because higher capacity really helps.
T4R: Not hopeless, but other pick is straight up better. 30 DP is only enough for few player Afflictors anyway, and these benefit more from higher flux cap.

T5L: 10 caps for frigates is great for phase frigates. 10 extra vents is great for everything else. 3rd hullmod is nice, but you probably won't have enough SP to upgrade whole fleet like that.
T5R: Didn't try it, but from what I understand single Alpha-Radiant will have 40% CR - what's the point? Remnant frigates are surprisingly weak, so the only decent option is a Brilliant. And I don't think it's worth a skill pick.

Industry:
Mostly economic, so I ignore it as usual.
Derelict contingent seems potentially OP though...

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on March 29, 2021, 09:40:08 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 09:24:44 AM

T4R: Not hopeless, but other pick is straight up better. 30 DP is only enough for few player Afflictors anyway, and these benefit more from higher flux cap.

Does Doom still cost 35 DP?

If Doom is still good today as before, I probably want one or two before I think about Afflictors.  Oh... and I might bring the new phase transports for raiding fun (and I do raid frequently).

Then, there is the Ziggurat, which I have no idea what it is other than what it looks it (and it is obvious that it is a phase capital).  If I find and loot it, and like what it does, I might haul it around.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 10:43:04 AM

Quote from: Megas on March 29, 2021, 09:40:08 AM

Does Doom still cost 35 DP?

If Doom is still good today as before, I probably want one or two before I think about Afflictors.  Oh... and I might bring the new phase transports for raiding fun (and I do raid frequently).

Doom is still 35DP, but Afflictor benefited A LOT from skill system changes. It's much stronger than it was in 0.91 (which wasn't weak by any measure).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on March 29, 2021, 10:57:43 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 10:43:04 AM

Doom is still 35DP, but Afflictor benefited A LOT from skill system changes. It's much stronger than it was in 0.91 (which wasn't weak by any measure).

How?  AM Blaster spam?  (I used Afflictor for Reaper spam in prior release, but the mounts changed, right?  I have not found a non-pirate one yet.)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on March 29, 2021, 11:46:26 AM

Quote

Industry:
I1L: situational. Traders might like it?

In fact, it gives you +1000 cargo and fuel space and +2500 crew space. It aint much, but it is fair job i never had any problems with (or without) salvage in 9.1, so, i m going for this one.

Right now going to try C5L + T2R on plasma Odyssey, and check new ships.

I think, i ll go:
C: LLLLL
L: LLL
T: LRLLL
I: LR

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 11:58:16 AM

Quote from: Megas on March 29, 2021, 10:57:43 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 10:43:04 AM

Doom is still 35DP, but Afflictor benefited A LOT from skill system changes. It's much stronger than it was in 0.91 (which wasn't weak by any measure).

How?  AM Blaster spam?  (I used Afflictor for Reaper spam in prior release, but the mounts changed, right?  I have not found a non-pirate one yet.)

There are only 2 universals now, so Reaper build is completely dead.

But I preferred AM build for quite a while anyway. When you factor in all buffs (Energy weapon master, Target analysis and Wolfpack Tactics being the largest contributors), AMs inflict a lot more damage. Plus it has more flux and OP, so 4AM build is now perfectly functional (while it could barely fire in 0.91, leaving no flux for cloak approach). And more PPT. And faster ship system recharge. And more efficient use of PPT (more speed while phased, less time spent approaching). And shorter cloak cooldown...

So yeah, Afflictor is stronger than it ever was despite losing Reapers.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Daynen on March 29, 2021, 12:21:52 PM

Don't sleep on special modifications, folks.  Having Three built-in hullmods on all your ships for 0 OP unlocks possibilities hitherto undreamt.  Bear in mind the OP cost of the BIM is irrelevant, allowing you to grab the biggest, juiciest mods you like and make them completely free.  Just the idea of throwing augmented burn drive on all my ships for free and still having room for two other mods before I even begin the actual build has me all but salivating.  I don't care what your playstyle is; that's not something you just pass up.  It's literally just more ship per ship, for ALL your ships.  You can always wrap around and you're probably not running out to snatch a radiant at level 5 anyway, so if you're going technology, this isn't even close to a choice.  GIMME.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on March 29, 2021, 02:41:12 PM

Fine, I'll throw in a more detailed examination.

I'm following the design principles put in the blog, with a choice between specialization and generalization, so builds become about picking what you want to specialize in, and what you want to build your fleet around. I also understand the concept of avoiding a mono-fleet, so I don't want to -remove- the fleet limits on skills. Instead I want to adjust them to work less around fleet size and be less restrictive.

Combat
overall Combat is the most balanced of the group, and retains the original design docket for this system best. There's minor things and biases going on here, but the concept itself is still excellent here.
Teir 1:
     The specialist needs an upgrade. Strike Commander with 30-40% boost would be considerably stronger a choice and a worthy trade for the 10% speed boost and zero flux boost. That might be my inexperience with carriers speaking though.
Teir 2
     I'm not likely to ever pick PD, even as a carrier. I don't find it strong enough even in concept. I'm not even sure how to fix it, and maybe I'm just ignorant, but I cant compare point defense power to...well, ALL weapon power.
teir 3
     This would be excellent in principle is the range damage was brought between 700-1000. Only a -very- few weapons can cover even 800, let alone over 1600. Youd need specialized beams with the double range mod and integrated targeting unit and even then.....requiring non-default mods(one of which isn't even given to you in the skill) isn't what I'd call viable. Drop the range requirement to a more reasonable basis, and all is good.
teir 4
     Not much to say here, solid and well done. The specialty is insane but the generalist skill is quite good without coming near the sheer power of the specialty, well done.
teir 5
     fairly solid, though I think the HP bonus boosted to 75% might work well, but I'm fine with it. I wish I had more to say, but I don't like missiles to begin with so....yeah

Leadership
Overall
     I will likely never use this entire tree. Most of it bar t4 is aggressively terrible, and I'd rather get 3 good combat skills over 3 trash leadership skills just to get one decent green. I'll go into details why individually, but this is trash and desperately needs some care
teir 1
     I see what this is -trying- to do, but it's complete trash. A blank damage boost to everything is a powerful move, but putting it limited on fleet size, which -must- grow over time to keep up with new challenges, is just punishing the player for ever choosing this. To top it off, these skills are both terrible. The issue with civilian ships isnt their armor or flux, it's their mounts. No matter what armor and such you give a buffalo is will NEVER see combat because of it's mounts. Increasing those isn't possible here, so as such a better idea would be to focus on using civilian ships at all, or making them have militarized subsystems. Does the player militarize everything to the sensor profile and burn speed, thus getting a more generic boost in their combat ships? (Perhaps an increase in operating time due to the linearity of their fleet as a result of this choice), or do you make the civilian ships better by giving them bonuses to logical support, like free maintenance or increased sensor range(worse for smuggling/stealth, better for trading/traditional open combat). Thus you can focus in general open trading/combat, or a unified fleet for precise well drilled attacks and smuggling.
teir 2
    Wolfpack tactics is mostly fine. I'd increase the damage buff to 50% since it's a high price to even get the bonus and it's as specialized and risky as pure short range builds IMO, but coordinated maneuvers really needs to drop the officer requirement. If you wanna drop it to 3%-1% for frig-dest then be my guest for balancing it, but there's little reason to use either beyond getting the nav boey built in.
teir 3
     The concept on these is fine, but their numbers are off. The fleet limit hits this one -hard-. Like I said, your fleet must grow in size no matter what, and limits for these fleets aren't even close to built for end-game fleets, so by that time you've scaled these bonuses to zero. My current fleet doesnt even have a capital and I'm dropped to 12%, at the current speed it's dropping, 2-3 capitals means this skill is close to zero. Same with fighter bay limits. If you want to max carrier ships, fine, but at least have us 5 capitals or so and not make the AI have like 12 of them. Give us 30 fighter bays to create some host for variety, like making Astrals the center of our fleets without leaving us with too small an upgrade to use. It's a choice between a general increase in operation time which basically drops to nothing by end game, versus power up, at most, -one- ship. Why would anyone even run for this.
teir 4
     This one is better, but the specialty is too weak. Do you want 9 officers which all have an extra elite buff? Or one extra officer. I'll pick 9 more elites. I think a better system is to extend the contract duration of special officers, which is an honest specialization. Do you want a lot of more generic officers? Or a select group of highly expensive but valuable ones. It be a much better choice. Given the other skills are abyssmal, theres little reason to pick this anyway.
teir 5
     The general might be a bit weak? I'm not knowledgeable enough with colony numbers to review this. In concept or genera/special it's a solid skill.

Technology
Overall
     Every character I play is likely to get some of this tree. They are so OP it's outright insane. there is some broken *** here by comparison. It's not bad, I like that kind of power, but it makes the leadership buffs into even more of a joke.
teir 1
     I do -not- understand why people pick the first skill by principle. That +3 burn to moving slowly is both a huge navigational boost and makes smuggling -leagues- easier. If you want -any- kind of criminal action or sneaky raids, this is a near necessity. and the general boost is amazing to. Raw speed, and transverse jump? That's quite good for even smugglers, though not quite as useful. Honestly THIS is a tough choice and a truely amazing skills im excited to choose from every time. Make more skills like this, it is the de-facto amazing choice.
teir 2
     Another solid choice. Like before both skills are excellent and the specialization is absolutely amazing for what it does. Seriously, more skills like this please. The fact is synergizes with ECM down the line is also interesting and something worth exploring, though im 50/50 if it's in line with design principle from the blog. Beyond that it's a excellent skill. Not good, -excellent-. Use these two as a basis to judge the others.

teir 3 & 4
Remember teir 3 leadership? Good, I'm not repeating myself. Both choices are so stupidly limited by fleet size it's a joke. People pointed out a single cruiser and 2 frigates overloads the phase ship upgrade, and the other would be close to zero with end-game fleets. Would I rather get a general increase that becomes a waste of a skill point, or upgrade 3 ships out of my whole fleet? If it wasn't for teir 5, I'd pass on both teir 4 choices entirely.
Edit: A suggestion for this, is to allow civilian hull ships and frigates to both give bonuses to performance/CR for everyone else, which would further benefit having less top heavy fleets. It's jsut a thought but why not?

teir 3 & 5
Same issue for both. The specialty for their choices, using large amounts of phase ships, or the use of automated ships, is so ungodly restrictive as to be useless. I get not wanting to allow mono-fleets, but at least let 50% of our end-game fleet have a focus for *** sake. These bonuses die after even a single capital ship. ONE radiant drops the bonus to automated by 60% according to some reports. And given how insanely useful an extra built-in hullmod and the ECM stuff is? This is barely a pick. If 50% of my fleet could be phase/automated ships, these choices would more viable and actually be truely fantastic choices.

Note to frigates
     Look, I understand why Alex is putting fleet limits. Frigates were useless in .91. But this punishing players for having large fleets at all, isn't a good solution. I know mono-fleets are a thing Alex wants to discourage and it's a good thing because the mechanics favor a broad fleet anyway. But making those specialist skills so stupid restrictive that only 1 ship can have it? Why?  You wan frigates to remain relavant? ECM already does it. with 2% across the board the ability to put out -more- ships is more valuable. A fleet of frigates would have cap bonus speed and range bonus over the opponent just on sheer mass of ships, meaning a fleet entirely of paragons is suffering for their better technical performance. Building in that direction, with skills that help the fleet ship to ship, like +60 peak operating time(excellent for frigates, iffy for everyone else) is the better way to go then these hard limits that just dwindle the entire bonus to nothing.

Industry

Teir 1
     Bulk Transport is fine, but the limits need to change if they are get kept. 5k fuel is much easier to hit then 5k cargo, which is several times easier to get than 5k crew. They do not acrew evenly or cost the same to buy/maintaing, so making it 5k across the board makes no sense. The rest is just the fleet limit discussion all over again. I think a better solution is flip salvaging and bulk transport. Bulk transport would be more specialized and, given its a percentage bonus, favor building extremely high raw numbers, where salvaging is better for general maintenance and doesnt care how much cargo space is on your fleet.

teir 2
     Solid in terms of choice, do you want standing ability to repair ot better operating time. One is, once again, useful for more frigate use, the other better for pitched combat. Both are excellently designed and another example of what to od.

teir 3/4
     Once again, drop the fleet limits. This would be a fantastic set of skills if you just dropped the fleet limit crap. Once is about svaing fuel, good for general travel, and the other gives better abilities for raw survey and exploration work. Strong general skill vs more profitable(supplies are much more expensive) specialized skill. Please stop the fleet limits. Teir 4 has the same issue so I'm lumping it here. Do you accept D-mods and run with a damaged but highly cost effective fleet, or give yourself the ability to repair, but makes d-mods more damaging. It's a tough call and again, followed the design docket. Please remove these fleet limits on skill, it it killing these things.

teir 5
     I have nothing to say on this. Unlike teir 5 leadership both of these are extremely strong, and I have little else to say honestly. Well done, this one is a tough choice and both are valuable and worth the price of investment.


TL;dr
     Please remove the fleet limit trash and increase the ship limits for phase and carrier bonuses to something along the lines of 50% of the fleet, because these limits are outright ruining skills. The fleet limit removed would make industry and leadership SIGNIFICANTLY better and actually worth investing in. I almost wish I could modify these myself the fixes are so easy to make. The only one that needs changing in full design it Teir 1 leadership, which I talked about. The rest just need that limit removed and some -very- minor balancing, and the latter only for a select few skills.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Goumindong on March 29, 2021, 03:51:18 PM

Quote from: Megas on March 29, 2021, 10:57:43 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 10:43:04 AM

Doom is still 35DP, but Afflictor benefited A LOT from skill system changes. It's much stronger than it was in 0.91 (which wasn't weak by any measure).

How?  AM Blaster spam?  (I used Afflictor for Reaper spam in prior release, but the mounts changed, right?  I have not found a non-pirate one yet.)

Probably. With the energy skill being in phase starts to rack up the bonus dmg. Then you come out, donk em with your skill and thud. Your phase now comes back up faster and uses less and you’re faster so leaving to vent out is even easier

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 29, 2021, 03:57:23 PM

It's even better than that. You fire multiple AMs at 0 flux, and these shots are already affected by buff from their own flux cost.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Goumindong on March 29, 2021, 04:20:17 PM

Yea so lets make the dumbest Afflictor i can think of

L L L R(E) R(E)
L R R
X R(E) L R L
L R

Relevant Bonuses

+20%/30%/35%/40% dmg to ships by class
-50% phase cloak cooldown
+100 speed when phased
Ship system cooldown -33%
+420 second operating time
-30% phase cloak cost
+30% Combat Readiness

Spend your 3 Free things on Hardened Subsystems, Resistant Flux Conduits, and Expanded Magazines and then fit 4 AMB, and 19 Caps. This gives you 7800 flux capacity. It costs 5900 Flux to fire all 4 AMB plus your system and you have 30 rounds of this. Each volley is 1400 dmg x 1.3 (minimum i think) x 1.2 or 1.3 or 1.35 or 1.4. Which gives you a damage range of 13104 to frigates up to 17640 for capitals. At a penetration value of 3276 to 4410. And with a 900 second peak performance you can take your time making things count

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 29, 2021, 04:23:19 PM

Don't forget the damage bonus from energy mastery for another up to 50% there!

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Goumindong on March 29, 2021, 04:25:57 PM

I didn't. Though i did add the frigate damage bonus instead of multiplying it so my number is a slight under estimation by a few percentage points on the top end

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 29, 2021, 04:38:41 PM

Oh whoops, right you are, I missed that. Still, its an impressive amount of damage.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: duendeinexistente on March 29, 2021, 06:53:46 PM

Quote

Helmsmanship. Piloted ship: +50% maneuverability, +10% top speed. If elite: 0-flux boost works if ship doesnt generate flux.

Thought the same! I'm thorn though, because it's arguibly less convenient, but more useful.
The way the old version worked is if your  flux didn't go past 1%, and shields constantly produce like 3 or 4 flux which is instantly dumped away, and the current version focuses on production. Ergo, you can't passively use the bonus while shielded.
But there's a new caveat: Any time you're not using flux you're faster. So hold fire and disable the shield and you can make a faster but dangerous run to safety, and you also have way WAY more maneuverability when your ship is overloaded or venting flux.
Deffinitely makes for more engaging gameplay in the heat of the moment, but I miss being able to stay tucked inside the shield when traveling to new encounters.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Drazhya on March 29, 2021, 07:31:49 PM

I'll give this a shot

Combat, Tier 1
Helmsmanship is something I view as more-or-less necessary, with the only possible exception being carriers, so having a choice between those two seems good. This breaks down if you want to loop through the tree to get more of it's stuff. This probably won't be the case for all but the tier 2. Armor vs Range and Shield vs Cloak are generally things you don't want both of. A Gryphon pilot would want both tier 5s, but would probably be fine with just missile specialization.
Combat, Tier 2
+20% Damage to Capital Ships and +100% Damage to Weapons/Engines are both huge buffs that I can scarcely imagine passing up. Sure, I want to kill missiles and especially fighters, but at that opportunity cost? And they're less dangerous in this version of the game. I guess I could see it for carriers, again, but they wouldn't get much benefit either. This is one where you might want to loop through to pick up, except that would require spending 1 of your 15 points on Strike Commander.
And here I'll bring up a concern: If I looked at this skill screen and said "I want to be a carrier captain (or commander)"... I wouldn't be able to do that. There's a grand total of one personal carrier skill and one fleet carrier skill. And the fleet carrier skill is like +3 fighter bays' worth of replacement, always, and if you have a carrier in your fleet that you're not bringing into battle or just making great use of, then screw you, that's coming out of your paycheck. Yeah, they were too strong before, but this can't be good design.
Combat, Tier 3
A 1000 range weapon on a capital ship reaches the 1600 mark, and if you can dictate the range of your engagement, then you can make full use of this bonus. However, anything that can reach this range cannot dictate the range of their engagement, and are almost certainly fighting enemies that will get much closer, and are likely to crawl closer under AI control unless you meet some serious restrictions on loadout and/or officer. Alternatively, big happy armor. Impact Mitigation is a lot more valuable than it may first appear. My first campaign I ignored it. I have shields, I'm in a light, fast craft, who needs it? But even then, the Impact of this skill can be huge, saving a lot of pain when shields can't stay up or if you're just a bit incautious.
If Ranged Specialization was based on the maximum range of the weapon rather than the distance of the engagement it could maybe be worth taking for some ships.
I also don't like that the +Projectile Speed effect is attached to this particular skill. My Apogee Plasma Cannons really want that boost and they're not gonna hit at those ranges.
Combat, Tier 4
Simple, straightforward, are you driving a shield ship or a phase ship? Or are you a madlad in a shield-override ship, in which case screw you?
Combat, Tier 5
Hoo boy, these are ship-dependent. Missile ships tend to have either autoforges or fast missile racks, and Missile Specialization is both on one, where Systems Expertise is one or the other. Systems Expertise does a lot for some ships (most triumphant example being the Doom) and nothing for others (Paragon). As this is the last tier, there's no pressure to take one if your ship can't benefit from it, though on the flip side it's disappointing to reach the end of this progression and just skip on the final step.
What I really don't like about this one is that if you can't benefit from the general skill, you can't benefit from the specialist skill either. The ships that don't have systems that synergize with Systems Expertise are not missile ships.
Final thought: If there were three options per level, one level could be armor vs shields vs phase and another level could be systems vs point-defense vs missiles or something.

Leadership, Tier 1
The recovery cost limitations are so low that you can't make much use of these. As much as I like the idea of bigger bonuses with smaller fleets, it doesn't really work well when you need reserve forces, nor does it work well with how things scale up over time. And since it's recovery cost and not deployment points, it further encourages you to keep less-impactful d-mods on your ships, rather than trying to get a pristine fleet, which I don't like. There was already some of this encourage for keeping your costs down, and I let that slide because I like to keep my costs down, but this is starting to get annoying.
If it scaled with player level (so Auxiliary Support was, say 1*level instead of 5), or was dependent on the size of your deployed fleet, it would be better. As it is, it is rather at odds with the game's design. You're supposed to be building up to bigger fleets to take bigger challenges, and if that just lowered the bonus, then fine, but it currently gets lowered into obsolescence and that's not fine.
As for these particular skills - +10% fleet damage would be great if it was actually that (and maybe too strong for a fleet of any size), Assault Package with the buff could be relevant for a Venture, and an Escort Package Phaeton or something could be okay... maybe. I don't like that militarizing my ships for burn and sensors pulls from this bonus.
Leadership, Tier 2
With the overabundance of enemy officers, you will quite regularly encounter fleets with full nav and ecm, so countering that is a serious concern. What was easy to spec into before is now... not. And as much as I'd like to have 3 frigates hanging around giving me the full +20% nav, that ties up three officers and is mutually-exclusive with the +120 seconds operating time that would actually keep them on the field. And I could loop around for both, which would require going through the horrible, awful, no-good tier before it AGAIN.
Wolfpack tactics is kind of neat though. 3 Tempests with officers have been handy, though I haven't quite figured out how to keep them on the field for an entire battle yet. Maybe if I gave them both Helmsmanship and Auxiliary Thrusters they could dodge everything.
Frigate-exclusive command point recovery is just weird. Why is that a thing?
Leadership, Tier 3
Combat Readiness is really great. Fleet-wide combat readiness is really great. The limit on this one is high enough that it doesn't fall into worthlessness even endgame... barely. Still not good.
Fighter replacement as the one bonus on an entire skill could maybe be good enough in a big carrier fleet... but it diminishes with number of fighter bays. Yeah, nah. Again, if I say "I want to be a carrier commander"... there isn't really a skill for that. And if I'm not saying "I want to be a carrier commander", why would I even look at this thing?
Leadership, Tier 4
Originally I thought +levels to 8 officers would just be better than +2 officers. In exploring around the sector, I've picked up a couple Steady level 7s though, which I suppose I'll keep, and a few level 6s as well. So it's, what +levels to 4 officers, instead? And I've still got more of the sector to explore.
What I don't like about this choice is that I can't really analyze it. How can I know which one will be more valuable to me? I don't think I can. If I look at Combat Tier 4, I can say "If I'm gonna drive a phase ship, then the phase ship skill is more valuable to me", but I can't think of any parameters I can set under which I can analyze the comparative value of these skills.
Leadership, Tier 5
There are four colony skills in this game. If I say "I want to be the best colony manager", I can spend my 15 maximum skill points to pick up 3 of these 4. Not that I would, because I like to play for the long game, and in the long game I have alpha cores to do that for me. Though I suppose, in this version, I can respec when I don't need them anymore.
Aaanyway... I don't really care. If I want to get serious about having a big bad ground force I'll take Ground Operations. If I want more money I'll beef up my combat skills and whack some bounties. If I want to defend my colonies I'll build up some defenses and in the worst case, I'll bring my fleet. I'm not feeling these skills.

Industry, Tier 1
With the limit in place, Bulk Transport's capacity bonuses are less about having a more effective merchant fleet and more about doing away with a few logistical ships altogether - like having an Atlas and half a Prometheus without actually having them. The burn bonus would be great with Auxiliary Support so you're not militarizing ships to get them up to speed and taking away from the actually-militarized ships' bonuses... except I still want the sensor bonuses.
Salvaging is handy for extending exploration forays and picking up more weapon salvage... probably doesn't give more AI cores. Might be something to stick a point in early game and then respec out of when you've kitted out your fleet.
Neither of these bonuses are very good, and I wouldn't like to be stuck with them all game, but I guess that's no longer a concern, so...?
Industry, Tier 2
Damage Control mostly reduces the hurt when you screw up, and I'd much rather prevent damage than reduce it. However, I believe the faster repairs applies to EMP damage, which is really handy. However, it's competing with +15% readiness and +60 operating time, which is yes, so no. And Damage Control isn't good enough to circle back for.
Industry, Tier 3
If I said to myself "I want to lower my fleet's operating costs", this is the tier where I'd make that happen. There are two skills for that here, and I'd get one of them. If I said to myself "I care about doing literally anything else", I wouldn't care about either of these skills. So I think this is a bad tier, these shouldn't be competing. There just isn't enough difference between lowering fuel costs and lowering supply costs. I like them both, I want them both... and if I didn't want one them, I can't imagine a situation where I'd still want the other. And that's one thing, and another thing is wanting to spend precious skills points going through the previous tiers to get them.
Industry, Tier 4
Field Repairs. I remember having this skill in my previous campaign, and I miss those days of instantly-removed damage and fast repairs. But that maximum! In my current fleet, I'm looking at +18% and 9%. That's just not good enough. Maybe if I had a heavily d-modded fleet to bring my deployment recovery cost down... oh look, this skill also passively removes d-mods. What.
I'm not going to comment on Derelict Contingent. The idea of actively pursuing a heavily-d-modded fleet is vaguely interesting, but I'm ultimately uninterested in trying to analyze this.
Industry, Tier 5
If I want one of them, I want both of them, which would require 2/3rds of my skill points to achieve. If I don't want one of them, do I really want the other? ...Well, maybe. An affective +2 colonies can be handy for multiple things. And It's something I would consider taking on my current run if I didn't have to go through the rest of Industry to get there.

Final Thoughts: I want to like this skill system, but as things stand I don't. I think 3 options per tier, 4 tiers, could work a little better, depending on what the new skills are and how it's all organized. I think it's a mistake to put all the colony skills at the end, mutually-exclusive, rather than letting the player spec into them.
...And I just realized that I completely skipped Technology. How did that happen? Well, this is already long, maybe I'll post something on that later. Short version: Special Modifications is the strongest skill in the game, Automated Ships is a weak novelty, skill maximums continue to be annoying in how they're implemented, the first two skills are really great and you can just take both after getting to Special Modifications, Gunnery Implants and Energy Weapon Mastery are both great, especially for Frigates and Electronic Warfare is more-or-less necessary for keeping your range, I completely forgot that Fighter Uplink exists, Flux Regulation is also good, even with the limit, Phase Corps would be nice without the limit and if it wasn't competing with the really good stuff.

Edit: I just realized that there's another part to why the game feels harder than it used to. The AI's masses of frigate officers gives them nav that I no longer have and more ECM than I'm used to. Full nav and ECM (and other speed/range bonuses) is how I chumped the Blade Breakers. It's a big deal.
Three Tempests with Gunnery Implant officers and built-in Nav Relays may be astronomically valuable. If they can stay alive.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: trucane on March 29, 2021, 08:00:34 PM

For someone that usually gives up their own combat skills to purely maximize the fleet this new skill system is a huge disappointment. The complete lack of elite skills in anything other than skill that only affect your own ship is very annoying and feels super imbalanced. Also a lot of the skills right now seem very useless in general and the "1 of 2" choices seem very straight forward in a lot of the cases. Lastly the small amount of points just makes me question why I would bother with most of the industry stuff as it generally gives no benefit in battle.

Was very excited to finally get 0.9.5 and I expected to really dislike the new skill system but so far it's worse than I expected it to be which is very concerning.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Goumindong on March 29, 2021, 08:41:25 PM

Quote from: duendeinexistente on March 29, 2021, 06:53:46 PM

Quote

Helmsmanship. Piloted ship: +50% maneuverability, +10% top speed. If elite: 0-flux boost works if ship doesnt generate flux.

Thought the same! I'm thorn though, because it's arguibly less convenient, but more useful.
The way the old version worked is if your  flux didn't go past 1%, and shields constantly produce like 3 or 4 flux which is instantly dumped away, and the current version focuses on production. Ergo, you can't passively use the bonus while shielded.
But there's a new caveat: Any time you're not using flux you're faster. So hold fire and disable the shield and you can make a faster but dangerous run to safety, and you also have way WAY more maneuverability when your ship is overloaded or venting flux.
Deffinitely makes for more engaging gameplay in the heat of the moment, but I miss being able to stay tucked inside the shield when traveling to new encounters.

The Hyperion can teleport at max flux... because the teleporter requires you to have zero flux boost engaged not to have zero flux to use. (SO on the hyperon should let you teleport with your shield up too but i haven't tried that)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on March 30, 2021, 01:22:40 AM

Quote from: trucane on March 29, 2021, 08:00:34 PM

For someone that usually gives up their own combat skills to purely maximize the fleet this new skill system is a huge disappointment. The complete lack of elite skills in anything other than skill that only affect your own ship is very annoying and feels super imbalanced.

Leadership tree encourages you to spend SPs on officers and colonies, Technology - on ships, Industry - on ships and colonies, and Combat... Well, it has no incentives to spend story points any different, than if you had no skills at all. You can elite personal skills precisely so that personal skills influence story point usage at all.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 30, 2021, 01:42:44 AM

After playing a bit more, officers skills (both) seem rather lackluster - you can always (is there a cap?) hire more mercenaries, so the only thing these skills really do is an upkeep discount. And both are permanent, so with 5 locked in tech and 4 in leadership, your build is largely fixed for rest of game, which is quite a big drawback.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 02:16:50 AM

How exactly do the mercenaries work? I've only a encountered a few and didn't like their skill breakdown, so haven't hired any yet.

Leadership has some pretty nice bonuses for early game, but I think the whole tree might be a trap for mid and late game unless specifically going for the wolfpack energy frigate/SO destroyer fleet. The 90 deployment point scaling for the damage boost and 180 point scaling for the CR boost are... well, they are just flat out worse than the boosts the technology skill gives. Coordinated Manevuers is worth it later game, but only if I can find 6-8 mercenaries to put in destroyers and frigates.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 30, 2021, 02:31:19 AM

Mercenaries are just over-priced and pre-built officers, hired for a story point (but with 100% refund, so not an issue). I haven't had one for whole year, so I'm not sure what happens then (contract is stated for 1 year).

Well, as I've found Afflictor is incredibly OP in this release, so getting Wolfpack is worth it for piloted ship benefits alone. Officer'd frigates are a gravy at this point.

+15% CR is nice too, while your fleet isn't too large. And I upgrade my fleet in big steps:
- starter 10 burn fleet, before I have point to spare on navigation.
- 9 burn fleet, Falcons, DEs and frigates + piloted Afflictors doing all the heavy lifting. Fleet's role is just distraction and finishing blows to crippled capitals (because finishing some with Afflictor without dying yourself to death explosion can be rather difficult). This type of fleet fits nicely within 180 DP limit. This is already enough to handle highest level bounties (10+ capitals, 15+ lvl 5-7 officers), but only due to Afflictor being OP.
- 8 burn fleet + 2 Tugs. Focus shifts towards proper cruisers and Odyssey/Conquest.
- 7 burn fleet + 4 Tugs. Big capital fleet.

Only 7 or 8 burn fleets should be large enough to out-scale 180 DP bonuses.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 30, 2021, 09:27:18 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on March 30, 2021, 02:31:19 AM

Mercenaries are just over-priced and pre-built officers, hired for a story point (but with 100% refund, so not an issue). I haven't had one for whole year, so I'm not sure what happens then (contract is stated for 1 year).

Well, as I've found Afflictor is incredibly OP in this release, so getting Wolfpack is worth it for piloted ship benefits alone. Officer'd frigates are a gravy at this point.

+15% CR is nice too, while your fleet isn't too large. And I upgrade my fleet in big steps:
- starter 10 burn fleet, before I have point to spare on navigation.
- 9 burn fleet, Falcons, DEs and frigates + piloted Afflictors doing all the heavy lifting. Fleet's role is just distraction and finishing blows to crippled capitals (because finishing some with Afflictor without dying yourself to death explosion can be rather difficult). This type of fleet fits nicely within 180 DP limit. This is already enough to handle highest level bounties (10+ capitals, 15+ lvl 5-7 officers), but only due to Afflictor being OP.
- 8 burn fleet + 2 Tugs. Focus shifts towards proper cruisers and Odyssey/Conquest.
- 7 burn fleet + 4 Tugs. Big capital fleet.

Only 7 or 8 burn fleets should be large enough to out-scale 180 DP bonuses.

I don't think the game should be balanced around a strategy that relies on abusing one very specific OP ship/skill/weapon combination... I personally find killing everything with an OP frigate to be pretty tedious after a while, so I have no interest in abusing afflictors. I will only go for that if I can't beat something with my standard approach of warships.

Also, the whole 'bonus xp refunds skill points' thing isn't quite right IMO because it takes so darn long to actually get those skill points back. Especially since I have a massive bonus xp buffer, meaning I won't be using the refunded bonus xp for a long time (when skill points will cost a lot more xp). I have a 44 million bonus xp buffer right now :P, so that bonus xp will not apply until I am at a higher level where I get less skill points/bonus xp, i.e. it is less than a full refund, and a very delayed one as well.

Quote from: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 02:16:50 AM

Leadership has some pretty nice bonuses for early game, but I think the whole tree might be a trap for mid and late game unless specifically going for the wolfpack energy frigate/SO destroyer fleet.

I came to the same conclusion. Tier 1 skills are both kinda dead skills in a large fleet, tier 2 requires a significant number of officers in frigates to get any benefit, so dead unless you play in a specific frigate centered way. Tier 3 skills are fine, but a bit lackluster in a big fleet, not worth taking the tier 1-2 skills IMO (Crew training currently would give my fleet +8% CR and +15s ppt, and my fleet is currently 12 cruisers, one destroyer and 5 frigates + civ ships, firmly a mid-game fleet IMO). Officer skills are nice. The tier 5 skills are also fine, but if I want to spend skills on colonies, the tier 5 industry skills seem just as good if not better, and AI cores will likely be the very long term solution. So I get one skill in 5 tiers that I really want late game (officer skills)... I'd rather get tier 5 skills from the other 3 trees.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Igncom1 on March 30, 2021, 09:40:36 AM

I haven't played for very long so far 3-4 hours but I've been having fun. Lots of new missions at the bar always gives me something to do if I don't have anything else going on.

Not sure what to do with my story points, I've been occasionally spending them on one of my officers to when I wanted to dodge an unwanted patrol that insisted on appearing where I did want it to. I don't think I'll be spending them on my destroyers and frigates right now as there doesn't seem to be much of a point. Got a fun group of high techs with a modified aggressive officer and a random reckless max levelled officer with an elite energy weapons skill that I got out of a stasis pod. Badass.

It's love not needing to speak into ship skills or campaign skills. I'm sure someone will calculate the perfect set of skills to pick in the new tree, but I'm going wide (one from every category) and just picking up whatever is helpful to me as I go.

Just milling around, making money, working on contracts that seem feasible to do and exploring/salvaging whenever a mission has taken me out there before. (seems natural to only go out to these dead systems when you have a mission to do so rather then just surveying with a single dram or whatever)

Got a little bit of cool archo-tech which sounds really cool. But I am planning on eventually making a colony rather then on a cheap habitable world, on a resource rich hell hole for max profit. Just gotta decide what that world will be? (+2 volatiles, +3 ores or try to find an organics deposit? Or somewhere to use my archo-tech specifically?)

Met a cool librarian which was nice, and bought the location of a blueprint for a ship with a name I don't entirely recognise, but it sounds like I might have to fight to claim it.

Lots of fun fighting and exploration to go! When I can afford the time and excuse to plough the outer reaches of the sector!

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sutopia on March 30, 2021, 11:10:00 AM

Industry L5 is totally wasted point since almost all industries now has booster item to +2 production, given you work hard enough to find them.
I’d spare the industry T5 and get both tech T1. Those two combined are no joke!

Combat tree is still mediocre at best unless there are some kind of overpowered super flagship.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Goumindong on March 30, 2021, 11:18:15 AM

Quote from: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 02:16:50 AM

Leadership has some pretty nice bonuses for early game, but I think the whole tree might be a trap for mid and late game unless specifically going for the wolfpack energy frigate/SO destroyer fleet. The 90 deployment point scaling for the damage boost and 180 point scaling for the CR boost are... well, they are just flat out worse than the boosts the technology skill gives. Coordinated Manevuers is worth it later game, but only if I can find 6-8 mercenaries to put in destroyers and frigates.

I don't think so. Because it depends on what skills you're taking. Leadership does have the "small frigate wolfpack" structure but it also has a "mixed unit tactics" structure. So to begin with the scaling bonuses are a pretty simple construction: You get Value * Limit/Deployment points with a max of 1. So if you have 180 DP you get a 5% weapon damage bonus. And as a result we can look at the leadership tree in that vein. The leadership tree has as "wolfpack" option but it also has a "mixed tactics: option

1L is clearly for wolfpack/frigate fleets. Its pretty marginal. 2R is for mixed tactics. You can get huge boosts and move a "civilian ship" into combat duty effectively reducing the overall DP of your fleet. Or it lets you utilize some of those combat clunkers more effectively. Lets take the Atlas Mk II at 24 DP. It still receives +187% bonus from the packages. A colosus MK 2 receives +562% bonus. Which comes to 66.2% bonus to flux dissipation, 66.2 armor DR! A Venture still gets +300% and so could theoretically get to 2170 effective armor(1980 plus 190 for the purposes of DR only). And could have 784 minimum armor with derelict contingent... That is one hell of a brick to stick in your enemies way.

2L is for mixed fleets and 2R is for player frigates/destroyers. 2L is for mixed fleets because the bonuses stop seriously accruing at 3.5 frigates or 7 destroyers. 3.5 frigates isn't a lot. So its quite easy to have a few of them with officers. Especially once you add in 4L

3L is for wolfpacks but 3R is for mixed tactics. It only applies to the number of fighter wings you have in a fleet and the bonus is pretty big. 6 Fighter wings is 2 Mora. 12 fighter wings is 4 Mora. That is... a lot of ships when you're mixing your tactics.

4L is for wolfpacks but 4R is for mixed tactics. More officers means you get an easier method to mix. You can now more easily run 2 Mora and 3 frigates plus 5 other officer-ed ships including your own battleship

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 30, 2021, 12:26:02 PM

Long winded discussion of specific skills that I don't want to detract from my main point:

Spoiler

Quote from: Goumindong on March 30, 2021, 11:18:15 AM

1L is clearly for wolfpack/frigate fleets. Its pretty marginal. 2R is for mixed tactics. You can get huge boosts and move a "civilian ship" into combat duty effectively reducing the overall DP of your fleet. Or it lets you utilize some of those combat clunkers more effectively. Lets take the Atlas Mk II at 24 DP. It still receives +187% bonus from the packages. A colosus MK 2 receives +562% bonus. Which comes to 66.2% bonus to flux dissipation, 66.2 armor DR! A Venture still gets +300% and so could theoretically get to 2170 effective armor(1980 plus 190 for the purposes of DR only). And could have 784 minimum armor with derelict contingent... That is one hell of a brick to stick in your enemies way.

You're analyzing the bonuses when you have one ship in your fleet that benefits from them and ignoring the effect of non-combat ships that still require MS to have reasonable sensor profiles... That one ship will matter in early mid-game, but in end game? Not really. My fleet still has 40 dp of non-combat MS ships (5 colossus to have a reasonable cargo capacity for exploration and a prometheus). If you build your fleet in a specific way, you can leverage it, but it doesn't scale into late game, and it's limiting the way you can play a lot, just like wolf pack tactics. We all agree that the skills can be quite nice early on when your fleet is small enough to leverage the bonuses, but this is not a generally useful skill, it's a niche skill that's best in early game.

Quote from: Goumindong on March 30, 2021, 11:18:15 AM

2L is for mixed fleets and 2R is for player frigates/destroyers. 2L is for mixed fleets because the bonuses stop seriously accruing at 3.5 frigates or 7 destroyers. 3.5 frigates isn't a lot. So its quite easy to have a few of them with officers. Especially once you add in 4L

Once again, 3 officers in frigates is very manageable early game, but in mid-late game, those frigates don't last long enough for a whole fight (because you can't also have wolfpack tactics), so now you need to retreat more than a third of your officers halfway through the fight and you have a bunch of unofficered cruisers on the field fighting against the enemy who often has a lot more officers than you. If this could be combined with wolfpack tactics easily, it would be good, but that costs 7 skill points...

Quote from: Goumindong on March 30, 2021, 11:18:15 AM

3L is for wolfpacks but 3R is for mixed tactics. It only applies to the number of fighter wings you have in a fleet and the bonus is pretty big. 6 Fighter wings is 2 Mora. 12 fighter wings is 4 Mora. That is... a lot of ships when you're mixing your tactics.

The skill is good, but it definitely hurts that ships like the tempest and odyssey cut into it without really benefiting from it. Also, your enemies will happily have many more fighter bays, and replacement rate doesn't really make up for big differenced in volume in my experience, you really need to have a significant number of your own IMO. I currently have 3 herons and a tempest in mid game giving me like 25% bonuses, which, don't get me wrong, would be very good, but I intend to add an odyssey, 1-2 more herons, maybe a legion etc. in the late game. At that point, it will be a fine skill (10-15% ish) but not worth two prerequisite skills that do very little for me IMO.

[close]

For me, at the end of the day, it's not like any of the leadership skills are useless, it's just that the low level ones (that are prerequisite for all the others) fall off a lot harder than skills in other trees, and the opportunity cost of having them is too high compared to other skills I can get. Maybe they are still better than the personal combat skills, but I want to have fun piloting, and the tech tree is just reaaally good, so they're sort of competing against QOL industry skills I don't want to give up, and that are super helpful for exploration (which I do a lot of). IDK I almost want the level cap to be 20.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 12:35:19 PM

The leadership carrier skill is excellent and I think a really good example of game design that promotes varied tactics.

As I play more with the leadership tree: combat cruisers have very little place in leadership endgame fleets. They take twice as many officers and story points for hullmods as capitals: those officers could be on destroyers or frigates, which give fleetwide nav and ECCM boosts to your capitals! Anyone have thoughts on that? I'm very fond of both Dominators and the new Champ, but I suspect my fleet would just be better if I went Onslaught + Destroyer instead. Except for fuel usage.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 30, 2021, 12:42:16 PM

Carrier boost in leadership competes vs CR boost - which is more universally useful and scales to larger fleet.

On a side-note - are officers on carriers even worth using now? There are only 2 personal carrier skills, and they aren't particularly strong. I feel like an officer on a frigate + officer-less carrier is better use of officer resource than officer on a (somewhat larger) carrier. Scarab + Drover vs Heron would have made a good example, but it's 23 vs 20 dp, so not an exact match.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 12:54:53 PM

I would say officers aren't worth it except maybe on an astral or a Legion. Non-officered carriers work well, as do non-officered missile ships, because most of the "missing" bonuses from missile spec are in ECCM now! Which I didn't know!

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 30, 2021, 01:00:12 PM

@thaago What do you give up to get those leaderships skills?

I have trouble imagining a world where I don't want full tech, with ECM, dissipation+capacity bonus and especially if I am focusing on capitals where the 3 built in hull mods get max value, and small ships where the +10 vents/caps get max value (plus the +1 burn and extra range/energy weapon damage are also great). Giving up combat just kills my fun personally piloting, although it might be optimal. I guess I would drop industry skills (can't anymore in this campaign because I have 6 colonies already LOL), but I would hate losing the supply upkeep reduction and bonus CR/ppt on flagship. I guess those matter less in late game too.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: trucane on March 30, 2021, 03:08:04 PM

What is the point of the ability to reset your skills when both the technology tree and the Leadership tree has permanent skills pretty far into the tree? If you level both trees you are more or less unable to make use of the reset function.

There must be a better way to do so you aren't screwed like that

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 03:37:00 PM

@intrinsic_parity
I dropped industry completely. I realized that while it was in theory saving me money, it was dropping my combat power enough that I needed to bring a bigger fleet to deal with top bounties, which further lowered individual combat power, which made my non-officered ships not be able to compete, which made fights drag on, which made my destroyers start to run out of PPT in battles, which made my ECM rating go down as I switched to larger ships, which lowered my combat power... Just a whole cascade of malus's that added up to big problems. When I switched my skills around a hard bounty that caused losses and PPT issues suddenly became a standard fairly quick battle.

The extra damage and CR to all ships is not a huge boost, but it stacks on the top for my officered ships and critically helps my non-officered ships fight enemy officers at least somewhat. I've started actively shifting hullmods for more ECM and Nav, dropped all my Falcons completely (RIP XIV Falcons, you don't offer fleetwide bonuses like destroyers do, and just don't have enough BOOM. I think falcons would be awesome frontliners for a Heron bomber fleet, but not my current composition) and put a trio of officers with gunnery implants onto Hammerheads for the nav. I dropped armor from my own skills for more offense.

I actually don't have the triple built in skill for tech yet (only level 11), and I'm starting to run a bit low on story points... I have something like 10 story points sunk into ships that I'm just not using anymore because they don't fit my fleet doctrine (though I'm going to bring my Gryphons back, and just not put officers on them). Still, its such a huge boost that its my next stop.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 30, 2021, 04:22:49 PM

@thaago That makes sense. I already committed to industry for extra colonies but I'll have to think about forgoing it on the next run. I picked up industry at one point because I was really falling behind in the logistics department. I think maybe in the future, I might take industry early and try to blitz out exploration in the early game before dropping it. After this play through, I really feel like I need to see my exploration goodies before making decisions about colonies, so I was already incentivized to do that early.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 04:28:46 PM

Industry did save me a ton of money and get me 2/3 of my current (nearly pristine) fleet, and when I was exploring the combination of +salvage, -maintenance, and half cost surveys made those missions a lot more profitable/easy. Its just not quite good enough for endgame combat, at least not without using (abusing?) the D mod damage reduction skill.

I'm not even sure its a bad thing: respeccing is built into the design, so good early game bad late game is only a single story point cost, and I would be respeccing on flagship change half the time anyways. But those permanent skills are really scary, I've stayed away from them so far because I don't have a solid understanding of the skills yet.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on March 30, 2021, 04:47:16 PM

Quote from: Thaago on March 30, 2021, 04:28:46 PM

I'm not even sure its a bad thing: respeccing is built into the design, so good early game bad late game is only a single story point cost, and I would be respeccing on flagship change half the time anyways. But those permanent skills are really scary, I've stayed away from them so far because I don't have a solid understanding of the skills yet.

This is a reason I plan to take Automated Ships instead of Special Modifications because I want to go nuts playing with AI ships (even if I cannot pilot it myself) and I can respec it away after the novelty wears off.  I cannot respec Special Modifications away after I get it.

Right now, even if I want Spec. Mod, I cannot make full use of it without enough story points, and I doubt my game will last long enough.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sordid on March 30, 2021, 05:23:15 PM

Quote from: trucane on March 30, 2021, 03:08:04 PM

What is the point of the ability to reset your skills when both the technology tree and the Leadership tree has permanent skills pretty far into the tree? If you level both trees you are more or less unable to make use of the reset function.

There must be a better way to do so you aren't screwed like that

Yeah, that is really inelegant design IMO.

I get why those skills are permanent; if they weren't, you could take the skill, upgrade some ships/officers, then respec the skill point, effectively gaining those upgrades for free (or for the cost of a story point, which are a renewable resource). The obvious solution to this problem would be to, y'know, not let you keep those benefits. For instance, over-trained officers could lose their respect for you and simply leave you to strike out on their own the next time you visit a colony. Or they could mutiny, taking their ship and trying to run away from your fleet. Over-upgraded ships could become unable to regain CR because nobody knows how they work, dooming them to a slow death. The game should obviously not warn you about these consequences ahead of time, they should come as a surprise if/when you attempt the exploit.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on March 30, 2021, 05:31:58 PM

Last release, you could find officers out in space and have more than the limit, but those extra officers over the limit were red-out and you could not use them.  Why not do the same here?  You unlearn the skill, and ninth and tenth officers become red and unavailable until you fire some.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 30, 2021, 05:38:11 PM

The issue is that you can give officers extra levels with the one skill, then spec out and still have the officers with extra levels. The one that give extra officers isn't a problem.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on March 30, 2021, 08:32:13 PM

Quote from: Megas on March 30, 2021, 05:31:58 PM

Last release, you could find officers out in space and have more than the limit, but those extra officers over the limit were red-out and you could not use them.  Why not do the same here?  You unlearn the skill, and ninth and tenth officers become red and unavailable until you fire some.

That's.....a very good question

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sarissofoi on March 30, 2021, 10:26:46 PM

Skills aside, the whole skill system is terrible.
The more I play the game more I dislike it.
Is this right place to complain about it?>
And is there any point doing it?
I don't think so that Alex even look here.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Serenitis on March 31, 2021, 12:15:15 AM

Quote from: Sarissofoi on March 30, 2021, 10:26:46 PM

The more I play the game more I dislike it.

Same. :(
It's a good system in theory.
But in practice, gating something you want behind either things you don't or things that would actively impede you is not great.
There's also the issue that some skills completely invalidate others which makes it impossible to progress beyond that 'level' if you don't want to lose an ability.

The fleet composition skill limits are maybe a bit too restrictive.
Some of the skill 'pairs' could possibly do with being split up so there's a potential path through for every playstyle.
And some of the abilities might be better as being optional elites rather than baked in so there's no potential 'dead ends'.

The entire system feels to me like there a constant undercurrent of "play the game this way. no, not like that, like this. no, only like this. no you're not doing it right, you're not getting the thing until you do it right."

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: GenericGoose on March 31, 2021, 05:13:34 AM

The new system is hit and miss. I like what it was going for, but skills need a lot of work. Tech tree is really good, combat is decent, industry has some interesting choices, while leadership remains my least favorite, as before the update. The fleet size limits are really bad. They need to be removed, calculated differently or increased by a lot. I really like elite skills idea, but I want more elite upgrades. Right now they also feel 'free', I don't see why wouldn't you afford 1 story point per level to upgrade a skill, you get 4. Maybe they should cost more points, have other prerequisites, like completing missions or having a specific contact, but that may be tedious.
Final note is that I would personally like if the weaker skills improved, as opposed to stronger skills getting nerfed.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Serenitis on March 31, 2021, 05:27:22 AM

The leadership line has all the useful skills (for me) gated behind 2 levels of things that do really do anything for me or are so trivial it's not worth a skill point.
This could be improved by shuffling some of the skill pairs around so there is a path through to the later choices that isn't seen as a 'waste' by a player who isn't looking to do that one thing the game is now trying to encourage you to do.
This tbf is more of a 'me' issue, as I look at the lineup and ask myself "do I want to spend 2 points to be able to even consider getting what I want?"
And the answer is likely going to be no.

The industry line is the most egregious.
It is currently absolutely impossible for a player to get maximum colony skills and play with a junk fleet. Because one of the abilities from field repair totally invalidates the entire derelict contingent skill, and you can't get all the end skills without taking both.
This could be improved by making that one specific ability either an elite skill, or a toggleable ability.

I get smaller fleets and smaller ships are the 'intended' thing now, but closing off options isn't the right way to go about it.
And the fleet size limits for some of the skills could stand to be inflated a little.
Not everyone wants to follow whatever the new 'meta' is, and it's poor form to try and enforce it. Especially in a game that's about seeking fortune and glory however you choose.

The skill system itself isn't necessarily the issue. It's just some specific elements within that system, and how they are arranged in such a way as to try and force the player down a particular path that's proving to be a bit prickly.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SonnaBanana on March 31, 2021, 08:57:26 AM

I'd prefer it if Leadership skills (especially for Weapon Drills and Elite Crew) counted crew and not DP.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 31, 2021, 10:44:21 AM

Quote from: Serenitis on March 31, 2021, 05:27:22 AM

The leadership line has all the useful skills (for me) gated behind 2 levels of things that do really do anything for me or are so trivial it's not worth a skill point.
This could be improved by shuffling some of the skill pairs around so there is a path through to the later choices that isn't seen as a 'waste' by a player who isn't looking to do that one thing the game is now trying to encourage you to do.
This tbf is more of a 'me' issue, as I look at the lineup and ask myself "do I want to spend 2 points to be able to even consider getting what I want?"
And the answer is likely going to be no.
...

The leadership line is one that I've been thinking about a lot. What I want from this skill are really the levels 3 and 4 CR and officer skills, which are quite powerful, so what can I do for those level 1 and 2 skills? I'm analyzing this in the light of my current problem: A lot of my late game difficulty comes from the fact that my non-officered support fleet just gets its teeth kicked in by enemy officers, so how can I boost them?

For 1L, at first it seems like a bit of a dud past the early/mid game, since the bonus goes down. But... just because the bonus goes down doesn't mean its bad. At 180 size, a 5% damage bonus to all ships, that stacks on top of officer skills for those ships, is valuable. Same offensive bonus as 15% CR, though without the autofire accuracy buff. It might seem like 5% damage or even 3% damage is too tiny to be worth a skill point because of the size of other skills, but I really don't think it is.

1R is the 'make 1 or 2 auxiliary ships awesome' skill, which is just as specialized as the phase skills or carrier skills and I haven't played around with it yet, but it can be good as others have shown.

2L is the most agonizing because I don't want my officers on destroyers or frigates, I want them on my cruisers! But the speed bonus from 2L goes a long way towards keeping my destroyers and frigates alive vs enemy officers. In theory this skill could be skipped by installing nav hullmods as the bonus caps out at 20, but those are quite OP expensive. On the one hand this skill is quite thematic: you're unled ships need some officers in scout ships (frigates and destroyers) to help them! On the other hand, if I need to leave officers on destroyers to keep the nav bonus, I might have some unled cruisers. Not the worst thing in the world, but its a balance of power: is the nav bonus to all ships worth the downgrade of the officers potential by moving them from a cruiser to a destroyer? Yeah, probably actually.

2R: make some frigates awesome (with officers), doesn't help the rest of the fleet. As others have shown, with the right ships this can be very strong.

3L: Cr for everyone hooray! Perfect skill for getting unled ships to do better against officers, especially when combined with some technology ones. Also great for officered ships. Really, just awesome, and one of the best skills in the game. 180 fleet size is a bit small, but on the other hand the bonus goes down pretty slowly, and 10% CR at 270 fleet size for example is still a good skill.

3R: make some carriers awesome, or many carriers better. Definitely seeing the theme here for leadership: left side boosts everyone, right side boosts a few of a specific type.

4L: and the theme breaks! Makes officers better. This is an excellent skill.
4R: more officers! In theory excellent, but in practice it depends entirely on how exactly mercenaries work and how available they are. I don't know the answer to that.

5 Colony skills, I have no opinion yet.

---

[Edit]
Re: supplies from fights. Without boosting skills or salvage ships combat can give significantly more supplies than it takes, and enemy fleets can be used as resupply points that also grant XP. I'm not using any skill boosted small ship hyper efficient strategies here either, just a normal battle fleet.

Really hard fights are often negative because of all the battle damage, but really hard fights come with other rewards.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 31, 2021, 01:26:41 PM

While there is nothing wrong with this discussion, it is off topic and starting to drown out the thread - give me a few minutes and I'll strip out the relevant posts and put them in a new topic.

Edit: Topic has been split and can be found here: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20288.0

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: pedro1_1 on March 31, 2021, 01:56:32 PM

Combat:

C1L: Basically the one skill every player looking to use an actual combat ship will use.
C1R: Gunery implants for fighters, if you plan to use a battlecarrier or converted hangars is a must pick.

C2L: Damage to all ships that aren't frigates is great.
C2R: Carrier/CH/SO skill, the extra range from the elite means LDMGs have 400 range, which mean I don't need to waste OP to use ITU on an SO ship, and a sunder not having it's usual weakness to fighters is also not a joke, definitivally a loop around skill for SO capitans.

C3L: Great for all ships.
C3R: The only capitals that can control the engagement range are the Conquest, the Prometheus Mk.II, the Odyssey and the Paragon, of which the Odyssey and the Prometheus are better of closer to the action, which just leaves the Conquest and the Paragon to use this skill.

C4L: Shield skill.
C4R: Phase skill.

C5L: It's great in so many ships, but it's so bad in the few ships that can't use it. Gryphon whant to use it but can't due to the second skill in the two tiers before being terrible for it.
C5R: Missile skill that is great in all of the 2 missile cruisers that are worth using.

Leadership:

L1L: 10% damage at 90 deployment is great for frigate fleets, but 5% at 180 DP is kinda bad
L1R: Great for the few ships that need militarised subsystems to work on combat, specially Atlas Mk.II.

L2L: Kinda bad for anyone playing above 300 DP max.
L2R: Good for frigate fleets, and the +25 speed to ZFB in destroyer is very powerfull if you are using a SO destroyer as flagship.

L3L: Great skill that lines up perfectly whit the max size fleet I can bring whitout the game getting too low on FPS on my 3400G.
L3R: Also a great skill that lines up whit the max amount of fighters I would bring into combat due to DP limits.

L4L: Hard desion here, both are good skills that just happen to do diferent things, however I i'm more inclined to get this skill due to the extra control I can have for the Officers.
L4R: .

L5L: 30% accesibility and 25% fleet size is great, but buffed Ground Operations is insane.
L5R: The best way I can use to explain GD is simple, you have 300 marines with +15% to combat strenth, them you go raid Doom for volatiles, hhit this group you will get around 160-225 volatiles, adding GD it goes to 450-500 volatiles in the same raid, must have if you are going to raid.

Technology:

T1L: Transverse jump is not as much of a factor anymore, which makes this skill not as good as it might look in the first place.
T1R: The +3 to the slow movement makes this a easy first pick for all players that will go raiding.

T2L: Extra range and less weapon recoil are what makes this skill good, the autofiring lead bonus also exists.
T2R: Close range and high flux, perfect for SO Sunder/Champion, and the hightech ships, I guess.

T3L: This is not even a good choice, EW is far better even for the low DP's I play.
T3R: If I could use this I would, but it's nowere near as good as EW.

T4L: Falls in the same line as so many skills people dislike for the DP limits, it's great to have because even here the phase skill is a joke.
T4R: A good skill that is made terrible from the fact that a single Doom is enought to be above the limit.

T5L: The +10 bonus to vents and capacitors is good, but the extra free hullmod is far better than that, since you can not only put SO on your ship for free, you can also give it two other hullmods you whant, I knew this would be powerfull, but I completally underestimated how powerfull this skill is.
T5R: The limit is kinda low, but you should not be spamming Ai ships in the first place.

Industry:

I1L: Were you put the loot from raids on frigate fleets, I mean, if you need to transport a full unit of organics from the raided colony to the colony needing organics how would you do it, and for reference a unit of organics is 2500 storage units, this skill, in conbination whit Insulated Engine Assembly is enought to make Militarised Subsystems obsolete, and you should have the ships required to defend your cargo section if you will use a big ship.
I1R: No extra rares is lackluster in comparason to 0.9.1a, I guess it could be usefull for long term fleet maintenance.

I2L: Good for armor tanking, but why would you go and decide to take damage, but why would you do it insted of using that OP on new combt ship.
I2R: +15% CR is just great.

I3L: Fuel skill.
I3R: Supplies skill.

I4L: Faster Repair + D-mod removal, good for a exploration run were you don't whant ships full of D-mods.
I4R: D-mod skill for junker fleets.

I5L: Proper colony skill 2.
I5R: Proper colony skill 3.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 31, 2021, 02:26:01 PM

I think C3R is fantastic on Onslaughts as well even though they can't really control the range because lots of fighting happens in the 1200+ range band anyways. 900 range guns with ITU and Gunnery implants is 1575 range so almost the full bonus with most large ballistics and the TPCs. Anything mobile trying to approach the Onslaught needs to fly through the boosted zone before they can fire: anything running away needs to cross through the same range before they are safe. A cruiser trying to kite with 1000*(1.4+.15) = 1550 range ballistics/beams is in range too. While the armor skill is fantastic, when I bit the bullet and respecced into gunnery (losing an elite skill) my flagship started taking a lot less damage.

Needs dedicated cruiser builds and isn't really worth it on destroyers at all though.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on March 31, 2021, 03:01:47 PM

I got a free cautious officer with gunnery implants + ranged specialization, and I was trying to figure out how to best use them. I currently have them on a conquest with gauss + HVD on one side, but I'm not sure if it's really that great. The DPS kinda sucks, and I think there are some weird range management issues where it moves out of range a lot for no reason (might be a cautious officer problem).

I was think the skills might be good on an onslaught with 1200 base range TPCs, but I don't think cautious will work well on the onslaught. Maybe though.

That officer seemed quite good on a champion with HIL + HVD though, that might be my favorite.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on March 31, 2021, 10:30:42 PM

More detailed thoughts on some skills, after I played a bit more.

C3 L vs R: I think L is the better choice, simply because R applies only to capital ships and specific loadouts for capitals and cruisers. Everything else gets some benefit, but more survivability that always works seems more worthwhile.

C4R and C5R: perhaps they could be switched. Loose thoughts.

L1 L & R: like, c'mon, applied fluxics dynamics T4L has a DP limit of 180 and effect of +20% on two very important things, while L1L has just a half of that and L1R is basically limited to boosting just one ship to incredible levels.

L5L: it's a colony skill in a tree that doesn't have much to do with colonies and doesn't provide any other bonus.
L5R: same as previous, but with an added caveat: this is the only skill about raiding and it's so high up in the tree.

T2R: this one works on all the ranges but what Paragon and Odyssey fight at and it provides a bigger boost (while relying on high flux to get bonus damage, energy weapons will drive your flux up for you, and you get a 10% flux reduction to those in the skill anyway, too!), unlike C3R. C3R requires you go out of your way to use it, T2R helps you unless you go out of your way to prevent it from helping.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on March 31, 2021, 10:57:28 PM

Quote from: SCC on March 31, 2021, 10:30:42 PM

C4R and C5R: perhaps they could be switched. Loose thoughts.

Well... Maybe. Being able to have both shield and phase specs would allow to actually switch between different kind of ships in combat. Now I'm 100% locked into piloting phase if I take phase spec.
But being forced to choose between system spec and phase spec would be a heavy nerf to phase ships, they all are very system-dependent.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on March 31, 2021, 11:18:43 PM

I dunno about switching C4 and C5... I think C4 having both phase and shield in the same tier is good because they don't compete. Its very friendly for non-loopers.

I agree that T4L is more powerful than L1L, but then again its a 4th tier skill instead of a 1st. Otoh, every single one of tech's levels is fantastic (except maybe ECM against top tier enemies but I feel thats more of a problem with those fleets breaking game systems than a problem with the skill itself), so the actual opportunity cost is very low.

Hmmm, does T4L effect base + vents or just vents? If its base, then its more like a 10-15% total boost depending on ship as vents make up a big proportion of flux. Still extremely useful though.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: speeder on April 01, 2021, 07:31:41 AM

So I started playing the new version.

I am liking the academy storyline.

But the skills :(

So, I started as a salvager/explorer, that is my preferred playstyle anyway, I tend to avoid combat and just go around scanning stuff, trading and scavenging. I never play as pirate or smuggler.


So from my point of view:

1. Combat skills... no idea, I ignore them, because my focus is something else.

2. Leadership and Tech skills: my impression is they favor frigates for some reason, while my starting fleet already has a bunch of bigger non-capital ships, also some skills only apply to certain kinds of ships that I don't have.

3. Industry skills: they are... in a way a big wtf.

The thing is, the choices are "wrong", often in a tier the choices are synergistic, so you want BOTH of them, the biggest offender of this is the colony skills, where all of them are tier 5 in two different trees, meaning if you want to play as colony manager you can't, since you will never have all of them.

Also, industry tier 1 skills need each other, to be more specific: the salvage skill give you a shitton of normal resources, with no bonus for rare itens, but shitton of normal resources is worth close to nothing unless you have the huge cargo capacity that the other tier 1 skill can give you... so basically if you want the salvage skill, you are obliged to get the other tier 1 skill, meaning you have to go all the way to the end of the tree, and to be honest, the rest of the tree can suck if your goal is play as salvager.

Tier 4 has CONFLICTING skills, while Tier 5 is needed for colony leaders, so you need both Tier 4, being a huge waste.


Many of the skills are not bad per se, the problem is you aren't really making choices, specially not playstyle choices.

What I would do at least is change what skills go in each tier.

For example: want to play as salvager?

Tier 1 you pick salvager.

Tier 2 you pick the cargo skill...

Meanwhile: want to play as governor?

Tier 1 can be one of the governor skills.

Tier 2 another.

So your choices would be: you want to start a salvager path or a governor path?

And if you use 10 levels on Industry, then you get both paths.

Another tier of skills let you use less fuel OR less supplies... again BOTH are useful, but for a specific playstyle, I would stuff both into the salvager/trader path in different tiers.


From what I looked into theo ther trees they have the same issue, often you have tiers where you want BOTH while other tiers you want NEITHER. This is not just a sympton of some skills sucking, but the fact taht each tier favors a different playstyle thus you end with this sucky way, instead you should design this way:

You have the 4 broad categories, combat, tech, leadership, industry.

Then each of them you should imagine they have subcategories.

Thus you have something like eight "classes" that cost 5 points to max out. So your player character can have 3 "classes" at once.

So I would do something like this:

split combat for example into close and long range classes (for example close range have + damage to guns, long range have + damage to missiles and fighters)

split industry into salvager/trader and colony leader/builder

split tech in phase ship commander, and another into something else. (dunno what to be hoenst).

split leadership into fleet commander / somethign else?


So suppose you want to be a combat master that use phase ships, then you max out combat and get all pahse-ship related picks of tech.

Want to be "pacifist" ? You can pick both sides of industry + half of tech or leadership.

Want to be a pirate? You can pick only the "trader" side of industry, pick the "fleet commander" of leadership and pick the "clsoe range" combat skills, then you can go brawling with low-tech ships building an ever larget fleet of junk ships.

To me this makes much more sense than the current system where you want both tier 1 industry skills, both tier 5 industry skills, but not the tier 3.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 01, 2021, 08:27:58 AM

Few comments.

If I go Combat 5, I am half tempted to take Missile Spec. because more missiles means missiles can be used longer in a fight, maybe last as long as Locusts, or have Locusts last even longer.  I do not want to elite that skill because I want missiles to last the whole fight, not use them up so fast!

The system skill on the left looks like it could be powerful on those with mobility systems, Doom, and others.

As for Industry 1, I have more problems exceeding capacity than not looting enough.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Serenitis on April 01, 2021, 01:13:59 PM

If I had enough points to get to combat 5, I'd very likely go for the systems skill just so I can eke out more PPT and hang onto my saftey overrides flagship security blanket for a bit longer.

Industry 1 cargo skill is good.
The extra space is nice to have (and this might be the only skill where the fleet limit doesn't feel too restrictive).
The extra burn speed tho...
That's good. Really good. It's like a free invisible tug for all your transports.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sarissofoi on April 01, 2021, 10:06:18 PM

The whole skill system is total NO FUN allowed. Its so frustrating to play with it that it hurt.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 01, 2021, 10:18:50 PM

I dunno, its not perfect but there's plenty of fun so far. I did a bit of high tech piloting with SO and Energy Weapon Mastery and it was fun hilariously fun, though I don't think its something I would want to do forever. Then I got rank 5 combat and could turn on my high energy focus twice as much.

In general I'm still trying to wrap my head around the new system and there's a LOT that I'm missing, but there's a lot of cool things too.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 02, 2021, 12:49:02 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on March 31, 2021, 10:57:28 PM

But being forced to choose between system spec and phase spec would be a heavy nerf to phase ships, they all are very system-dependent.

I would say that this is fine, especially in the case of Doom.

Quote from: Thaago on March 31, 2021, 11:18:43 PM

Hmmm, does T4L effect base + vents or just vents? If its base, then its more like a 10-15% total boost depending on ship as vents make up a big proportion of flux. Still extremely useful though.

Base capacity and dissipation.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bluevulture on April 02, 2021, 02:23:47 AM

I wrote up the following over the course of the week, so I'm probably re-threading old ground, apologies for that.  :P

So after playing for a bit I want to share some thoughts; maybe not entirely about the skills themselves, but a little bit about the general philosophy of the rework, as well. Because personally I think it kind of clashes with the the fundamental way the game is played.

In my experience, I generally start the game as an explorer, so I usually max-out the salvage/maintenance related skills, then the movement, and only then go into combat/command. however during the game I (and I suspect a lot of people) get a bit bored of simply exploring/salvaging, and when I have enough capital I usually pivot into bounties. Different challenge, gets me more of the "combat meat" to play with, breaks the pace. When I build up my fleet, and get a significant amount of money I usually then get a colony as a base, build that up, then more colonies. Finally I usually tackle the harder challenges - [REDACTED] systems, story missions, get into scraps with the big dogs of the sector. Then I usually stop playing for a bit before starting a new campaign.

My point is, that throughout the course of the game I play it in different ways. My salvage skills might become obsolete at some point, I might only play with cruisers, then get into phase ships, maybe I then decide to be more passive and just manage my colony and trade. And I'm sure I'm not the only player like that, or at least, I'm sure that people don't just pigeonhole themselves into one specific playstyle, like they might in other games where the things you do aren't quite so broad. The "class-based" system just kinda seems a bit to narrow for a game of this scope, with so many different things to do, that change in challenge and importance throughout a given campaign.

With the new update there seems to be more of a push towards being able to do different things better, or at least to make them more engaging and interesting. An example would be resource procurement missions, giving a mission type for people who like the colony aspect more, custom ship orders for people who like to fly around by themselves for longer.

Even the skill system seems to be generally trying to convey that idea, however there are just some parts of it that kind of go against that logic. And the skill descriptions and limits seem very bizarre (and unfun) in some places (I mean 5DP for auxiliary support? Really?)

A lot of skills that one may want seem to be arbitrarily stuck behind their respective "tech" trees, like colony management - what If the player just doesn't like exploration, but still wants to get into colonies later in the game? Sure, he can respec, but he still has to waste a bunch of points on salvaging, d-mods etc. skills, that he may not really find a use for, at that point in the game. Not to mention that the progression of some of the "branches" doesn't really make sense - the later skills don't really feel like a continuation on a theme, but rather just different (space operations and ground operations don't really strike me as appropriate "final" command skills).

Other skills are just extremely specific, like derelict contingent, or wolf pack - they seem to want to encourage different play styles (or at least make them viable), but then they limit the effects to ships with officers, which limits their otherwise cool mechanics. I also feel like a bunch of skills miss effects from the previous system that would make them really meaningful, and were instead replaced with a version that is both inferior and less thematic (I miss more d-mods=less supplies :().

Another thing is that a bunch of choices don't really make sense - I can understand giving you a choice between two contrasting skills (field repairs vs derelict contingent - one gets rid of d-mods, the other makes it easier to live with them), but I don't get why are some skills that work together locked into the same pair (like bulk transport and salvaging). It just means that you have to either deal with the annoyance of not having them at the point of the game where they are most useful, or you have to waste a ton of points to get them. Which brings me to the next thing:

The level cap is just way too low. I get having to make sacrifices and not getting everything, but with the advent of respecing that seems to be kind of a moot point - you can still get (almost) everything when needed, but you have to spend story points to temporarily redo your character. Why not just make it so that after the max level, skills cost SP, in increasing amounts? That way the lock becomes softer, and lets you get the skills you want. It also removes the awkwardness of "permanent" skills.

I definitely get what the rework was going for, but with the exception of some skills, it just feels like the box surrounding skills was reshaped into a more abstract shape, while making it smaller. Dunno, I just feel like the new skills are super underwhelming for the most part, and make the game just less fun in general. Mods will probably fix some parts of the current system (change limits, more levels etc.) but I just feel like the fundamentals of this system are unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose of ... what exactly? The old system had problems sure, but I feel like the new one doesn't really solve them, just reorganises them into different problems. I still much prefer the old systems way of "wasting" skill points, at least that one felt more organic and straightforward.

This has turned into a bit of a rant (sorry not sorry), and in the end this is just my opinion. It might change with time, but we'll see. I still like the game, it's just that the new skills bug me, and make the game feel less fun for me.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 02, 2021, 03:38:00 AM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 02, 2021, 02:23:47 AM

but I just feel like the fundamentals of this system are unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose of ... what exactly?

As far as I know, the goal was to stop people from just always taking Loadout Design 3, Electronic Warfare 1, Fleet Logistics 3, Fighter Doctrine 3, Coordinated Manoeuvres 1. EW and CM provided massive bonuses for just one skill point, while LD3, FL3 and FD3 were basically always useful. Now, while T5L (the tech skill that gives you extra built-in) is generally useful, you have to spend 5 points to get it, which means you won't always get it (or you wouldn't, if not for the entire tech tree being top tier), and similarly with L2L/Coordinated Manoeuvres and L5L/one half of old Fleet Logistics 3.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 06:28:14 AM

I felt like I don't want to talk about stuff before playing it myself, so I took my time to play with each of the new skills. Unfortunately what the other commenters are saying is true, the skill system is really not good. I'd actually say it's worse than the one we had. As others have said, it has problems. Must-have skills, useless skills, respec-restricting skills high up, boring skills, skills that you want both of for your playstyle, skills that you want neither of. It's all over the place. Some harsh criticism:

First of all, tech tree. The worst offender. Special Modifications is broken, it's the strongest skill in the game by far. It's basically the Loadout Design of 0.9.5, except even better. If you want to have a good fleet, you will take this Every. Game.And if that wasn't enough, it also competes with Automated Ships, one of the more interesting and fun skills, and can't be respecced. Flux Regulation is also broken, in a similar manner to Special Modifications. It's power level, too, is close to old Loadout Design. And again, it competes with Phase Corps, another fun/interesting skill. Then there is Electronic Warfare, which I consider another must-have. Although it's competitor isn't as interesting as the above two, it's still not even a choice, whether you're running carriers or not. And then, in a tree which is all about buffing one's fleet in combat, the first choice is between campaign bonuses, the second between flagship bonuses. This is not how a class system works.

To sum up tech tree:
Choice 1: Campaign bonuses in a tree of fleet buffs. Usually want both for quality of life no matter the fleet, but the explorer/salvager/trader playstyles heavily benefit from both QoL or not, while mainly combat fleets don't need them.
Choice 2: Flagship bonuses in a tree of fleet buffs. They straight up don't belong here, although both are decently strong. If one doesn't like piloting their own ship, or if their playstyle doesn't require the flagship to be strong, both of these are wasted skill points that need to be taken to access choices 3,4 and 5.
"Choice"3: For now Electronic Warfare is practically mandatory. Doesn't help the fighter bay limit in Fighter Uplink is ridiculously low at 6 bays/fleet.
"Choice"4: Flux regulation is way too good to pass on. Phase corps sounds (and is) fun, but can not compete against a flat power increase similar in strength to good old+10% ordnance points. Also phase corps DP limit is too low. This choice is between Good and Fun.
"Choice"5: Loadout Design 2.0 is mandatory. Doesn't help that Automated Ships DP limit is ridiculously low. Another Good vs Fun choice, even worse than last one.

Second worst, Leadership tree. Weapon drills is the most unimaginative and boring skill in the entire new skill system. Wow, a damage boost for everyone! ...That's it. Auxiliary support is actually really interesting, but gets held back by its incredibly low DP threshold, similar to skills in the tech tree. I get that it would be unhealthy to have a Venture float around with 3000 armor, but on the other hand, in order to justify having militarized combat ships in one's fleet they need to be at least somewhat competitive, which is why I propose the bulk of power from militarized subsystems and Auxiliary Support be moved to Assault and Escort packages. They would scale in strength with ship size, similar to how ECM and Nav Relay do, but inversely. This would be easier to balance, and it would be easier to justify a higher DP threshold. Now, don't get me wrong, Wolfpack Tactics is an incredibly good skill and a fun one too, since it fundamentally changes how one approaches fleetbuilding. However, the issue is that it competes with Coordinated Maneuvers and is the second to bottom choice. Either you put officers into frigates, or you put officers into frigates or destroyers. Crew training is the heavy hitter of the leadership tree. Another pretty much mandatory skill due to its power level. While its competitor is strong, it's held back by low fighter bay threshold. Officer skills are the best designed ones in the tree IMO, but they, too, compete with each other. For some reason two colony skills are at the top.

To sum up leadership tree:
Choice 1: Two weak and boring fleetbuffs. Usually pick Weapon Drills and forget about it. Feels like a waste of skill point due to low power of both choices.
Choice 2: Either you put officers in frigates, or you put officers in frigates and/or destroyers. If one doesn't want to put officers in these types of ships, this is a waste of skill point that needs to be taken to access choices 3,4 and 5. If wolfpack tactics is a playstyle one enjoys (it is really fun) they want both.
"Choice"3: Crew Training is much stronger than Carrier group, partly due to low fighter bay threshold of Carrier Group.
Choice 4: Actually a hard choice that depends on ones playstyle. Not quite powerful enough to be considered mandatory in my eyes, which is good since both are permanent. Kinda sad though that again choices with synergy are placed against each other, class system doesn't work like this.
Choice 5: Colony bonuses and a raiding bonus in a tree of fleet bonuses. They just straight up don't belong here. If one's playstyle isn't having themselves as colony governors or raiding planets, this choice is a waste of skill point that needs to be taken if one wants to access, say, both Wolfpack Tactics and Coordinated Maneuvers.

Now, the Industry tree. Used to be my favourite in 0.9.1, now its probably my least favourite, although it has its moments. Good earlygame, swap out late game. Bulk Transport is a really good quality of life skill, and a good example of how diminishing results thresholds should be in other skills. its a great bonus for just 1 point in the industry tree, a real gem since it allows one's cargo ships to have similar burn level without militarized subsystems(which in turn would count for DP thresholds of skills with combat ships). Salvaging doesn't hold a candle to it IMO, but they do have some synergy together. Since none of the industry tree skills are permanent, one could put lots of skill points into industry and respec away later, making a lot of money during it. Damage Control and Reliability Engineering are flagship buffs in a tree focused on economy. They don't belong here. Containment Procedures and Makeshift Equipment could both be a bit more interesting, they suffer from the same "boring" problem as leadership trees first skills, although they are more powerful and for that reason don't feel like a waste of a point. Field Repairs vs Derelict Contingent, here it gets interesting. Derelict Contingent is another skill like Wolfpack Tactics that drastically alters the way one approaches fleetbuilding. This skill, however, is really really broken right now and it's been confirmed it will get nerfed, so it will have to be re-evaluated after the nerf. Field Repairs is a good skill for the early game, and probably worth swapping out of once one can afford pristine ships. However, it does its job well during the time it's utilized. At the top sit, again, two skills that would synergise with each other. Why, I don't know, but it's actually really infuriating. What makes it worse is the former two, Derelict Contingent and Field Repairs, have literal anti-synergy, because Field Repairs will take d-mods out of one's ships and there is no way to stop it.

To sum up Industry tree:
Choice 1: Bulk Transport is underrated IMO. A really good skill. If one wants to wrap around Industry tree in the early game, Salvaging has synergy with it.
Choice 2: Flagship bonuses in a tree focused on economy. They don't belong here, get them out.
Choice 3: Two a bit boring but strong nonetheless skills, neither is noticeably stronger than the other. Both are good early game.
Choice 4: Two really interesting skills that unfortunately have anti-synergy with each other. Field Repairs is good for the early game when you're scavenging for ships, Derelict Contingent will get nerfed but is really strong right now.
Choice 5: Again, two skills with synergy in the same choice. Even worse since Choice 4 don't work well together.

Combat tree is the best designed tree in my opinion, however it would benefit from more choices. I don't like how far missile buffs are in the tree, and I don't like how there is nothing at Choice 4 for players with Shield Shunt. Other than that it's great, the buffs are well balanced and skill placement seems proper. Again, a lot could be fixed with a third choice to each slot.

To sum Combat tree up:
Choice 1: Straightforward; Either one plays a carrier or gets a nice speed and maneuverability buff.
Choice 2: A choice between offense and defense; offense tends to win out though. Point defense is still really good and might be a consideration for some more defensively oriented ships.
Choice 3: Another choice between offense and defense. Defense wins in general, but for a more specialized officer/player, Offense might work. A well balanced choice.
Choice 4: Either one pilots a phase ship or doesn't. Sad for people with Shield Shunt. A third choice would help this one especially.
Choice 5: More missiles or more special abilities. It's a bit odd that missiles are so far up the tree, but Systems Expertise is exactly where it belongs. Missile Specialization elite is a bit weird, Systems Expertise a strong all-arounder. Don't put it on a paragon though.

All in all, it feels like the developer likes to dictate how players play the game. This is not how it should work, and ideally the skill system gets another major rework, since it's really not in a good shape now. One commenter put it well:

Quote from: Serenitis on March 31, 2021, 12:15:15 AM

The entire system feels to me like there a constant undercurrent of "play the game this way. no, not like that, like this. no, only like this. no you're not doing it right, you're not getting the thing until you do it right."

Especially choices Leadership 2, 5, Tech 2, and Industry 2 and 5 give me this feel. Don't force me to pilot a ship if I don't want to, don't force me to put officers in ships I don't want to. Don't exclude clearly synergistic choices from each other. Another commenter told to take a look at Skyrim, and I concur that. Imagine if in order to play a stealth archer I needed to level and put perk points into, say, healing magic and two handed, because some essential perks were at the top of those skill trees. And that I'd also have to make a choice of whether I want to shoot with a bow or sneak. Can't have both now, or there aren't enough perk points to get two essential things from healing magic and two handed! This is how it feels like in starsector at the moment. Now, I'm not saying it isn't fun playing like the developer wants, it actually is, but that fun doesn't last forever. It's essential a game like this has replayability. A well designed skill system that enables different ways to play the game is a major part of it.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 02, 2021, 08:15:26 AM

Quote from: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 06:28:14 AM

This is not how a class system works.

I thought class system's point is to put optimal and suboptimal options together, so that players don't optimise the theme and possibly balance out of their class.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 08:36:51 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 02, 2021, 08:15:26 AM

Quote from: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 06:28:14 AM

This is not how a class system works.

I thought class system's point is to put optimal and suboptimal options together, so that players don't optimise the theme and possibly balance out of their class.

What is this supposed to mean? No I don't think a class system's point is to force players to take things they don't want in order to reach things they do, what?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sarissofoi on April 02, 2021, 08:41:57 AM

Anyone know how to mod it so you can just pick any skills?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bluevulture on April 02, 2021, 09:02:58 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 02, 2021, 03:38:00 AM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 02, 2021, 02:23:47 AM

but I just feel like the fundamentals of this system are unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose of ... what exactly?

As far as I know, the goal was to stop people from just always taking Loadout Design 3, Electronic Warfare 1, ...

I mean sure, but I think that goal failed then, as the "must always take" skills just got rearranged (ie. you will ALWAYS take navigation over sensors, special modifications over automated ships etc.) and some of the skills don't really make sense unless you have a specific use case in mind (ie. reliability engineering vs damage control - only time you don't take dc is when you want to pilot a ship with low cr/pot or SO, and even then I don't really think it's worth it). And I feel that making us pick between a useless and potentially useless skill (industry 1st pair) is the way to go either.

Quote from: SCC on April 02, 2021, 08:15:26 AM

Quote from: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 06:28:14 AM

This is not how a class system works.

I thought class system's point is to put optimal and suboptimal options together, so that players don't optimise the theme and possibly balance out of their class.

I thought it was the opposite; if you have one thing you're supposed to be good at why limit it? Spending points to buff the fleet means you don't buff yourself, like being a bard vs being a warrior. Why would giving the bard an attack speed skill be better for the class balance than just nerfing the other skills? And if you want to give the bard the ability to deal damage then why bother with a class system at all?

Also there are always going to be min-maxers, and balancing the game around them just makes it less fun for everyone else.

Quote from: Sarissofoi on April 02, 2021, 08:41:57 AM

Anyone know how to mod it so you can just pick any skills?

For now you can go into the settings.json and change the max level and/or skill points per level. There's also this mod: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20265.0 (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20265.0) and this one: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=14293.0 (check the latest replies).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SapphireSage on April 02, 2021, 11:39:18 AM

It feels like a lot of the main complaints with the new system is that you can't pick and choose and therefore min/max your skills as easily as you could in the previous version. Sure you had the aptitude skill tax before, but once you put in the points to the level you wanted then you could easily get whatever you desired which is where the whole "I always have Loadout Design 3 in every build" thing came from which, sure you could make unique playstyle based builds before like for carrier focus and all, but I also know that, personally, I knew *exactly* where my first 20 or so points were going to because they were "must-haves" and I had nothing stopping me from getting them save for the aptitude skill tax. Which, is honestly kind of like its own skill tax. It may not be thought of that way because of how good they were, but I know that most people never turned down LD3 or EW1 in a play through and those first few levels were basically checking off boxes before getting to the exciting part of implementing the planned build. Now though, people have to weigh the value of the "must-haves" not on just their own merits, but also the merits of anything prior to it as part of climbing the tree and if they all would work well enough for their build or not.

I think that the current skills system is pretty fun as a concept and is decent for its first iteration, when people bring up the "unfun, bad" feeling that the new skills system gives them it seems like its usually the same outliers in the concept that they point out. Namely, L2, I4 or L5, and I5. I suspect its due to a few things, one being that colonies requiring 20/15 points means that even near-sacrificing(you do still get bonuses after all, except for I4R) literally every point in the pursuit of ultimate colony power you still only get 3 of the 4 colony improvements. The other issue is that the tiers were meant to be built between generalist and specialist choices, but then you have Leadership 2. L2 not only has both choices requiring specialization, they synergize very well with each other making someone that wanted to specialize in frigates require 4 points to get both. Half your skill points total (7/15) just to get two skills that work well together for your build sounds like too high an investment when other styles (phase/carriers for example) can get all of their bonuses for only one more point comparatively. The other issue with L2 is it breaks the Generalist and Specialist idea in that it requires you to stick your limited officers into frigates and DEs. This is especially bad when you compare it to T3L which gives a flat +2% ECM rating to each ship, a trait that still favors frigates and DEs due to deploying more of them, but does not require you to commit valuable officer resources to do it (Though Gunnery Implants does, you still get other very valuable stuff out of it without). As a result instead of L2 being a choice between Generalist and Specialist it feels more of a choice between Specialist and that same Specialization. Lastly, when you do have the choice between Generalist and Specialist tree going on, wrapping around the tree feels realllllly bad. Mostly because if you picked the Generalist option, it was likely because you weren't planning on going specialist but if you decide to wrap around then you are now picking up those left behind specialist skills which will essentially be dead-weight to you since you had previously skipped them.

Lastly, about the limits. I do agree with the bonuses for stuff being limited. Because if they weren't limited, then the bonuses would probably have to be set to be very minor and honestly not very impactful in order to minimize how strong stacking a billion phase ships or the "Flight of the Drover Sparks" would otherwise be. Remember that the max limits do scale based on how far over you go above them (Half bonus when double over limit, Quartile bonus when 4x over limit, etc.). With the limits then you now have a sliding choice between bringing a few of thing and getting a huge bonus for them, bringing a ton of thing and getting a minor albeit still influential bonus for them, and anywhere in between. 6 carrier bays may seem very low, but consider that when a carrier is busy replacing fighters it loses RR. Now when you have let's say 16 different bays and several carriers replacing the odd fighter in parallel its much easier for the carriers to maintain high RR then if you only had 6-10 bays and therefore only a few carriers constantly having to replace their losses. Don't forget how well fighters stack when they get in larger numbers and exceed critical mass since it means its very likely that each fighter downed comes from a different carrier's hanger and therefore a different carrier's RR.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 02, 2021, 11:40:59 AM

Re: tseikk1's post...
For me, Navigation is must-have, with more burn speed and T.Jump.  So is Electronic Warfare.

I think Automated Ships is the early game skill.  If you do not have lots of story points or hullmods available to fully exploit Special Modifications, getting Automated Ships early to loot that Radiant (or some Lumens or whatever) and have it smackdown some uppity enemies feels good and works.  (Radiant is the first capital I acquired, and I used it to smackdown an enemy Odyssey, which I also recovered after that fight.)  I agree Automated Ships' DP limit is too low.  Should be at least 50 to fully support Radiant with alpha core.

I am not fond of the Leadership skill that boosts civilians.  The threshold is way too low, and if player does not get Bulk Transport, then he needs militarized subsystems to speed up hauler ships, which interfere with that skill.

My biggest complaint with Leadership is the campaign/colony skills are gated behind two permanent (officer) skills that cannot be unlearned.

Bulk Transport is good.  I got it because I kept overflowing from salvage or simply getting greedy raiding for treasure, and I needed the capacity more.  Also, non-militarized civilians get +1 burn, which means Militarized Subsystems is no longer necessary if your ship only needs it for the +1 burn.

However, I wonder if the salvage skill increases the weapons looted from the Omega asteroid monsters.  If so, I might need to respec to get that skill and get more of their weapons!  Will not say no to looting more overpowered toys.

I like the flagship skills in Industry.  My complaint about them is I like the -50% weapon/engine repairs, but the other skill wins out because I need their bonuses more.

What I do not like about Combat 5 is I can easily respec between the two skills depending on the flagship I use, and I swap flagships often.  If I use a mobility ship or Doom, I want L.  If I want my missiles to last a long time I want R.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 02, 2021, 12:13:52 PM

@megas special modifications is actually decent early game even without the built in mods part. +10 vents/caps limit is quite a bit stronger than what was available in the previous release for smaller ships (i.e. early game). The old release gave a percentage increase that was 2/4/6/10 based on hull size, now it is 10 across the board. You can end up with silly things like a SO tempest with 800+ dissipation, and even if you just spend one extra skill point to buff your early game flag ship, you're getting a decent amount of value out of it. To me the automated ship skill is late game because the strong thing about it seems to be the ability to have radiants IMO.

I agree that the issues I have with the new system are mostly with specific skill placement/balance and not with the fundamental structure of the system. I wish that the L2 skills didn't both require officered frigates to give benefits. To me, it would make sense if one was wolf pack, and the other gave some bonus for officers in bigger ships (speed bonus, or logistics bonus come to mind), that way no matter where you put your officers, you can get some benefit from it.

I also wish the elite skills were a bit more enticing. A lot of them feel kinda marginal to me, although some are good.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 02, 2021, 12:33:17 PM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 02, 2021, 12:13:52 PM

I agree that the issues I have with the new system are mostly with specific skill placement/balance and not with the fundamental structure of the system.

Imo, double-tapping a tree is almost always impossibly expensive for what you get, so skill picks become strictly mutually exclusive.

The only one I'd consider is Tech 7.
Combat 8 would be the next candidate but C1R and C2R are painfully useless for ships that want full C3 (Conquest, Paragon, and to lesser degree Onslaught).
Leadership 7 is gated by permanent L4, non-combat L5 and useless L1R, so becomes a hard no despite CM+WP being potentially strong combo.
Nothing else is even worth considering.

Also I don't like conflict between elite skills and reassignment (you have to avoid elite-ing skills you are not sure keep permanent, too SP expensive to reassign).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 02, 2021, 12:33:39 PM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 02, 2021, 09:02:58 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 02, 2021, 03:38:00 AM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 02, 2021, 02:23:47 AM

but I just feel like the fundamentals of this system are unnecessarily convoluted for the purpose of ... what exactly?

As far as I know, the goal was to stop people from just always taking Loadout Design 3, Electronic Warfare 1, ...

I mean sure, but I think that goal failed then, as the "must always take" skills just got rearranged (ie. you will ALWAYS take navigation over sensors, special modifications over automated ships etc.) and some of the skills don't really make sense unless you have a specific use case in mind (ie. reliability engineering vs damage control - only time you don't take dc is when you want to pilot a ship with low cr/pot or SO, and even then I don't really think it's worth it). And I feel that making us pick between a useless and potentially useless skill (industry 1st pair) is the way to go either.

I'm not sure how much of this is true or just our gameplay inertia. I took special modifications too and its really not as good as advertised, at least for my mixed heavy guns and missiles fleet. Like sure, its good, but spending another story point on every ship is a huge commitment of points. +10 max vents is quite good, but mainly for smaller ships because its such a larger relative bonus. And for those smaller ships, unless its an officered ship that I'm committing story points too and has tons of free OP, it might not be a good idea to even put those points into vents. More vents needs more guns to use up that flux, which means more OP, and my small ships don't have 15 OP sitting around! I'm much more likely to do 12-14 vents on a non-officered, non-story point frigate just because thats a better build than 20, so the skill doesn't buy me much for those ships.

For officered frigates though with story points though, +10 vents is incredible, so I think this is a fleet interaction/playstyle thing: for me its not been that great a skill, but I can see how for others its really good.

I don't know how good automated ships is tbh because I haven't played with it yet, but I've seen some screenshots of people with swarms of remnant frigates with cores as officers. That would be insanely good for my current fleet if those contribute to nav and ecm, and I'm regretting taking special modifications!

Similarly, I took navigation over sensors. But then there were a whole bunch of sneaking missions early game, or story missions in triple red ping systems, or just planets that are tempting to raid, that just kicked my butt because my sensor profile wasn't good enough. I ended up installing the engine hitpoints hullmod just for the sensor bonus! My game would have been a lot easier with the sensors, and 10 burn to 9 isn't so bad. So while navigation is a good exploration and late game (slow ship) pick, I think next playthrough I'm taking sensors to let me do all those missions for easy money, raids, and dodging hostile fleets.

Quote

Quote from: SCC on April 02, 2021, 08:15:26 AM

Quote from: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 06:28:14 AM

This is not how a class system works.

I thought class system's point is to put optimal and suboptimal options together, so that players don't optimise the theme and possibly balance out of their class.

I thought it was the opposite; if you have one thing you're supposed to be good at why limit it? Spending points to buff the fleet means you don't buff yourself, like being a bard vs being a warrior. Why would giving the bard an attack speed skill be better for the class balance than just nerfing the other skills? And if you want to give the bard the ability to deal damage then why bother with a class system at all?

Also there are always going to be min-maxers, and balancing the game around them just makes it less fun for everyone else.

...

I think what SCC was getting at was more the depth of the skill trees being like a class, rather than the 2 options each level thing. To go back to bard vs warrior: imagine you could take 1 level in bard and get all the best buffing benefits, then take 1 level in warrior and have all the best warrior benefits. And then all the higher level stuff is kinda "meh". That wouldn't be all that great a class system in my opinion, and thats what the current skill system is trying to achieve (though it could use some tweaks for sure).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 02, 2021, 12:45:37 PM

@ Thaago:  30 DP is not a lot for Remnants.  This is enough for three Remnant frigates with cores or a Brilliant with a core.  That said, Radiant is still crazy strong, and one with a Beta core is about 49% CR max (without Fleet Logistics from Leadership), and it helped smack down a fleet lead by Odyssey that was wiping out my cruiser and destroyer fleet.

Player can put some Gamma cores to use with Automated Ships.

Lumens are good for fighting weaker things, and with cores, can have more PPT than unskilled destroyers.  I have used Lumens when I have thrown out my other frigates due to not enough PPT.

One problem with Automated Ships is behavior is locked to "Fearless", which is AI equivalent of reckless.

P.S.  If player wants to loot more AI ships bigger than a frigate, he cannot bring AI ships of his own without crashing CR or mothballing new acquisitions.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 02, 2021, 01:02:33 PM

Quote from: Thaago on April 02, 2021, 12:33:39 PM

I'm not sure how much of this is true or just our gameplay inertia. I took special modifications too and its really not as good as advertised, at least for my mixed heavy guns and missiles fleet. Like sure, its good, but spending another story point on every ship is a huge commitment of points.

This is why, at the end, I took Automated Ships instead of Special Modifications.  I know I will not play this game much beyond the end unlike in 0.9.1a, and I will need to hoard way too many Story Points to powerup my whole fleet, so why not have some fun with adding Remnant ships to my fleet and keep things easy (in terms of QoL)?

As for vents, ships are OP starved enough that they will not benefit enough from boosted maximums until I triple perma-mod the ships, which I refuse to do until I assemble my final fleet.  By then, the game will be over soon.  I do not want to perma-mod ships (yet) if it means I pay exorbitant restoration costs or wait ages for Field Repairs to remove d-mods from one or two ships.

P.S.  Also, I took Automated Ships because I can forget the skill, but Special Modifications cannot be forgotten.  Once I learn Special Modifications, I practically locked out of Automated Ships (because double-dipping an aptitude is too expensive).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 02, 2021, 01:03:00 PM

Quote from: TaLaR on April 02, 2021, 12:33:17 PM

Combat 8 would be the next candidate but C1R and C2R are painfully useless for ships that want full C3 (Conquest, Paragon, and to lesser degree Onslaught).

I didn't think about it until now, but combat tree changed the most for me, despite changing the least objectively. Previously, (https://fpdk.github.io/?s=0303132333405362718392x13001323314350607080x23031321334050x30001020304050) my optimal skill selection was neat 1/2 combat, 1/4 leadership, 1/4 tech. Now, what I would like the most would probably be 5/3/5/2 or 5/3/7/0*, shifting the weight way away from combat. It's mostly because skills are mostly exclusive. C1L I might want in a carrier, but I'll never want C1R in a warship. C2R is ok, but C2L, man. C3R is for Conquest and Paragon, C3L for everything else. C4L is for warships, C4R is for phase ships. C5R is for Gryphon and Falcon (P), C5L is for everything else. If I switch a ship, I can just respec, then respec back (though it isn't terribly likely).
(*cheese optimal is 0/4/5/4 with two remaining points spent on either looping around for tech or getting two colony skills)

Quote from: Thaago on April 02, 2021, 12:33:39 PM

I don't know how good automated ships is tbh because I haven't played with it yet, but I've seen some screenshots of people with swarms of remnant frigates with cores as officers. That would be insanely good for my current fleet if those contribute to nav and ecm, and I'm regretting taking special modifications!

Lugging around 15 glimmers with 5 d-mods just to get +120% ECM rating (15*(2+6)=15*8=120), while pretty funny to think of, I'm not sure would be optimal. It gives you +2% ECM rating for every DP, so it's pretty efficient, I guess.

Quote from: Megas on April 02, 2021, 12:45:37 PM

That said, Radiant is still crazy strong, and one with a Beta core is about 49% CR max (without Fleet Logistics from Leadership)

Do you have just that Radiant? I'm pretty sure one Radiant with an alpha core can have 60% max CR thanks to reliability engineering, so either you don't know reliability engineering gives +15% max CR, or you have some more automated ships.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 02, 2021, 01:06:45 PM

Quote from: SCC on April 02, 2021, 01:03:00 PM

Do you have just that Radiant? I'm pretty sure one Radiant with an alpha core can have 60% max CR thanks to reliability engineering, so either you don't know reliability engineering gives +15% max CR, or you have some more automated ships.

The core adds that skill.  CR would be even less if I did not use a core.  (I use a Beta core since I have not found an Alpha core yet, but the skills can be cherry-picked at will.)

Radiant is the only AI ship in my fleet.

Do you have Fleet Logistics that boosts your entire fleet?  I do not.  (I never will if I go 5/5/5 in Combat/Tech/Industry.)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 02, 2021, 01:08:07 PM

Ah! I see. I got used to just getting Crew Training by default.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: tseikk1 on April 02, 2021, 04:33:13 PM

@Thaago That might be what the system is trying to achieve, but it sure isn't succeeding. Right now it mixes the bard's and warrior's skills so that you can never be a good bard and never a good warrior, and in fact tries to make you play mage instead.

Skill placement in trees is just wrong. It's Choice 1: two bard skills. Choice 2: two warrior skills. Choice 3: two bard skills. Choice 4: really good mage skill and warrior skill. Choice 5: really good mage skill and bard skill.

It needs to be better. At the very least skills need to be rearranged into locations they better fit in. I'd love more playstyle-defining things like wolfpack and derelict contingent though.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 02, 2021, 05:38:48 PM

Fair enough, it could definitely use some adjustments!

What would you think of, for example, the industry mixing the tier 1 and tier 2 skills together so that a character could take combat as both I1 and I2, or take both salvage style skils as I1 and I2?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Okay on April 02, 2021, 07:58:35 PM

Quote from: SapphireSage on April 02, 2021, 11:39:18 AM

It feels like a lot of the main complaints with the new system is that you can't pick and choose and therefore min/max your skills as easily as you could in the previous version.

Actually, I feel like the issue is the exact opposite of this. If the goal of the new system was to make us have to weigh options more and min-max less, it's completely failed at that. This is why we're supposed to pick one of 2 paths right, making us have choices to make, have us consider our choices more, and have us decide on what we'd like to improve instead of having everything? It hasn't accomplished this at all, because I've never felt like I've had less choices to make.

There's been a lot of talk about skills balance and such but I'd like the tackle the problem with the new skill system in a different way.

The way things are were, if I was going to min-max and pick all the major "fleet buffs" I still had plenty of extra points to pick and choose other things with, I could have some but not all combat skills, or I could pick some industry stuff and still snag a small number of select combat skills, do I just pick lots of tier 1 combats? Of less but get 2s or 3s? Do I feel like getting the command points this run? etc. Actually a fair amount of variations between my games. Each point is fairly cheap so the trade-offs don't feel to bad. You're also choosing you know between, the industry skill, or extra tech skill, or combat skill you'd most like vs each other. Not "I have 1 points left, do I like the tier 1 combat, or the tier 1 industry more"? (It is less likely for there to be two trees that happen to have a pick you'd really want with your last point)

Now? Well if I think the officer skill are "worth" skipping 4 combats for, I definitely it's worth skipping 9 combat skills for, because the bonuses are multiplicative. (And the other skills literally don't matter). So now either I think officers are better than combat and I'm going 9L 5T (Of which really only T2 is "choice" to be made for me) and then I have a floater point which is "do you want one of the tier 1 combats/industry or get the 2nd t1 nav). Great. Literally 2 skill "choices" mostly because doubling up on a tree removes the choices from the tree.

If I don't think the officers are worth it? I'm 100% going 8combat, 5 tech. That leaves 2 points. My only real choice between games will be "Do I get double c5s, a t2 industry or double up on the t2 tech skill?" Great. One choice per game outside of the recurring which T2 I get.

With less points overall, dipping into industry or extra nav skill or whatever feels 10x worse than it used because the opportunity cost is so much higher. Now I actually feel compelled to min-max WAY more than I did before. It actually feels really bad. What about people that want to min-max industry or colonies? We do have them in this very thread. Well, if I'm going 10 industry and 5 Leadership, well my only real choice is which leadership keystone I'm getting, and L4R/L *maybe* L2/L3. That's it. Realistically looking at 2-3 choices again, wonderful. (If you go 10C 5I, it's better, the industry tree actually has the most interesting choices between them.)

All of this brings me to what I think the fundamental issue with the current skill system is: Being able to "wrap around" is a huge problem. If you're going to min-max, there's going to be one thing you care about above others, and it will take all your points to min-max that one thing, and when you do it, you also remove all the choices from the skill trees, because you're going down both sides! I think if the level cap was 20 and you couldn't double up, and even if there's some skills that I'd always take over the other, I'd see myself playing much different styles from game to game instead of being pushed down the same path every time. At which point, really all we'd need to do is balance the sides out to make choices harder. It's a lot easier to balance 2 skills against each other than pitting each skill against all of the other remaining ones. 20 levels and 20 choices would also eliminate "feeling bad" about wasted points on prerequisites for other skills.

The way things are I actually thing the best designed tree is industry, pretty much all the picks has some balanced choices and tradeoffs or unique game play opportunities the other other trees don't, too bad I feel like can't even really pick any of the skills in the tree at all.

Here is an example of what I would could be done to make the skills trees more about picking and less about min-maxing, or more like the current industry tree, keep in mind this assuming we wouldn't be without being able to double up on the trees, and all trees get filled out by the end. So "how good a tree is" isn't competing with a different tree.

Doctrine Tree
D1L: Hit and Run Tactics: 20% movement speed and 20% maneuverability to all ships
D1R: Electronics Expertise: 20% EW, +50 or +20% range to all PD. (Highest)

D2L: Fight fire with fire: ships gain 15% damage against ships of the same class. (fighters gain bonuses to fighters)
D2R: Punching down: Ships gain 15% to ships one tier lower than theirs. (Frigates gain bonuses to fighters, fighters and bombers gain bonuses to capitals)

D3L: More officers. (same or similar to current ones)
D3R: Better officers. (same or similar to current ones)

D4L: First-strike doctrine: 15% damage and 15% movement speed for the first 120 seconds of combat.
D4R: Battlefield Preparedness: +60 seconds peak operating time, -10% CR decay speed.

D5L: Strike Forces: Fighters and bombers gain 30% speed, 30% range and 15% damage and phase ships gain -30% flux generated by active phase cloak.
D5R: Balanced fleet tactics: +10% CR to all ships.

D6L: Offense first. 10% Damage, 10% faster fire rate, 10% less flux use for weapons.
D6R: Defense first. 10% Armor, 20% hull, -10% damage taken by shields.
The numbers might need to be tweaked but the choices would feel meaningful, would change the way you're playing the game and you might have some favorites but I'd expect things to change between runs. Most of all if one option is clearly stronger than another, it's a simple matter to tweak values in between the two of them instead of trying to balance out all skills against all other skills, because you're always picking one of the two skills each game. (Enemies could get this too, how deep down the tree based on their best officer. Different factions could have fixed paths down the trees or weighted ones which would also keep things balanced. Redacted or special fights could have "doubled up" skills on enemies)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on April 02, 2021, 10:53:17 PM

No matter where this conversation goes, the issue seems to come to be the same every time. The skills aren't -balanced-. I think they are more balanced then they were before but that's about it. Most of these can be minor tweaks and movement, which we could discuss all day, but There in lies the structure of the question. The system itself is excellent. Hell, the system was set to encourage building specialization by picking and choosing not to fill every single skill.

Example: Missile specialization doesn't feel worth it. Honestly, it comes off as the more general skill(almost every ships and build uses and benefits from missile upgrades, only a few builds would find systems improvements as more necessary). But, are both of them so good they deserve to be stop 5, in which getting both is a serious investment? I don't think so. In fact in technology the teir 1 thing gives far -far- more a boost on both sides than system specialty and AI ever does, especially with how strict the limits are right now. Why not put it to 4 and put the ECM and carrier specialties at slot 1?

I've said in this threat the suggested changes to a few and can go into it more over time, once I finish getting to late-game with this newer update and an experiment I'm doing. But I think the focus should be on this: What skills seem out of order, what late skills seem not worth investing getting both, and what skills seem to be borderline non-choices. We should also keep those discussions in mind between both the current variant with heavy fleet limits, and a variant which heavily unlocks those limits, as I suspect that is a key factor in this.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 03, 2021, 12:29:47 AM

In my opinion missile specialization is a bit of a deceiving skill because because its different parts have very different values depending on the ship and missile in question, and it heavily depends on how many missiles a ship has. Eagle, 22DP for 2 small missiles? Pass, its useless. Onslaught? Strongest combat skill in the game for it hands down. As a before/after example, take an Onslaught with 4 Annihilators and Expanded Missile Racks built in. Before the skill, it has 100 total seconds of fire time at 1600 DPS. After the skill, it has 100 total seconds of fire time at 2400 DPS with the missile stream having 2.25 times as many hitpoints.

The first part, 100% more ammo, is just nice for everything and equivalent to a fairly pricey hullmod, which it stacks with. For low capacity, high impact missiles like Harpoons, it pretty directly gives more dead enemy ships. On a Dominator for example, this gives 36 additional harpoons, which is good for probably on average 2 more dead cruisers as long as the Dominator isn't getting rolled over and popped before it can fire its ammunition. For a "missile as flux free DPS" like squalls or annihilators it just lets the missiles keep firing on more targets for an extra full reload. More missiles = more kills. But on something like a medium or large reaper launcher, its a lot less valuable because the AI usually doesn't fire the whole ammo count in a fight, especially if extended racks is built in with a story point.

50% more missile health helps missiles get to their target. Again, a good skill, though this has a higher impact on missiles that are attempting to hit functional targets rather than overloaded ones. Annihilators, reapers, squalls, sabots against ships with long range PD, they all benefit a lot from this skill. Harpoons a little less: its still great to not get shot down, but they are often flying at overloaded targets in vast bursts that would overwhelm nearby ship PD anyways.

The fire rate elite buff has the largest variable effect. On medium Harpoons? Well its not a bad thing to refire faster, but the condition that allows for a successful harpoon strike are probably over anyways (because the target is blown to a million pieces). It lets the ship be ready for the next kill faster if a new target presents itself, which is good but not groundbreaking. Reapers have a mid sized effect, because it allows for volley 2 while the target is still overloaded from the first volley... but thats usually the case anyways. Still, good.

But for "missiles as flux free DPS", or other continuous fire missiles like Hurricanes, its incredible. Its a 50% damage buff combined with a multiplicative 50% health buff, effectively. Onslaught with annihilators gets 1600 DPS to 2400 DPS (plus other bonuses if applicable). The effective hitpoints that the enemy PD has to deal with goes, when combined with the individual hitpoint buff, up 2.25 times the normal stream, which is just crazy.

System spec is similar: on some ships its just ok. Mobility systems get more mobile, but thats it. On systems that do damage: High energy focus, ammo feeder, mine strike, entropy amplifier, its a straight DPS upgrade. I'd need to calculate based on cooldowns so I can't tell the % off the top of my head, but 50% faster charge regen on high energy focus is a big upgrade.

[Edit] Also I forgot: the DPS upgrades from both of the skills (when they have them) are upgrades stemming from rate of use, not the raw numbers base, so they are multiplicative increases to damage rather than the usual additive increases to damage.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 03, 2021, 01:07:47 AM

Both C5 skills vary in usefulness, depending on what ship you fly. Paragon? Neither. Onslaught? Burn drive is useless in combat, so missiles it is. Odyssey? Missile Spec. Astral? Systems Expertise. Legion? MS. Dominator? MS. Eagle? SE. Aurora? MS. Doom? SE. Gryphon? MS (you can technically loop around and get both, but I don't think it's worth it). Only a couple of ships (Conquest, Mora, Champion) might want to get both. Officers get the upper hand here, since they can just get both C5 skills, without having to get all the other combat skills.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Serenitis on April 03, 2021, 01:45:32 AM

Quote from: sector_terror on April 02, 2021, 10:53:17 PM

What skills seem out of order, what late skills seem not worth investing getting both, and what skills seem to be borderline non-choices.

And what makes this process so difficult is this is going to be different for every single player.

The biggest problem is that gated skills in themselves are going to actively prevent some players doing what they want just because of how those skills are arranged within the system. And no matter how you arrange things, there will always be a hard block for someone.

I think someone might have mentioned it in another thread, but instead of having hard requirements for skills have number of skill points spent anywhere unlocking the next 'level' might be something to consider.
And you could then have a silimar thing for each 'level' in that you'd need to spend more points in that level before you could double up.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: tseikk1 on April 03, 2021, 02:19:28 AM

Quote from: Thaago on April 02, 2021, 05:38:48 PM

Fair enough, it could definitely use some adjustments!

What would you think of, for example, the industry mixing the tier 1 and tier 2 skills together so that a character could take combat as both I1 and I2, or take both salvage style skils as I1 and I2?

That would be better, yes, but first of all there would be some overlap of function, since both of those skills help in recovering the ship if destroyed, and second, i'd much rather just have flagship boosting skills as part of the combat tree.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bluevulture on April 03, 2021, 02:24:08 AM

I feel like story points could also be used to give more freedom - like if you want to unlock the second part of a pair you have to spend an (increasing) amount of SP. Let's say 4 SP for the first "full pair", 5 for second, etc., up to a limit. You'd still have to consider how you spend the points, but you at least don't have to spend 5 levels to to get that one full pair you may want.

Maybe this isn't the best idea, but I think SP could definitely be used more in the skill system, aside from the just making a skill elite (which isn't even on every skill? I don't know why).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 03, 2021, 02:59:21 AM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 03, 2021, 02:24:08 AM

Maybe this isn't the best idea, but I think SP could definitely be used more in the skill system, aside from the just making a skill elite (which isn't even on every skill? I don't know why).

Because leadership encourages you to spend story points on officers, technology - on ships, industry - on colonies, and combat is the only odd one out with no story point sinks.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 03, 2021, 05:02:08 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 03, 2021, 02:59:21 AM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 03, 2021, 02:24:08 AM

Maybe this isn't the best idea, but I think SP could definitely be used more in the skill system, aside from the just making a skill elite (which isn't even on every skill? I don't know why).

Because leadership encourages you to spend story points on officers, technology - on ships, industry - on colonies, and combat is the only odd one out with no story point sinks.

Combat is a story point sink if I want to respec my skills (especially after I elite some of them) frequently to exploit tier 5 if I change flagships often.  If I want Onslaught or... any ship that wants to use missiles today, I want Missile Specialization to make my missiles last longer (I am not elite-ing Missile.Spec. because I want my missiles to last).  If I swap to Doom or high-tech ship with mobility system with charges for the day, I want the Systems skill (unless high-tech ship needs Sabots, then probably Missile Spec.)  As for Paragon, I probably get Missile Spec. (and integrate Expanded Missile Racks) so that missiles may be useful option.  Then again, maybe better to not get Combat 5 and wraparound Tech or Industry for campaign bonus or QoL.

I agree Missile Spec. feels like the more general skill.  Most ships have missile mounts.  Also, missiles have too low ammo.  Having more ammo is great for all of them.  Also, it would be nice if the elite skill did not spend those missiles faster.  I want Missile Spec. mainly to make missiles a possible endurance option, and making it elite defeats the point of that.  There are probably more ships that benefit from more missiles than those that benefit from enhanced ship system.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 03, 2021, 05:44:57 AM

I don't like missiles on most player ships. A player ship is usually some sort of fast hyper-aggressive glass cannon, but is also meant to have high PPT to keep killing for a long time. Only phase frigates bypass PPT requirements, because swapping to next one is so fast and they are cheap enough to keep multiple of.
Missile ships run out of missiles long before PPT, only Locust-armed Conquest or Odyssey coming close. But both of these would also nicely benefit from system upgrade.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 03, 2021, 06:06:57 AM

They do not need to always last until end of PPT, just long enough for most of a fight, which double Locusts often do.  It would be nice if triple missiles enabled more missiles to last almost as long as double Locusts.

One of my complaints with Onslaught is Annihilator Pods running out too fast, but they need missiles to outgun the likes of Radiant.  Maybe with triple missiles, they might approach (if not match) double Locusts in endurance.

As for playership being a glass cannon, I do not always use them like that.  Early to mid-game, I use Apogee (starter), which is anything but.  Endgame, I plan to use a non-Odyssey capital.  That said, I have swapped from Apogee to Harbinger after I bought one late.  (I just recovered a Paragon from my last bounty fight, but I need to wait about a year or more for Field Repairs to turn that 4 d-mod clunker into a pristine ship.)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: FooF on April 03, 2021, 08:18:35 AM

I wanted to play around more before weighing in.

I like the new skill system. Every choice is impactful, though some choices are more impactful than others. I haven't put a single point into Industry in the 3 playthroughs I've had (and I need to) but they have not been competitive with my style of play.

For Combat: Switch Strike Commander and Missile Spec in the line-up. Make +100% Ammo the Elite choice and +50% Reload part of the base package

I'm not sure I like where Strike Commander and Missile Spec are. Honestly, I'd switch them. On the one hand, I don't think it should take a T5 skill to boost a player's carrier flagship but on the other, carrier skills are mostly global, not ship-specific. It would also make a carrier captain have to choose between better fighters or systems that boost fighters, which is a more interesting decision than missiles or ship systems. (On the other, it would make the T5 choice automatic for non-carrier ships). I have used the T5 Missile Spec on a missile-boat Aurora and had 72 Sabots to play with(!). I was raining them on everything but as nice as that was, I still respec'd out of it for Systems Expertise because 48 Sabots is still a lot and having mobility is paramount.

Missile Spec isn't a T5 skill. It's good, but as has been said, it is very hull-specific as to whether it is a huge boost or not. It is good, in general, and would probably be of greater benefit while ships are a small and missiles are relatively more important, thus I think it belongs in an earlier spot. My suggestion is to make the +100% ammo the elite skill and the 50% reload bonus as part of the base skill and put it in T1. Also, in a wrap-around scenario, T1 would be good just about no matter what, unlike current where Strike Commander literally has no benefit for a non-carrier ship.

For Leadership: I really don't have any strong feelings for/against anything.

Auxiliary Support feels like an early-game gimmick and I haven't tried it yet. Perhaps I should. Wolfpack Tactics have already been proven to be very effective but I haven't gone down that road yet.

The "% per DP/fighter bay" bonuses haven't really bit me on diminishing returns yet and I think for what they do, they're fine. T5 Colony skills are basically mutually exclusive so the choice between "more" or "better" is real.

For Technology: Gunnery Implants is broken. It gives enemy fleets a massive advantage due to superior officer numbers.

I know this is being addressed but I will join the chorus that the +6/3% ECM for Frigates/Destroyers is exacerbating the feeling that enemy fleets have a huge advantage due to officer number superiority.

What I don't like about Energy Weapons Mastery is that it is basically useful in the inverse of player progression. It's great early on when you have Shrike and can get in close but by late-game, if you have an Odyssey or Paragon, it has no bearing on your primary firepower and you'd rather have Ranged Specialization (which still isn't great because you still can't get the full bonus because Energy has lower ranges, in general). Large Energy strike weapons are in that no-man's land of not really benefiting from either EWS or Ranged Specialization by all that much.

Special Modifications vs. Automated Ships. A lot has been said about these two. I don't think Special Mods is all that game-breaking. 3 S-mods is great but I am using story points on tons of stuff and typically only put S-mods on my flagships. I'm not putting 3 s-mods on every ship in my fleet so the +1 isn't all that important. The +10 Vents/Caps is very nice, though. I haven't tried Automated Ships. It doesn't come into play until mid-game and even then, I don't think a Brilliant is worth a T5 point. The cap probably does need to be raised, though, just from looking at it and hearing feedback already.

Industry: Honestly, I haven't put a single point in because it's not my playstyle thus far. It hasn't been intra-competitive with the other trees (yet).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 03, 2021, 08:41:35 AM

Quote from: FooF on April 03, 2021, 08:18:35 AM

Industry: Honestly, I haven't put a single point in because it's not my playstyle thus far. It hasn't been intra-competitive with the other trees (yet).

Ah, it's all the other trees that aren't competitive. (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20227.0=) Heh.
Strike Commander's place is somewhat unfortunate, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be in the fifth tier, partially because it makes going for Missile Spec/Helmsmanship after getting Systems Expertise too good of a choice. Almost not a choice at all.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 03, 2021, 08:43:06 AM

Please no Elite for more ammo on Missile Spec.  More ammo is the selling point of Missile Spec for me because of battle endurance.  Making all of the good stuff elite means respeccing skills on the fly becomes more expensive.  I wish Elite Missile Spec made the missiles do more damage instead of spending missiles faster.

If players are expected to elite skills, then just make changing skills free since elite-ing them back will cost several SP.  I think someone else made the suggestion that once elite, always elite even if unlearned then relearned.  I like that suggestion better.

For much of the game, I have been eyeing on Industry because I want better colonies, and my current game will not last long enough to grind Ordos for lots of cores to sidestep colony limits.  Of the Industry skills I like, I want one of the tier 2 ones for guaranteed recovery and other bonuses (currently, I favor R for more PPT and max CR), and Field Repairs to try to keep ships pristine without reloading the game after every casualty.

Just wished Field Repairs either repaired d-mods faster and/or made Restore much cheaper.  If it did that, it would be the biggest QoL skill except maybe Navigation.  Currently, losses are painful.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sordid on April 03, 2021, 09:50:02 AM

Quote from: Megas on April 03, 2021, 08:43:06 AM

If players are expected to elite skills, then just make changing skills free since elite-ing them back will cost several SP.  I think someone else made the suggestion that once elite, always elite even if unlearned then relearned.  I like that suggestion better.

Or just give the frickin' story point back.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 03, 2021, 12:02:27 PM

Quote from: SCC on April 03, 2021, 08:41:35 AM

Ah, it's all the other trees that aren't competitive. (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20227.0=) Heh.

I take that back! (https://youtu.be/ma-xocWdZ6I?t=1) It's a shame soloing ordos with a Conquest is impossible now, though. It was harder than Doom. But also more boring, so I guess it evens out...

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on April 03, 2021, 01:21:40 PM

Quote from: Mordodrukow on March 27, 2021, 06:07:43 AM

2. All specs say, that "some skills can be made "elite"", but Leadership spec has no such skills at all (while Combat has elite options for all of it's skills).
    Also, since we will have 56 skill points just by getting 15 level, i ll concider "elite" upgrade as free (or something close to free...).

Where in the hell did you get 56 skill points just by getting level 15?  Is that a typo, or is that assuming a lot of respeccing?  Or did I miss something in the patch notes...?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: WeiTuLo on April 03, 2021, 05:04:07 PM

They probably meant story points.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Welp, guess it's my turn to write up a long feedback thing. Going to be focusing mostly on combat skills, with just a few addendums on things elsewhere that bother me.

Combat

• Tier one: This is pretty much a non-choice - you could pick up a skill that boosts all those strike craft your flagship doesn't have, or you take helmsmanship which is just generally useful to everything.
• Tier two: Point Defense is a really great skill, and was originally going to be my pick on this level. Unfortunately, with how super-tanky everything is in 0.95a, Target Analysis is basically mandatory.
• Tier three: Ranged Specialization is nice in theory, but really only applies to capital ships and sniper builds; Impact Mitigation is a much better early-game choice, and the extra armor durability remains useful for anything that's not an Apogee.
• Tier four: Is your flagship shielded or phasing? Did you want to experiment with trying to fly something with the wrong type of right-click system? Well that'll cost you four story points to do a temporary trial run. I'm not happy with this choice; actually cheated when I ended up at combat 8 at level 15 and just gave myself an extra skill point so I could have both.
• Tier five: The tier of niche-skills and disappointment. Both systems mastery and missile specialization are very hit-or-miss. Flying a Fury or a Champion or a Doom? Yes, systems mastery will be awesome for you! Flying a Legion XIV or a Pirate Falcon? Yes, missile specialization is great stuff! Flying a Paragon, or an Eagle, or the like? Well, uh, no, actually, neither of these skills are going to do anything you really care about.  I'd honestly skip both of them if I hadn't needed to pick one to be able to loop around and get Point Defense.

The combat skill category, I feel, shows the failure of the "specialized versus generalist" paradigm - what you actually end up with is a system that actively discourages experimentation, since so many of the skills are just absolutely useless for certain ships, and respeccing - while now actually a thing, yay - is expensive, especially for combat skills with their elite levels.

It's also a category where the limits feel artificially annoying - my officers can have, say, target analysis and point defense and shield modulation and systems expertise and missile specialization - without having to pick up literally every other combat skill along the way. And the 'prevent a new player from having to choose from seven different things' argument doesn't even hold up, because a mentored officer - an obvious early story point choice to make - will absolutely have exactly that to deal with.
...Edit: After much testing, huh, the officers are closer to the player's limits than I thought. Specifically, it doesn't look like you can get two choices from the same tier on the same officer unless said officer is level six or higher. Or an AI core. No wonder it feels like every officer out there has helmsmanship and exactly one of reliability-engineering/damage-control.

Still, assuming that we're not going to get a structural change to let us pick and choose whichever combat skills we like, here's my suggestion for a revised combat category:

• Tier one: Target Analysis versus Missile Specialization. The all-but-mandatory damage-boosting skill - up against the only skill that's worth even considering in place of it, since MS offers you access to that many more armor-cracking missiles.
• Tier two: Helmsmanship versus Point Defense. Do you want to dodge, or just shoot down incoming ordnance? A tricky choice, and one that's liable to be more dependent on playstyle than it is on the details of what ship, exactly, you're flying.
• Tier three: Impact Mitigation merged with Damage Control & mildly nerfed vs. a slightly buffed Systems Expertise.
  Right now we've got too many stacking benefits to armor/hull tanking, so stealing Damage Control from out of Industry is a good call. My suggested Impact Mitigation skill would be: -15% damage taken to armor & hull, -50% damage to weapons & engines, -50% crew lost due to hull damage in combat, 25% of hull and armor damage taken is repaired for free after combat. Elite Effect: +150 armor for damage reduction calculations, 50% faster in-combat repair of weapons and engines. In particular, and let me put this in bold, hull and armor repair after combat should not be an elite effect. Why? Because it's 100% player-facing; that free repair does not matter for AI-controlled fleets, so it should have an elite effect that actually makes a difference in combat.
  And for Systems Expertise, I'd just have it mug Reliability Engineering - add that 15% max CR in to Systems Expertise's elite effect, and come up with something for Industry that's not a personal-flagship-only skill level.
• Tier four: Field Modulation (Shield Modulation & Phase Mastery combined into a single skill) vs Ranged Specialization. Though Shield Modulation could use a slight nerf - I'd strip off the current elite effect, and move the 15% hard flux dissipation to the elite section. And also, while we're at it, buff ranged specialization - move the existing elite component into the base skill, and add a new elite component of "reduces ballistic weapon flux costs by 10%".
• Tier five: And we're out of existing skills, since Strike Commander really needs to be over in Leadership across from a version of Wolfpack Tactics that has an elite effect.  Hm, something new, something new... can't add more tanky, there's far too much of that already. Definitely could use something that offers the old Target Analysis effect of increased damage for armor penetration calculations. Though, honestly, I wouldn't mind combat only having four tiers - let you start looping around that much faster.

Other skills I care about:

• Carrier Group vs Crew Training: This one's a bad choice setup - you can get one skill that benefits your carriers, if you build them in a way that cares about replacement rate... or you can get the other skill that benefits your carriers no matter how they're built, and benefits the entire rest of the fleet too. I'd probably put Carrier Group across from Coordinated Maneuvers instead?
• Officer Training: Well I was originally planning on heading to leadership 4 to get this. Glad I didn't. By endgame I've been firing level six officers in order to make room for rescued level seven officers; do enough exploration and salvage and you just don't need this skill.
• Fighter Uplink: This is, uh, not actually a tech-themed skill? I mean, okay, the name is tech-themed, but the actual skill effect is a better fit for calling it "Ace Pilots" and putting it under leadership somewhere.
• Phase Corps vs. Flux Regulation: Another bad choice setup - even if you're going heavy on the phase ships, Flux Regulation is the better call. The only reason to go the other way is if you're having trouble with a covert deployment mission - and most of those you're better off just eating the rep loss for failing than spending multiple story points on a respec.
• Derelict Contingent and Auxiliary Support need to go; between them, they turn normally-weak pirates into obnoxious zombie ships that just keep coming while you fill them full of fire that really really should have been enough to take them down, y'know, a minute ago or more. Or, at the very least, Derelict Contingent should not be a skill that AI admirals can have - the fleets that are full of d-mods are supposed to be easier to fight than pristine fleets, not harder.

...Despite these complaints and concerns, I'd say that overall I like the direction the skill system is going. It's just... well... this is a very unpolished skill setup, full of rough edges and things that, I'm sure, will get better in future versions.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 04, 2021, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

or an Eagle, or the like? Well, uh, no, actually, neither of these skills are going to do anything you really care about.

Eagle and Conquest do benefit from reduced cooldown, since this means they effectively get more speed. Well, they benefit more than other ships with manjets, since they're the slowest two that use it.

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

The combat skill category, I feel, shows the failure of the "specialized versus generalist" paradigm - what you actually end up with is a system that actively discourages experimentation, since so many of the skills are just absolutely useless for certain ships, and respeccing - while now actually a thing, yay - is expensive, especially for combat skills with their elite levels.

Respecing doesn't remove elites from old skills, so switching back isn't as expensive. I felt differently about combat: respecing might be worth it, but it depends on how long will you switch ships to benefit from respecing. Or rather, it will almost never be worth it, so you're discouraged from switching ship from one that fits your skills to one that doesn't.

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Tier one: Target Analysis versus Missile Specialization. The all-but-mandatory damage-boosting skill - up against the only skill that's worth even considering in place of it, since MS offers you access to that many more armor-cracking missiles.

I'd say that puitting Missile Specialisation right on the bottom is taking it too far. MS is really good and I'd say the other choice would be a choice only if you don't like missiles or plan on flying ships like Eagle or Paragon, where you just don't rely on missiles in any way in the first place.

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Tier two: Helmsmanship versus Point Defense. Do you want to dodge, or just shoot down incoming ordnance? A tricky choice, and one that's liable to be more dependent on playstyle than it is on the details of what ship, exactly, you're flying.

Helmsmanship was initially put against Strike Commander, so that a carrier could either be fast or hard hitting, but considering that carriers have been nerfed and there's like 2,5 (counting PD as 0,5) skills that benefit carriers, it might not be so bad.

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

And for Systems Expertise, I'd just have it mug Reliability Engineering - add that 15% max CR in to Systems Expertise's elite effect, and come up with something for Industry that's not a personal-flagship-only skill level.

Buffing Systems Expertise elite to do more than nearly nothing would be neat. It's probably the only combat skill I would never elite.

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Carrier Group vs Crew Training: This one's a bad choice setup - you can get one skill that benefits your carriers, if you build them in a way that cares about replacement rate... or you can get the other skill that benefits your carriers no matter how they're built, and benefits the entire rest of the fleet too. I'd probably put Carrier Group across from Coordinated Maneuvers instead?

Crew Training's benefit to carriers is very minimal.

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Phase Corps vs. Flux Regulation: Another bad choice setup - even if you're going heavy on the phase ships, Flux Regulation is the better call. The only reason to go the other way is if you're having trouble with a covert deployment mission - and most of those you're better off just eating the rep loss for failing than spending multiple story points on a respec.

Phase Corps is a pretty good skill for phase ships, especially if you're double-dipping into tech, since it means you get to spend nearly twice as much time in phase. It's a very good build... Because Doom is very good and it buffs it a lot.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 12:30:12 PM

Quote from: SCC on April 04, 2021, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

or an Eagle, or the like? Well, uh, no, actually, neither of these skills are going to do anything you really care about.

Eagle and Conquest do benefit from reduced cooldown, since this means they effectively get more speed. Well, they benefit more than other ships with manjets, since they're the slowest two that use it.

Yeah, there's technically some benefit from Systems Expertise here. Just like technically the ships I listed do all have a few small missile slots and get technically some benefit from Missile Specialization. It's just not very much benefit and not really worth a skill point.

Quote from: SCC on April 04, 2021, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Tier one: Target Analysis versus Missile Specialization. The all-but-mandatory damage-boosting skill - up against the only skill that's worth even considering in place of it, since MS offers you access to that many more armor-cracking missiles.

I'd say that puitting Missile Specialisation right on the bottom is taking it too far. MS is really good and I'd say the other choice would be a choice only if you don't like missiles or plan on flying ships like Eagle or Paragon, where you just don't rely on missiles in any way in the first place.

MS is useful, but compared to a constant 15 to 20% damage buff against the ships that are actually hard targets? That applies to everything you have, including your missiles? MS is competitive, but only clearly superior for really missile-heavy ships. Plus, I think having MS at the front of the combat tree is a good idea - it's a good skill for an inexperienced player to have early-game, when they don't yet have a good feel for when to use missiles to best effect and are likely to waste a decent fraction of their limited ammunition.

Quote from: SCC on April 04, 2021, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Carrier Group vs Crew Training: This one's a bad choice setup - you can get one skill that benefits your carriers, if you build them in a way that cares about replacement rate... or you can get the other skill that benefits your carriers no matter how they're built, and benefits the entire rest of the fleet too. I'd probably put Carrier Group across from Coordinated Maneuvers instead?

Crew Training's benefit to carriers is very minimal.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but doesn't the high max CR benefit carry through to fighters, making Crew Training an (up to) 5% bonus to fighter speed, damage dealt, and durability? There are carrier setups where the boost to replacement rate is more valuable... but that's certainly not all carrier setups.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 04, 2021, 12:37:05 PM

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 12:30:12 PM

...

Quote from: SCC on April 04, 2021, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 11:31:01 AM

Tier one: Target Analysis versus Missile Specialization. The all-but-mandatory damage-boosting skill - up against the only skill that's worth even considering in place of it, since MS offers you access to that many more armor-cracking missiles.

I'd say that puitting Missile Specialisation right on the bottom is taking it too far. MS is really good and I'd say the other choice would be a choice only if you don't like missiles or plan on flying ships like Eagle or Paragon, where you just don't rely on missiles in any way in the first place.

MS is useful, but compared to a constant 15 to 20% damage buff against the ships that are actually hard targets? That applies to everything you have, including your missiles? MS is competitive, but only clearly superior for really missile-heavy ships. Plus, I think having MS at the front of the combat tree is a good idea - it's a good skill for an inexperienced player to have early-game, when they don't yet have a good feel for when to use missiles to best effect and are likely to waste a decent fraction of their limited ammunition.

...

I feel like this is tricky, because on the one hand yes, 10-20% more damage is the good general choice, but on the other hand missile specialization on ships that specialize in missiles is really good. On the other hand, energy weapon mastery is better and similarly specialized towards energy ships, so maybe its ok to have it as a 1st pick skill.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Wyvern on April 04, 2021, 12:39:27 PM

Quote from: SCC on April 04, 2021, 12:13:41 PM

Respecing doesn't remove elites from old skills, so switching back isn't as expensive. I felt differently about combat: respecing might be worth it, but it depends on how long will you switch ships to benefit from respecing. Or rather, it will almost never be worth it, so you're discouraged from switching ship from one that fits your skills to one that doesn't.

Just went and tested this in game: and yes, respeccing does remove the elite tag from skills.  I'd be of the opinion that it probably shouldn't.

(It won't remove the elite tag until you actually commit to the changes, though, so maybe that's what you were seeing?)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Chaos Blade on April 04, 2021, 12:55:52 PM

I don't know if I like the new skill system.
On one hand it seems more streamlined, less levels and less small incremental improvements. I am ambivalent about this but it might make playing easier or more accesible
On the other, some of the choices seem a tad random.
I've seen a lot of post about this and agree, by and large

I like the idea of binary choices, they seem significant, but they should be more organic, I think it is the word?
I feel a lot of the skills in the back end of each aptitude tree are, to me, more interesting or necessary to my play stile than the ones at the front and that, in many cases, I might go down a tree to get what I want, going thru things I am ambivalent about.
So, instead of progressing it ends up feeling like I am wasting skill points here or there that in no way seem to provide foundation or justification to the ones I want. the end result is that it feels way more artificial than it should and, this is without considering some of the skills that seem to be in the aptitude branch just because or in a mismatched choice

So, either we should have a free access to the binary skill options, maybe a tiered approach (with some skills being "basic" and others "advanced" that would need having some basic skills in the corresponding aptitude) or some other mechanic should be in place

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 04, 2021, 01:21:11 PM

Tier 4 and 5 Combat are annoying, because I will want to swap skills depending on the flagship I use for the day.  I do not want to be married to a single flagship all game.  (This is what I did not like about carrier skills last release.)  The story point cost discourages respec, especially if player already elite'd skills or worse, got one of the permanent skills.

For general use, I would want Missile Spec just to have missiles last longer in a fight, and I would not elite the skill because I do not want to shoot most of them all at once.  I do not care much about any other of the bonuses from Missile Spec., although I will take them.  I just want more missiles.

Quote

Officer Training: Well I was originally planning on heading to leadership 4 to get this. Glad I didn't. By endgame I've been firing level six officers in order to make room for rescued level seven officers; do enough exploration and salvage and you just don't need this skill.

I got one just from looting a random encounter derelict in hyperspace.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 04, 2021, 01:30:35 PM

Quote from: Megas on April 04, 2021, 01:21:11 PM

Tier 4 and 5 Combat are annoying, because I will want to swap skills depending on the flagship I use for the day.  I do not want to be married to a single flagship all game.  (This is what I did not like about carrier skills last release.)  The story point cost discourages respec, especially if player already elite'd skills or worse, got one of the permanent skills.

For general use, I would want Missile Spec just to have missiles last longer in a fight, and I would not elite the skill because I do not want to shoot most of them all at once.  I do not care much about any other of the bonuses from Missile Spec., although I will take them.  I just want more missiles.

...

In terms of respeccing: the story point cost (1) is so low that I don't see it being a hindrance now that story points are coming faster in the upper levels. There's basically a story point every other fight. Adding a new non-support ship costs 2-3 story points anyways, so an occasional respec is just too minor for me to care about. Maybe if I wanted to specialize to a new flagship for every fight? That would be annoying.

I don't really understand the logic of not eliting missiles... more fired missiles is both more dead enemy ships faster and more damage total done by missiles, because less missiles are shot down. Its true that the missiles run out faster, but thats because they are killing enemies faster. Unless the fleet strategy is to win by CR attrition (possible), there's no reason to save missiles.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 04, 2021, 01:42:35 PM

@ Thaago:  If no skills are elite, then one story point cost may be okay.  The problem is player will probably grab several skills that can and will be made elite, and then the respec cost jumps up.

I want missiles spread out against all enemies, not focused against fewer enemies then nothing left against the rest.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 04, 2021, 01:48:50 PM

Yeah. When you click to respec in the skills screen, the game tricks you into thinking that elited skills stay elite, even if you don't have them, when you actually will have to elite them again upon respecing for them again.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Chaos Blade on April 04, 2021, 02:43:15 PM

The more I think about it, the less this skill scheme seems to be working as it should.

The problem with binary skills is that, well, folks will play the hell out of this game and a few obsessive enough might be able to work out which choices work best, making binary choices less ideal.
I mean they'd need to be more gameplay style enforcing but at the same time, some skills with rather niche applications (strike craft/phase) oppose more generalist skills (I mean, no player is going to be running a mainly carrier or mostly phase fleet, my experience with either is limited, though I've had far more carriers and battle carriers than phase ships, that while a pest or pain to dealth with, seem to need far more control and skill than what I have atm)

So, I think this needs serious rework, try to put the potential playstyle paradigms on paper and then work on how to skill for those and see what can be branching. And even then, still have some skill options rather than and or
I honestly think the aptitudes need a basic and advanced distinction, for instance the basic Industry skills could be all about trader vs scavenger and the advanced ones mostly colony variations (tall or wide, perhaps?)
Combat is a bit more iffy, because there are a few options (though it is my less invested skill since I have officers for that) but maybe offence/defence, bruiser/sniper or some other dichotomy could workbut there are quite a few options as well weightclass of the ship, type or primary armaments
Leadership should be quality or quantity, that is to say better bonuses to officers or less impresive bonueses spread out (alternatively more lower level officers or fewer high level ones)

Tech could let us favor Phase vs Carrier while also adding in flux regulation but I am less certain

One idea is that some skills in the binary option could have a primary/secondary.
Take the idea of industry with trade / scavenging the first skill could give better cargo space and better deals for trade (tariff reduction?) while scavenging could give us more salvage and better fuel efficiency
So what if the better trade skill would net us tarif reductions, more cargo space and a minor fuel efficiency bonus, while the scavenging one could give us more (better?) salvage and fuel efficiency whith a minor bonus in cargo space?
That option could let the player get a bonus on their playstile but still get something from the other side of the aisle that could make up for not picking up one of the binary options.

Take the first Tech skills, one gives us better navigation and the other better sensors, both seem useful and both give nav skills that are useful, so have them both offer that to the player, both skills are given but you either get an emphasis on navigation or an emphasis in Sensors (so instead of forcing you to pick one and tryng to see if you can wrap around to get the other, you can choose your emhpasis while getting a bit of both)

I am still of a mind that some skills shouldn't be binary picks and more be skills to be picked, specially if there is no real viable vs or no reason for a skill to be so up the afinity tree just to maintain the paired approach

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Serenitis on April 04, 2021, 03:19:59 PM

The more I play the game, the less I like the skill system.
It's a bit on the restrictive side, and I feel like I have less ability to actually 'do' things than I would at a similar stage in 091.

I don't think the binary choices are nescessarily bad, in principle.
It's just the combination of binary and sequential choices which is really making it awkward.

Maybe if you could pick one skill from any pair without restriction, but could only double-up if you also picked something else from the same column?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 04, 2021, 03:42:31 PM

Quote from: Thaago on April 04, 2021, 01:30:35 PM

...now that story points are coming faster in the upper levels.

If they really come that fast, then hoarding points to feed geometric growth of colony improvement seems like a viable option.  (I) Better hoard those points for colony improvement instead of wasting them for respec-ing and other frivolous uses, since I want my souped-up real estate.

While I may like having powerful ships, I also want super colonies too!

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Jet Black on April 04, 2021, 04:11:19 PM

The new system is great. I love it. But I think the biggest reason people are upset is because it doesn't have enough diversity to cater to different play styles. Instead of two choices per skill we need 3. There are simply not enough choices to please every play style.

Bump the level cap or just make xp required scale exponentially while giving out story points at the same pace as level 15 or so. Lets face it, hitting the level cap quickly in a long game feels bad.

The story points are genius. The elite skills are genius. Making the skills all feel more juicy... genius. Side note, building mods into ships was also pure genius. With so many player buffs we might need ai buffs lol.

Played the new version for about two days now. It feels like bigger fleets and bigger ships have very little representation in the skills. While smaller ships have loads. Same with carrier, missile, etc. It is definitely making the players feel shoehorned into specific ways to play. It also makes the devs job or choosing what goes where even harder because the spots are so limited. So a putting three skills into every tier WILL fix a ton of problems.

Maybe we need a skill tree with colony only. Some skills don't feel like they are in the right tree?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Okay on April 04, 2021, 11:05:27 PM

The Colony skills feel insanely bad. Every single other skill in the game gives you a bonus you can't get any other way. Fleet bonus, bonuses to ship you are piloting, or even something like burn speed from a tug skill stacks with your skills, or let you go without the ship in the first place. On the other hand, alpha core are better administrators than you . (Unless you know, you spend 15points to do something they can do equally well, and then you are only "as good" as them. Except they bypass colony cap too, so they are still better!) You could also compare the skills to administrator costs. It's bad. Normal administrators aren't that expensive.

And these skills that farmable items do straight up better? "Capstone" skills. Colony skills feel like something with story points, not skill points if they were elite bonuses on top of actual skill then I could see myself wanting them, that's pretty much what they are worth. Ironically story points are straight up better at improving colonies than the skills are, and by a large margin at that.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on April 04, 2021, 11:11:13 PM

Okay that is fair, but it only applies to leadership5, extra industry productions and extra 2 colonies is insane.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bluevulture on April 05, 2021, 02:52:37 AM

Quote from: Serenitis on April 04, 2021, 03:19:59 PM

Maybe if you could pick one skill from any pair without restriction, but could only double-up if you also picked something else from the same column?

That kinda returns us to the old system, just without the explicit leveling of separate trees. Which I don't think would be bad, I liked that more open way of selecting your skills.

The new system is just too cramped. Too few skills, too many restrictions. The idea of specialisation isn't inherently bad, but with soooo many different playstyles for every single tree, it just feels like there aren't enough "general" buffs, that can nudge you into a direction, but instead just kinda rail-roads you with extremely specific buffs, and then the limits on those buffs do that again.

I don't mind choices, just, you know, give me enough of them to last me an entire playthrough, without having to respec every 5min (which I think has become sort of a crutch for this new system).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 05, 2021, 02:57:47 AM

New system forces you to specialize hard (even Afflictor and Doom have somewhat different optimal builds...so yeah, it's really narrow), and stay that way (because reassigning elite-skills is extremely expensive)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on April 05, 2021, 03:28:51 AM

Quote from: Jet Black on April 04, 2021, 04:11:19 PM

Bump the level cap or just make xp required scale exponentially while giving out story points at the same pace as level 15 or so. Lets face it, hitting the level cap quickly in a long game feels bad.

Nailhead, meet hammer.  Like seriously, I'm only lazily like 10 months into a 0.95 game and already like level 11 or 12 (I'm assuming that if I were really playing instead of lazily waiting for a balance pass, would have already been level 15).  Like seriously, why bother with the ole college try when the ole community college try is already freely available?  Plus, the only hard cap in life is death; everything else is a soft cap of some varying difficulty.  Why should an abstracted video game be any different?  But philosophical (and maybe coding choice) differences aside, adding an arbitrarily low level cap essentially seems like an excuse to require constant respeccing instead of forcing a player to have to even occasionally make hard choices rather than tediously swapping back and forth.  Can't tell if this is kowtowing to whining or a purposeful time sink to allow players to not have to restart the game a bunch to relearn the new skill system and more quickly optimize a player's preferred elite skills.  Either way, it really grinds my gears.

Quote from: Jet Black on April 04, 2021, 04:11:19 PM

The story points are genius. The elite skills are genius. Making the skills all feel more juicy... genius. Side note, building mods into ships was also pure genius.

We are all entitled to our own opinion, so calling much of this genius is your prerogative.  But only allowing for non-standard permanent mods to ONLY be added via story points seems less genius than a purposeful choice to create a story point sink.  If the game also allowed for the addition of non-standard permanent mods for some prohibitively high monetary cost (ie, like 5 or 10 million per SINGLE additional mod), then no longer just story points in search of a use, but rather a legitimate choice between blowing a crazy ass wad of cash or a potentially more valuable story point.  Moreover, since player colonies are now capped at size 6, colony cash has been somewhat restricted (although since industry availability per colony size has changed and story points/lewt can now improve industries, haven't yet had much opportunity to really push limits of colony income; so maybe like 15-20 million per mod instead).

Quote from: SCC on April 04, 2021, 01:48:50 PM

Yeah. When you click to respec in the skills screen, the game tricks you into thinking that elited skills stay elite, even if you don't have them, when you actually will have to elite them again upon respecing for them again.

Oh, yeah, just up and forgot that elite piloting skill while running a colony on a gas giant, let me respec back real quick before we go blow up the second Death Star...

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: KDR_11k on April 05, 2021, 04:17:50 AM

Automated Ships just feels too much like "go big or go home" to me, an automated battleship is a huge presence on the battlefield but if you use anything smaller you get like a frigate and a destroyer with basic AI cores.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 05, 2021, 04:28:01 AM

Quote from: KDR_11k on April 05, 2021, 04:17:50 AM

Automated Ships just feels too much like "go big or go home" to me, an automated battleship is a huge presence on the battlefield but if you use anything smaller you get like a frigate and a destroyer with basic AI cores.

While true late, if player is still playing early game when he gets Automated ships, having three or so Lumens are useful, especially when they have more PPT than unskilled destroyers.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: speeder on April 05, 2021, 04:38:14 AM

Quote from: Jet Black on April 04, 2021, 04:11:19 PM

The new system is great. I love it. But I think the biggest reason people are upset is because it doesn't have enough diversity to cater to different play styles. Instead of two choices per skill we need 3. There are simply not enough choices to please every play style.

As I said earlier this is NOT the problem, or the solution.

The problem is that often the choices are between skills you want BOTH, because the whole tier is relevant to your playstyle, meanwhile other tier is totally irrelevant and you want neither.

The least Alex needs to do is move around the skills so their progression make more sense, for example you should be able to get both tier 1 industry skills without spending 6 points.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 05, 2021, 04:51:21 AM

What I really want from Industry are Reliability Engineering (for +CR/PPT), Field Repairs (free d-mod removal), and both colony skills (if I do not have time to farm alpha cores or deal with drawbacks).  Bulk Transport and the fuel skill are convenient, though.  Bulk Transport means I can remove Militarized Subsystems (which blocks the +1 burn from Bulk Transport) with Surveying Equipment for all of my sub-capital transports.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Chaos Blade on April 05, 2021, 07:45:23 AM

Quote from: speeder on April 05, 2021, 04:38:14 AM

Quote from: Jet Black on April 04, 2021, 04:11:19 PM

The new system is great. I love it. But I think the biggest reason people are upset is because it doesn't have enough diversity to cater to different play styles. Instead of two choices per skill we need 3. There are simply not enough choices to please every play style.

As I said earlier this is NOT the problem, or the solution.

The problem is that often the choices are between skills you want BOTH, because the whole tier is relevant to your playstyle, meanwhile other tier is totally irrelevant and you want neither.
that should ease up a lot of the issues I am feeling from the character progression, that and some hard caps on bonuses (either hard caps or less effect over, seriously derelict contingent is too OP and feels a bit counterproductive to make scrap heaps to be more combat capable than prisite vessels, at the very least they should ameliorate a bit the high D of some hulls, but I am not sure that is even a good idea, from a story perspective, or from a game balance, given how expensive is to restore a ship, on the same page I think the field repairs should also be gone, dmods removal should be a thing, but it also feels a bit cheap it should cost something)

The least Alex needs to do is move around the skills so their progression make more sense, for example you should be able to get both tier 1 industry skills without spending 6 points.

One solution there is to make the skills less a and/or and more one of emphasis, that is to say you have to bonuses, one to salvage and one to cargo, so one skill puts primary emphasis in salvage and a secondary bonus to cargo and the other does the opposite.

Won't work on all picks, mostly because some picks are apples or oranges type situation.
But I think some of that AND maybe less skill progression (some skills are at odd places in the aptitude "tree") maybe have basic skills (freely accessible) and advanced skills (only accessible if you have 2/3 aptitude points, that is to say you have 2/3 skills in the same aptitude) we might also get rid of some of the OR choices, specially those that are apple and oranges

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Amoebka on April 05, 2021, 07:54:15 AM

Well, I dislike the new skill system for the exact reason I expected. There's no good choices in it. Most of the time it's a "choice" between something I never wanted anyway (carriers, phase ships) and something that's a very minor benefit I don't really care about. On one hand it's working as intended, since different players might have different ideas about what they never want, but for an individual player there's little choice.

A lot of the time it's choosing between two options NEITHER of which I want just to get to the higher levels.

And looping around is very much not a thing. Can't loop around leadership and industry without wasting a skill point on colonies, can't loop around tech without wasting a skill on sensors, can't loop around combat because the only tiers where you want both are 2 and 5.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Jet Black on April 05, 2021, 01:49:08 PM

Quote from: Amoebka on April 05, 2021, 07:54:15 AM

Well, I dislike the new skill system for the exact reason I expected. There's no good choices in it. Most of the time it's a "choice" between something I never wanted anyway (carriers, phase ships) and something that's a very minor benefit I don't really care about. On one hand it's working as intended, since different players might have different ideas about what they never want, but for an individual player there's little choice.

A lot of the time it's choosing between two options NEITHER of which I want just to get to the higher levels.

And looping around is very much not a thing. Can't loop around leadership and industry without wasting a skill point on colonies, can't loop around tech without wasting a skill on sensors, can't loop around combat because the only tiers where you want both are 2 and 5.

I agree, which is why I proposed that there be three choices per tier instead of two. The main problem everyone seems to be having is the lack of choices.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: speeder on April 05, 2021, 02:20:34 PM

The problem is not lack of choices.

It is choices in WRONG place.

Many places people want BOTH, many places people want NEITHER, this means that the progression is out of order.

Adding three choices won't fix it.

Most of the skills are already useful to someone, but they are often in places that make no sense for that someone.

For example: the 2 stability bonus skill for governors... that is also tier 5 leadership... So a guy that want to focus on industry is screwed, he can only take that skill if he never take any tech or combat skill, ever.

Or the missile skill, that requires you to take all other combat skills that might be irrelevant to missiles.

Adding more "choices" wont fix this, if the 2 stability remain tier 5 leadership you still have to waste 4 points in leadership tree to get it, doesn't matter if you are choosing between 2 or 3 skills each tier.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 05, 2021, 04:07:54 PM

Worst part of Leadership if going to 5 for colony power is both Leadership 4 skills are permanent skills that cannot be unlearned.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: JUDGE! slowpersun on April 05, 2021, 04:25:49 PM

Quote from: Megas on April 05, 2021, 04:07:54 PM

Worst part of Leadership if going to 5 for colony power is both Leadership 4 skills are permanent skills that cannot be unlearned.

Honestly, it seems the ideal solution does seem to be separating all permanent choice skills from respeccing sequence skills.  So like you can only choose something permanent while looping around a sequence or something, but the permanent skills aren't tied to a specific tree, or maybe tied to tree but not binary (this is intended as an example of a potential change, not an actual suggestion.  Definitely not my best idea).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bluevulture on April 05, 2021, 10:22:12 PM

Removing the sequential requirement from each "tree" and giving more choices would be a pretty good change I feel like. Would have to find another way to unlock all skills for a given choice, but with SP, that shouldn't be that difficult. I mean, we already use a huge amount on colonies, why not skills as well?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Chaos Blade on April 06, 2021, 03:24:38 AM

Quote from: bluevulture on April 05, 2021, 10:22:12 PM

Removing the sequential requirement from each "tree" and giving more choices would be a pretty good change I feel like. Would have to find another way to unlock all skills for a given choice, but with SP, that shouldn't be that difficult. I mean, we already use a huge amount on colonies, why not skills as well?

Yeah, removing the "progression"  requirement for a lot skills seems like a good idea atm, mostly because there doesn't seem to be a progression, just skills that are latter in the aptitude tree.

I could see making two distinct type of skills in the tree: basic, that are open to everybody and andvanceed, that only become an option once you have N skills in the tree (at least one skill in tree? + lvl requirement? or some other scheme)

But yeah the other isssue is that some skill duos are apples and oranges, and seem to be in the tree because they needed to be somewhere and might as well...
So, the trees need rework, serious rework, because atm they really don't do what Alex seems to have intended not even close

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:28:54 AM

felt like adding my thoughts on the matter, now i havent read the whole thread so bear with me.

I saw mention about how skills at a certain tier are either both wanted or not wanted at all, well if they are both wanted, than this is indeed a very meaningful choice which is certainly the intention and so is working as designed. I honestly dont see any skill where i wouldnt want either of them.

The only two combat skills that i believe should be swapped with each-other are ranged specialization and shield mastery. a choice between shields and phase are always non complementary and dont need to be at same tier. Whilst impact mitigation is a low tech choice and so would benefit from the extra range choice at the next tier.

Other than that, looking at the other skill groups, the choice is real folks. You can even respec to a certain extent for the low low cost of a single story point. temporary re-specialisation is a thing now.

May i suggest, that you add a 'choice-lite' to the industry top skills and leadership top? By this i mean an elite version for an s-point that provides a diluted version of the other choice as a bonus? E.g. Industrial planning adds an extra adminitstrator slot and so on. This concept could indeed be applied to some other skills missing an elite option.

The aim is 'meaningful choices within a framework' and not 'god emperor cultivation' the skill trees arent preventing anything, you can still play in exactly the method you used to but you are going to have to compromise on a few things.

edit: little SPAG

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Destructively Phased on April 06, 2021, 04:32:20 AM

Part of my issue with the skill system is that of the specialisation "fields", only combat has a cohesive theme: better player ship performance.

The other 3 don't. Command offers a wide range of buffs, affecting combat converted civilian ships, frigates, carriers, officers, colony bonuses and ground operations.

Technology offers strategic layer improvements (speed and sensors), individual ship performance gains and outfitting benefits.

Industry offers cargo, salvage, individual ship benefits, supply/fuel consumption reductions, D-mod nullfication/benefits and colony bonuses.

Technology is okay, if a little scatter shot right now, but the other two are just all over the place with the benefits they offer. Add in the mandatory loop through if you want to get 2 perks on a tier and I don't feel specialised anymore. In command you have to pick up the combat conversion of civilian ships perk. In industry, you have to pickup both D-mod skills, that cancel each other out.

This might be okay if there were more fields added, the two worst offenders in the scattershot problem (command and industry) are also the areas that have gained the most skills over the versions, hence that might be why they feel more scattered in their offerings than combat and techology. Maybe some of this issue could be alleviated with an "Exploration" tree that takes skills such as navigation, sensors, better salvage, supply and fuel reduction and other skills are reshuffled around to a field that better matches them (combat converted civilian ships being a prime example).

But right now, Command, Technology and Industry don't feel like they build a character who is a specialist. They build a generalist character under the label of "specialist".

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 06, 2021, 04:40:22 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:28:54 AM

The only two combat skills that i believe should be swapped with each-other are ranged specialization and shield mastery. a choice between shields and phase are always non complimentary and dont need to be at same tier. Whilst impact mitigation is a low tech choice and so would benefit from the extra range choice at the next tier.

AI will always over-use shield on armored ships, so even for Onslaught shield is the better pick.
On the other hand pick between ranged spec and phase is a pick between 2 useless skills for anything non-phase and smaller than a cruisers - overwhelming majority of DEs and frigates don't have enough range to benefit from Ranged Specialization.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:51:19 AM

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the combat route only apply to the player ships? If so then the AI wont be a factor?

Yeah i considered that, but the alternative would be to jump another lower skill to a higher tier. And if you arent going to be piloting a phase ship at least the elite RS skill is useful in piloting frig/dest. Incidentally, theres nothing stopping you flying cruisers/caps and theres nothing else in the combat tree that explicitly conflicts with ranged specialisation. Do you have an alternative?

Edit: i had a thought, swap shields with energy weapon mastery in technology and plonk it next to ranged. boom.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 06, 2021, 05:14:49 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:51:19 AM

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the combat route only apply to the player ships? If so then the AI wont be a factor?

Officers are offered skills in pairs, too. Officers have to choose between, for example, Target Analysis and Point Defence, and can't get the other skill (unless they're level 6 or 7, but I'm not sure how it works in that case).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 06, 2021, 05:14:49 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:51:19 AM

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the combat route only apply to the player ships? If so then the AI wont be a factor?

Officers are offered skills in pairs, too. Officers have to choose between, for example, Target Analysis and Point Defence, and can't get the other skill (unless they're level 6 or 7, but I'm not sure how it works in that case).

Well, yeah. As was mentioned they are better with shields, so id pick shields.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 06, 2021, 05:19:43 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:51:19 AM

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the combat route only apply to the player ships? If so then the AI wont be a factor?

Yeah i considered that, but the alternative would be to jump another lower skill to a higher tier. And if you arent going to be piloting a phase ship at least the elite RS skill is useful in piloting frig/dest. Incidentally, theres nothing stopping you flying cruisers/caps and theres nothing else in the combat tree that explicitly conflicts with ranged specialisation. Do you have an alternative?

Edit: i had a thought, swap shields with energy weapon mastery in technology and plonk it next to ranged. boom.

It seems to apply at least partially.

The only frigate to benefit at least a bit from RS is Grav/Tacs Wolf. And it's a joke for anything other than harassing starter pirates or killing fighters.
A DE could get a partial bonus at best (Hammerhead with Mauler/HVD).

I'd prefer to just remove mutually exclusive choices. Swapping EWM from t2 to c4 and replacing it with shield mastery forces every high tech ship larger than a frigate go for Tech 7 to be useful, since they need both GI and shields. At least Tech 7 is the most viable double-dip in whole skill-tree.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 05:27:55 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on April 06, 2021, 05:19:43 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:51:19 AM

Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the combat route only apply to the player ships? If so then the AI wont be a factor?

Yeah i considered that, but the alternative would be to jump another lower skill to a higher tier. And if you arent going to be piloting a phase ship at least the elite RS skill is useful in piloting frig/dest. Incidentally, theres nothing stopping you flying cruisers/caps and theres nothing else in the combat tree that explicitly conflicts with ranged specialisation. Do you have an alternative?

Edit: i had a thought, swap shields with energy weapon mastery in technology and plonk it next to ranged. boom.

It seems to apply at least partially.

The only frigate to benefit at least a bit from RS is Grav/Tacs Wolf. And it's a joke for anything other than harassing starter pirates or killing fighters.
A DE could get a partial bonus at best (Hammerhead with Mauler/HVD).

I'd prefer to just remove mutually exclusive choices. Swapping EWM from t2 to c4 and replacing it with shield mastery forces every high tech ship larger than a frigate go for Tech 7 to be useful, since they need both GI and shields. At least Tech 7 is the most viable double-dip in whole skill-tree.

apologies but i respectfully disagree, i myself play with EWM, and i have my frigate flying friends with it also. My officers that are flying destroyers and up have gunnery. If you are taking Gunnery, you want ranged weapon expertise. if you are short ranged you want to be tankier, whilst with the range buff and damage buff of Gunnery and ranged weapon you dont need tanky.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 06, 2021, 06:15:10 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 04:28:54 AM

Other than that, looking at the other skill groups, the choice is real folks. You can even respec to a certain extent for the low low cost of a single story point. temporary re-specialisation is a thing now.

Not true after player makes several skills elite, and it is a safe bet that any skill that can be made elite will be elite.

Respec is expensive after skills are made elite, and if player changes flagships, he may need a different skill configuration.

Quote from: bluevulture on April 05, 2021, 10:22:12 PM

Removing the sequential requirement from each "tree" and giving more choices would be a pretty good change I feel like. Would have to find another way to unlock all skills for a given choice, but with SP, that shouldn't be that difficult. I mean, we already use a huge amount on colonies, why not skills as well?

Given the geometric growth of colony improvement costs for each structure (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 2^n) per colony, player will need all the points he can get for improving colonies.  Then, up 2 or 3 times how much ships the player wants in his final fleet, plus more for possible replacement ships.

Geometric growth on colonies is insane.  Should be like s-mods for ships, or the cost growth less extreme.  I know I will hoard story points for colonies and ships, and maybe a respec or two.  (Also, officers, but they get +100% xp after use.)  Anything else that does not give +100% xp does not matter.

There should not be anymore sinks for story points.  The ones we already have are excessive.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: speeder on April 06, 2021, 06:32:14 AM

Another option instead of shufflign the skills around could be if Alex insists on tiers, to have each tier require some amount of X points previously, doesn't matter where.

So industry tier 3 for example can accept you buying tier 1 and 2, or tier 1 twice.

This could help, a little. (it wouldn't fix for example the issues with colony skills being all tier 5)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 06:58:39 AM

I think we already have loads of story points. I mean, these are EXTRA things. i comfortably reached a hegemony smashing end-ironman-game fleet and had 10 story points in hand. There is an infinite amount of story points available to acquire, so yeah, i argue we do indeed need more story point sinks. These are meant to be 'valuable choice fulcrums' after all. No elite skills are actually required and the only combat skill i personally used till the end game was helmsmanship at which point i shifted ALL my skills in industry into combat (stared long and hard at reliability engineering). Of course, i only have MY experience and approach to share, but you guys also only have your own too.

In my fleet, id only build in s-mods into ships that i would prioritize, the fleet centrepoint (eg. odyssey) my flag ship (varies but that fury is ****hot at the moment) and maybe a couple favourites (FEERSUM ENDJINN, have i mentioned her?) and everything else in the fleet is 'disposable screen shipping' to cover retreats or act as ablative shielding in fleet actions. IF you treat every ship as a special ship, then thats a lot of special ships dead and a lot of story points wasted.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: ValDeez on April 06, 2021, 07:13:32 AM

It has probably been suggested before, but could the gamers have the option to keep unlocking skills by using story points after the skill points have been depleted. For example 10 story points for every 1st extra skill in that skill tree, 15 for 2nd, 20 for 3rd, and so on. Or maybe 10 for 1st, 20 for 2nd, and so on.

I love having 3 built in mods on my ships, but somewhere down the line I would also like to put my AI cores to good use and have my AI fleet terrorizing the Luddites (Luddics?).

I mean it would take an awesome amount of grinding, but it can be done, if the gamers choose to do so.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 07:17:24 AM

Hello Valdeez, welcome to the forum.

Ive not seen that and its a good idea and i like it, but i dont see how thats not mechanically similar to just increasing the level cap?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: ValDeez on April 06, 2021, 08:21:42 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 07:17:24 AM

Hello Valdeez, welcome to the forum.

Ive not seen that and its a good idea and i like it, but i dont see how thats not mechanically similar to just increasing the level cap?

Sure it is, but on a 10-20-30 scale it would take 550 story points to fill up your skill tree instead 10 skill points. On a normal playthrough it wouldn't be sensible, but still possible if the gamers chose to do so.

I assume the level cap and the 15 skill points was calculated with certain purpose (ie that's how Starsector is meant to be played) by the devs and that way the skill points would still retain their value compared to story points, while the freedom to unlock every skill would still be theoretically possible, but impractical.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Dex on April 06, 2021, 08:26:24 AM

Well i like the idea of more story point sinks, im in.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SonnaBanana on April 06, 2021, 08:52:17 AM

I know it depends much on the exact details but would it be better if the skills sets were 3x4 (with a raised level cap) instead of the current 2x5?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on April 07, 2021, 06:28:37 PM

Updated my starting post after playing some time (around 80% of one playthrough, i guess... seen everything but colony management).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Drazhya on April 08, 2021, 02:14:42 AM

I'm getting the strong feeling that there should be a minimum on the scaling skills. Bulk Transport is a good example here. +50% Cargo Capacity divided by current cargo capacity divided by 2000 is not a bonus that scales with the size of your fleet, it's a flat +1000 cargo capacity if you meet the minimum requirement of 2000 base cargo capacity. If you're a big transport fleet with 20000 cargo capacity, you don't care about this skill, it's +5%. If you're a big-time trader that wants to carry a lot of cargo, spending your level-up on the skill that lets you carry more cargo is not very helpful.

I like that the skills scale with fleet size - or more precisely, I like that they mean a small, elite force is more elite than a big, fat fleet. I like that I can take Weapon Drills, and if I'm a little fleet, I get a big bonus. But they need to not scale into nothing. Currently, that skill would give me +2%. It's a joke.

More specifically, what I want is for the bonuses to be upped a bit, maybe 20-50% (so Weapon Drills would cap at +12-15% fleet damage) and have a minimum of around one-half to one-third of that (so it would bottom-out at +4-7.5%). So a big fleet commander would actually want the fleet commander skills, and a big merchant fleet would care about the added cargo skill, and also a small fleet can get bigger bonuses.

(I also think that combat skills should give bigger bonuses to pilots in smaller ships. NOT huge bonuses, because that would make them really aggravating to fight, but like, an additional +5% top speed on helmsmanship when piloting a destroyer or frigate, something like that.)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sotanaht on April 08, 2021, 03:27:29 AM

Quote from: Dex on April 06, 2021, 07:17:24 AM

Hello Valdeez, welcome to the forum.

Ive not seen that and its a good idea and i like it, but i dont see how thats not mechanically similar to just increasing the level cap?

Increasing the level cap also makes story points harder to earn.  The XP per level keeps increasing, so the higher your level, the more XP it takes to earn a story point.  I'm also pretty sure that there are things in the game that scale off of character level, maybe bounty fleets? 



My impressions on the system:  Too few points, I don't like the scaling, and I don't like being forced to spend those extremely few points on useless skills to progress the tree.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Euripides on April 08, 2021, 05:02:49 AM

I don't really like the skill system, and I didn't really like the one before either. It's there and works I guess but I don't care for it. There's not many meaningful choices, especially with being locked into one tree. I don't really like most of the skills either. Too many stat++ skills like extra damage or range that don't meaningfully change how you play. Free hullmod for learning a skill is kind of neat I guess, but the hullmods aren't unique so you aren't actually getting anything interesting out of it. Most of the time I already had the hullmod learned by the time I unlocked the skill that gave me the hull mod. Just pointless.

Story points on the other hand are really nice, but they are also very limited. I see often that I can spend story points for extra cash and xp on a mission for example, but I absolutely NEVER spend a story point on these things because 1 story point = 1 free hull mod on a ship which is easily worth 300k+ credits in rough value estimate, maybe even upwards of 800k. Meanwhile when spent on a mission reward its like +30k credits. Dinky. Don't want. Lame style of bonus anyway. Better would be RNG lootbox roll for using a story point and maybe getting some really interesting tech, blueprint, whatever that is much more rare and hard to acquire than $15k+ credits would be.

The story points for s-mods is very nice because it fundamentally changed how my ships works in a big way. There's a lot of ships I've never used safety override on for example, simply because the OP cost was hugely prohibitive and prevented the ship from being useful. Many of the hullmods beforehand were simply too expensive to bother with, they might've been nice but I'm not sacrificing half my firepower just to add an ECM module or make the ship turn 50% faster. Now I'm sometimes using these lesser hull mods because the really important practically mandatory ones like integrated targeting unit get built in and I now have the OP to spare on fun small ones.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Malignity. on April 19, 2021, 04:19:33 PM

personally i liked the old system better now its very hard to get even just 3 of the 4 colony nodes at the same which extremly limits what you can do with your colonies. i dont like that you have to pick every alternative node in a tree to grab the second tier 5... overkill! have to spend 4 skillpoints on nodes i dont really want just for that one node i actually do want

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Nameless on April 19, 2021, 04:27:47 PM

I feel like the old system is more versatile while the new one encourages extreme min/maxing.

The new one also makes officers a lot more boring.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 19, 2021, 04:44:23 PM

The old tree was nearly the definition of minmax: you could maximize the advantage of one aspect by taking every single skill related to that aspect and stack them all together, with minimal cost (only aptitude points from cross aptitude combos made it not a pure minmax system, but those were a lot less onerous than the current structure).

For all that there are quite a few tweaks needed, and probably 1 or 2 skills reworked entirely, the new system does not allow that maximization for so little cost. It doesn't let players hyper-specialize without 'dead points' in 'bad skills', both because of the looping requirement and having potentially amazing skill combos share the same tier. (And a lot of player complaints come from the fact that they can no longer take every skill they want for their playstyle all at the same time). For all the valid critiques of the new system, including how restrictive it is, its not a minmax one.

Quote from: Malignity. on April 19, 2021, 04:19:33 PM

personally i liked the old system better now its very hard to get even just 3 of the 4 colony nodes at the same which extremly limits what you can do with your colonies. i dont like that you have to pick every alternative node in a tree to grab the second tier 5... overkill! have to spend 4 skillpoints on nodes i dont really want just for that one node i actually do want

Like this for example: Malignity wants to maximize their colony skills for minimal cost. In the old system thats easy; in this system its impossible and pretty costly just to get to 3. Thats not great for players that want to stack all colony skills, but its a pretty clear example of a NON minmax system where maximizing a certain path is impossible/very costly.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 06:09:50 PM

To be honest, the old system and the new system are not that far apart in terms of selection mechanics.  You have skill trees of sequential skills, along with gate keeping selections (i.e. aptitude points).

The old system was 31 trees 3 deep each, along with 4 "dead" trees which were just gate keepers (the aptitudes).  You were given 52 skill points by the end, which was nearly exactly half of the maximum expenditure (52/105 = 49.5%).  Your selection was restricted a fair bit.  For example, you only got to pick at most 15 tier 3 skills.  You couldn't pick 31 tier 3 skills and ignore lower tiers for example.

The new system is 8 trees 5 deep each, or 4 trees 10 deep depending on how you look at it.  We're given 15 skills out of 40, or 37.5% of all possible selections.  Here, you can have at most 3 out of 8 tier 5 skills (still same 37.5% ratio).  So there's more I can see it but I can't have it going on.

I'm guessing most people probably didn't think of them as trees simply because they had so many points and the trees were very tightly coupled in theme, but you didn't have to go all 3 points into them if you didn't want them.  On runs where I was using a high tech shield ship, I often only went 1 deep in Evasive maneuvering, for example. 

In the old system, the "wasted points" at most were 5.  3 for the aptitude, and 2 for the previous 2 tiers assuming you wanted only the 3rd.  So in the absolute worst case, you "wasted" 10% of your skill point allocation (5/52) to get a 3rd tier cap stone skill grabbing a single skill from an aptitude.  However, as noted the trees were much more thematic and tightly coupled, so if you wanted the 3rd tier, it was very likely the 1st and 2nd tier were helping your play style so it was unlikely all 5 points would feel wasted.  Similarly, the aptitudes were very broad gate keepers, being required for 6 skills at a minimum for each point spent.

The biggest issue it sounds like (and having played with it for 3 weeks), is the trees are no longer so tightly coupled in theme.  If you're looking to improve your fleet skills, you are forced to take colony skills for some reason.  If you're looking to be a master of industry, you need to take fleet skills for some reason. The previous version didn't have that.  Colony skills were in their own dedicated 3 deep trees.  Although arguably the best design had colony skills plus fleet skills (Fleet logistics).  In the presence of a respec, it means those types of skill still have reason to be  kept once you've earned enough credits or got your colonies up and running.  As it is now, optimal play if you choose to grab industry skills, is use them until you're established, and then respec them away because after a certain point, even more credits becomes pointless.

So comparing those wasted points to the new system, depending on play style, you might have up to 4 points that you don't care about to get a tier 5 capstone that literally has nothing to do with all the skill that came before it (i.e. the fleet trees).  4 out of 15 is 26%.  It's much more noticable.

It's also very easy to see that difference between play styles.  The colony master type player is taking benefits that perhaps don't benefit their high credit lifestyle.  They can afford to build masses of capitals and assorted weapons, but are taking a bunch of skills which don't scale with those big ships.  They'd likely much prefer personal skills at the point but can't branch out from their primary goal of giant space empire.

On the other hand, the flagship focused pilot player can double the combat tree and grab 5 down the tech tree and literally be losing out on a bonus from Phase Mastery.  14 out of 15 skill points selected can help those ships.  Alternatively, go combat 8, tech 7 and have 100% benefiting those ships.

Personally, I don't see why colony skills are considered tier 5 worthy in the first place.  Doubly so for the ones in the fleet tree.  How is +25% colony fleet size and +30% access on a colony you potentially don't even have better than an extra skill buffing all your ships with officers? 

Tier 5 combat is in a good place (or in the case of phase ships, too good of a place.  Systems mastery turns ships with good systems into crazy good ships (Doom and other phase ships, mobility system ships), or offers a huge buff to missile type ships.  You can be much more liberal with missile use in that case, and flux free weapons are strong already.  The tier 5 tech skills open up an entirely new class of ship or just boosts everything by more than the old Loadout design did, which can make things like missile/carriers actually work well.

But leadership tier 5 and industry 5 aren't nearly as game changing.  Colonies currently are designed to be profitable without skills.  I just checked one of my saved games with 3 colonies (size 6), and just removed all the AI cores (administrator and boosting individual industries), and found my monthly colony income dropped from about 700k to 300k.  Admittedly that is with all the new exploration goodies still in place.  After a certain point, more credits just start piling up and don't do anything more.  Not to mention commissions are a potential +95k passive income as well.

I mean, I could see colony skills being capstones if you couldn't have colonies at all without a specific skill, or let your colonies continue to earn credits with the rest of the core systems in flaming ruins - but otherwise, that kind of scaling just doesn't feel compelling to me.  It strikes me as more roleplay than gameplay change.  I'd almost suggest all colony skill be sequential in the industry tree, make it the right half or something.  I'd also combine them with fleet benefits, like the old logistics skill did, to give you a reason not to respec out of it once you've got your colonies running fine.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 06:09:50 PM

The colony master type player ...
Personally, I don't see why colony skills are considered tier 5 worthy in the first place.  Doubly so for the ones in the fleet tree.  How is +25% colony fleet size and +30% access on a colony you potentially don't even have better than an extra skill buffing all your ships with officers?

Just wanted to comment on this real quick: they're there because they're out of the way. The "real" top-tier skills are in L4 and I4. I don't think "colony master" is really a thing; there's only 4 skills total that have to do with colonies. And as you say, colonies are profitable without skills. You can pick a few skills there if you want them, but you're not obligated to in order to get the good skills in I/L (unless you're planning to wrap).

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing. Incidentally - I'm now remembering - this is also why it felt reasonably alright to have Field Repairs and Derelict Contingent be contradictory, since the difference between I8 and I10 is basically just a "boring" colony skill.

So, to repeat, colony skills are in tier 5 so that you mostly don't have to pick them if you don't want to. And in some cases they have some non-colony bonuses so e.g. if you're wrapping Leadership, you can at least pick Ground Operations that boosts your fleet in some way.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 19, 2021, 06:35:37 PM

So far I have not wrapped, though I can see doing so for tech or combat and just "waste" one point. Though a few ships (legion or odyssey really) really like C1R anyways, as would a carrier.

However, it seems a lot of complaints are very focused about wrapping and see contradictory elements or "wasted" points as indicative of design failure. The "expectation" of the system for them seems to be that wrapping is the preferred way to play a character who wants to do those things, rather than an option for hyper specialization that comes with a high cost, which is what my "expectation" is.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: IonDragonX on April 19, 2021, 07:25:22 PM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Just wanted to comment on this real quick: they're there because they're out of the way. The "real" top-tier skills are in L4 and I4. I don't think "colony master" is really a thing;

I guess that enough players want to have it allowed just because they used to have it. It only took 9/51 points to get all the Industry you needed for it in 0.91.

As for me, if I want to be the "Scrap it all & sell it back in the Core worlds" kind of character, then I want I1L, I1R, I3L, I3R, and I4L! I1s complement each other because you carry a lot & find a lot. I3s provide endurance for deep space travel, a survival skill, remote survey & cheaper ruin exploration. I4L allows better derelicts that I recover & free fixes since I'm away from core for months at a time. I don't really want I2s or I5s. So I guess "space scrapper" is just skill blocked anyways? Tough luck, that's too bad?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SonnaBanana on April 19, 2021, 07:36:38 PM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"?

Plenty of people play with increased max level so a lot?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Alex on April 19, 2021, 07:43:07 PM

@IonDragonX: I fundamentally disagree with the premise that you must be able to pick every skill that could benefit a playstyle for that playstyle to be "supported". That's kind of like... say someone looked at the Path of Exile skill tree and said "well, you can't pick up every +Life node, so I guess you can't make a tanky character" or thereabouts.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Wyvern on April 19, 2021, 08:03:04 PM

For the record, I end up wrapping skills just about every time. All three of Combat/Leadership/Tech have a tier two selection where I really really want both.

For combat, it's Target Analysis that's basically mandatory if you're planning on shooting things that have armor, and Point Defense that I just really personally like having - especially the elite version; there are some PD guns that, imo, just don't work without that.

For Leadership, level two is a choice between one skill that buffs frigate packs, or a different skill that buffs frigate packs, and if you're going to use one it's probably worth trying to get both. (Though, admittedly, that's with L1R being very nearly a dead skill unless you're exploiting s-modding packages and then stripping militarization.)

For Tech, well, I like energy weapon mastery... but even for things that get good use of that, the extra range often makes the difference between something getting away with a sliver of health, or dying to that one last shot as it flees. Getting both is good; it helps that going for tech 7 really does not have any 'dead' levels at all.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: IonDragonX on April 19, 2021, 08:07:01 PM

@Alex: Sure Alex, its your game. Make the fundamentals what you want them to be. You've been clear that the skill tree is not about classes and is not about getting all the skill picks that the player wants. (C'mon man, I did say want not must be able) I don't understand the PoE reference but that's ok, you made your point.
If Industry has "real" top-tier skills (as you say) which aren't in the literal top-tier, 5th, then what's the reason to keep Colony skills in Industry or even in the skill tree? Why not just throw them out and allow Story Points/gameplay elements imitate the benefits? Mercantile contacts might give the buff to output at the end of a successful contract or for SP investment. Military contacts might contract with your Shipworks to provide the +50%, etc

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Alex on April 19, 2021, 08:11:14 PM

@Wyvern: Ah, that makes sense! (I did say "wrapping", but what I was thinking was "a full 10 points" - though the same thoughts/concerns apply to a lower >5 investment, just to a lesser degree.)

Quote from: IonDragonX on April 19, 2021, 07:25:22 PM

So I guess "space scrapper" is just skill blocked anyways? Tough luck, that's too bad?

Quote from: IonDragonX on April 19, 2021, 08:07:01 PM

(C'mon man, I did say want not must be able)

(Just for clarify, that's what I was referring to. It sounded like you felt that not being able to get all those skills made the playstyle be invalidated; apologies if I misinterpreted what you meant.)

Quote from: IonDragonX on April 19, 2021, 07:25:22 PM

If Industry has "real" top-tier skills (as you say) which aren't in the literal top-tier, 5th, then what's the reason to keep Colony skills in Industry or even in the skill tree? Why not just throw them out and allow Story Points/gameplay elements imitate the benefits? Mercantile contacts might give the buff to output at the end of a successful contract or for SP investment. Military contacts might contract with your Shipworks to provide the +50%, etc

Honestly, that's fair. But it doesn't necessarily feel like it'd necessarily be *better* - a different, but also viable way to go? And admins get colony skills, so it'd be kind of weird if you couldn't get those but they existed, etc etc...

Edit: you know, the more I think about this, the more I like it. Admins don't really *need* skills (taking another step back, do admins even need to exist?); Alpha Cores could still give you a bonus and feel more special, and there'd be more room to do cool things in both the Leadership and the Industry trees, without the colony skills both taking up space and causing awkwardness by their very existence. Hmm.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Histidine on April 19, 2021, 08:25:37 PM

I haven't wrapped in either of my two complete playthroughs, because after going wide (some points in every aptitude) I've used up all 15 of my skill points. In each playthrough, I've reached tier 5 in only one aptitude (tech first time, combat the second).

Quick thought on colony skills: I expect they'll be dead points for non-roleplayers as long as alpha admins are relatively abundant and safe to use.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Alex on April 19, 2021, 08:29:17 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 19, 2021, 08:25:37 PM

Quick thought on colony skills: I expect they'll be dead points for non-roleplayers as long as alpha admins are relatively abundant and safe to use.

(Yep - though in theory Alpha Core admins should get some actual real downsides at some point... Aside from inspections.)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SonnaBanana on April 19, 2021, 08:31:40 PM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 08:29:17 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 19, 2021, 08:25:37 PM

Quick thought on colony skills: I expect they'll be dead points for non-roleplayers as long as alpha admins are relatively abundant and safe to use.

(Yep - though in theory Alpha Core admins should get some actual real downsides at some point... Aside from inspections.)

And also an expensive skill to remove the downsides  :P
Or is it a job for story points?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: IonDragonX on April 19, 2021, 08:43:29 PM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 08:11:14 PM

@Wyvern: Ah, that makes sense! (I did say "wrapping", but what I was thinking was "a full 10 points" - though the same thoughts/concerns apply to a lower >5 investment, just to a lesser degree.)

One thing that I would like to 'feel better' are choices over the 5th skill point (ie starting the same category again). You go from always having 2 choices to only having 1. That 'feels' pretty bad. It would really be nice if players had the choice between 2 again.
Ex: player already takes C1R,C2R,C3R,C4R&C5R
* 6th point > can be spent on C1L or C2L
* 7th > C3L or C4L
* 8th > C5L or a remainder
* 9th > remainder * 2
* 10th > finale

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 08:49:45 PM

Edit: This thread is moving fast.

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 06:09:50 PM

The colony master type player ...
Personally, I don't see why colony skills are considered tier 5 worthy in the first place.  Doubly so for the ones in the fleet tree.  How is +25% colony fleet size and +30% access on a colony you potentially don't even have better than an extra skill buffing all your ships with officers?

Just wanted to comment on this real quick: they're there because they're out of the way. The "real" top-tier skills are in L4 and I4. I don't think "colony master" is really a thing; there's only 4 skills total that have to do with colonies. And as you say, colonies are profitable without skills. You can pick a few skills there if you want them, but you're not obligated to in order to get the good skills in I/L (unless you're planning to wrap).

Huh, I hadn't considered that angle.  Now that you say it that way, I can see how that design decision to put them at tier 5 came to be.  From my personal player perspective though, that is very non-intuitive and probably why I had not considered it before.

To me, the UI and mechanics seem to be telling me the further right you go, the more powerful or impact they have on a play style they are.  This seems to be true for tiers 1-4, and tiers 5 in the combat and technology trees.  Like, if I had come into the game without any Starsector experience, but experience in other games with skill tree like things, I would naturally assume the skills at the end of the tree are the most bang for your skill point, and that colonies in some way need these skills to be really, really good.  I'm hard pressed to think of another game where skills are put at the end of the tree in order to be out of the way, as opposed to something to look forward to more than earlier skills.

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing. Incidentally - I'm now remembering - this is also why it felt reasonably alright to have Field Repairs and Derelict Contingent be contradictory, since the difference between I8 and I10 is basically just a "boring" colony skill.

Just to throw out more data points for you, I've had 3 iron man runs go to what I consider end game.  I went 8 points into combat and 7 into technology on my 1st run.  I wrapped the technology tree completely (all 10 points in technology) on my 2nd run.  3rd run I was a gimmick run, trying double shieldless Radiant, so that was a very specific requirement of L3, T5, and I4, so didn't lend itself to too much wrapping.

So, out of my games, 1/3 have had a tree wrapped 100% with all 10 skills in one tree - which was one of the wrap friendly trees, Technology.  2/3 had some form of wrapping.

I'm currently tempted to try combat 10, tech 5 on an Odyssey, or potentially a C7, T5, L3 with a Legion as end game flagship.

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

So, to repeat, colony skills are in tier 5 so that you mostly don't have to pick them if you don't want to. And in some cases they have some non-colony bonuses so e.g. if you're wrapping Leadership, you can at least pick Ground Operations that boosts your fleet in some way.

Fair enough.  I haven't been picking them, but I the two trees which are more wrap friendly have been more attractive to me personally.  I haven't been doing any heavy raiding for blueprints and the like, just enough for bar missions so the Ground Operations hasn't been much of a draw either.  I suppose I should try a wrapped leadership (frigate madness) run to see how it plays before commenting further.

I will admit, on my 3rd run using I1L and I3L, that the triple fuel range (1.5 x 2) on a frigate fleet plus 2 Radiants is kinda awesome.  I'm literally using a single dram, and my 178 DP worth of combat ships can basically go from my home system (14 LY from to Askonia) to any star in the sector and back.  And I stick damage control or reliability engineering on my officers fairly early, as they're solid skills as well.

Derelict contingent - well, you're aware of issues. :)  Personally, hull tanking feels a little too much like a gimmick, and without the faster repair skill/free repair skill in the opposite skill, somewhat lacking.  Waiting 10-12 days after a rough fight with the shield shunt radiants sets the combat cadence.  I miss d-mod specialized fleets combined with the fast repair and 20-40% CR recovery if they get truly destroyed and recovered.

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 08:29:17 PM

(Yep - though in theory Alpha Core admins should get some actual real downsides at some point... Aside from inspections.)

This I totally agree with.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Alex on April 19, 2021, 09:12:28 PM

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 08:49:45 PM

Huh, I hadn't considered that angle.  Now that you say it that way, I can see how that design decision to put them at tier 5 came to be.  From my personal player perspective though, that is very non-intuitive and probably why I had not considered it before.

To me, the UI and mechanics seem to be telling me the further right you go, the more powerful or impact they have on a play style they are.  This seems to be true for tiers 1-4, and tiers 5 in the combat and technology trees.  Like, if I had come into the game without any Starsector experience, but experience in other games with skill tree like things, I would naturally assume the skills at the end of the tree are the most bang for your skill point, and that colonies in some way need these skills to be really, really good.  I'm hard pressed to think of another game where skills are put at the end of the tree in order to be out of the way, as opposed to something to look forward to more than earlier skills.

Makes sense! Thank you (and everyone else) for the feedback re: your experience with wrapping, too.

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 08:49:45 PM

Derelict contingent - well, you're aware of issues. :)  Personally, hull tanking feels a little too much like a gimmick, and without the faster repair skill/free repair skill in the opposite skill, somewhat lacking.  Waiting 10-12 days after a rough fight with the shield shunt radiants sets the combat cadence.  I miss d-mod specialized fleets combined with the fast repair and 20-40% CR recovery if they get truly destroyed and recovered.

Yep! FWIW, for .1 I'd like to have it go back to roughly how it worked before as far as junkfleets go. The new DC was a bit of an experiment, and it's not looking like it worked out.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 19, 2021, 09:35:46 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 19, 2021, 08:25:37 PM

I haven't wrapped in either of my two complete playthroughs, because after going wide (some points in every aptitude) I've used up all 15 of my skill points. In each playthrough, I've reached tier 5 in only one aptitude (tech first time, combat the second).

Quick thought on colony skills: I expect they'll be dead points for non-roleplayers as long as alpha admins are relatively abundant and safe to use.

As someone roleplaying a Hegemony wannabe faction with no alpha core admins, I'm still not taking them because my colonies make plenty of money without. Early game money savers/makers I'm happy with because they help me grow faster and do more missions, but I feel like by the time I have enough colonies to warrant colony skills, I don't need the money anymore. I'd be happy to see them go, especially as a lot of their effects have been folded into some other game mechanics. The + accessibility skill and ground defenses are colony items. Increased production is story points and items again. Stability is story points (starting to get expensive though). Really the only thing left is more colonies/admins, but at present thats what alpha cores do.

Without those on top I could see wrapping leadership and industry: wrapped leadership would be amazing for a wide frigate + carrier fleet (L1R would be a bit weird but maybe I'd bring along an Atlast Mk II just to take advantage of it? I dunno). Industry is a bit hampered at the end of the day by being the "more money/less maintenance" branch for both ranks 1 and 3, and those being low priority things for endgame, but the level 2 skills at the very least is excellent and worth doubling up on.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Rain on April 19, 2021, 10:44:20 PM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing.

On my first three characters, I did it only so far as to get both Tech-1 skills and Special Modifications just 'clicks' with me to the point that I've always taken it anyway, so I guess it'd just barely count? On my present character I did it to get both Tech-5 skills to play around with automated ships. On my next I'm intending to get both officer skills in Leadership and see how that plays out. I've not wrapped Combat or Industry, nor have I even taken any of the colony skills so far, for the same reasons as others have mentioned (they're profitable enough anyways etc, even though I don't use Alpha core admins).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 19, 2021, 11:04:40 PM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing.

Tech 7 - easily. Tech tree has at least 1 good skill on every level (unlike Leadership and Industry),  both GI and EWM on 2nd level are very strong, so the only wasted point is T1R (it provides some minor utility, but I wouldn't take it unless forced). Would only skip T7 if piloting only ships with few/no energy weapons.

Combat 8 - a very unlikely maybe. Odyssey does benefit from all skills up to this point, but not that strongly and C8 doesn't comfortably fit within 15 point budget (T7, L3 - I'd lose more than gain by skipping these).

Tech 10 - it almost seems to to work, but actually doesn't. Point of taking auto ships is to combine them with L3L and I4R for twin Radiant deployment. Doesn't fit in 15 point budget. Plus, either way auto ship build has to massively sacrifice personal skills, which I don't like.

Nothing else. L2 skills are strong and have perfect synergy with each-other (to the point that L1L feels incomplete without the other), but cost is just too great (permanently locked L4, useless L1R and non-combat L5).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Malignity. on April 20, 2021, 12:13:46 AM

it should be possible to get atleast 3 of the 4 colony skills =( in the old patch colonies were much better.... now its very unprofitable to have 4+ colonies unless you use alot of alpha cores; and not everyone wants/can do that.... for example on my current playthrough im in cycle 212 and i spent alot of time exploring... havent found a single alpha cores despite actively searching for it, engaging remnant fleets etc etc etc.... now im at max administrators, and if i want to get more than 4 colonies i just have to find an alpha, respec my tree, or live with the stab pen i get when i govern more than those 2 colonies (or as i said respec my tree for more colonies instead of boni to already existing)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 20, 2021, 12:34:32 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Just wanted to comment on this real quick: they're there because they're out of the way. The "real" top-tier skills are in L4 and I4. I don't think "colony master" is really a thing; there's only 4 skills total that have to do with colonies. And as you say, colonies are profitable without skills. You can pick a few skills there if you want them, but you're not obligated to in order to get the good skills in I/L (unless you're planning to wrap).

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing. Incidentally - I'm now remembering - this is also why it felt reasonably alright to have Field Repairs and Derelict Contingent be contradictory, since the difference between I8 and I10 is basically just a "boring" colony skill.

So, to repeat, colony skills are in tier 5 so that you mostly don't have to pick them if you don't want to. And in some cases they have some non-colony bonuses so e.g. if you're wrapping Leadership, you can at least pick Ground Operations that boosts your fleet in some way.

Jesus Christ, Alex! This approach is so backwards. Why would a huge investment be an afterthought? Why should the player be punished (not rewarded) for specialising, if this was one of the reasons for skill rework? Come on! I thought you just run out of bonuses to give, rather than go "well whatever, tier 5 is for unwanted rubbish anyway". I think the only skill this would be okay for would be Phase Mastery, because it's both really powerful and totally useless for people who don't like phase ships.

For me, personally, wrapping is not a thing, sans the Doom cheese (and even then, I'm starting to think that taking Reliability Engineering over phase corps is better. Then again, I almost soloed that bounty, maybe I just need not be so careful at the end next time). For normal play, very few ships want both skills from any given tier, meaning it's a waste, unless the only thing I want to do is pilot one specific ship, like Odyssey (or battle carriers), doubly so since there are combat skills I want scattered around other trees. Even then, either C4L or C4R is wasted, no matter what I pilot, unless I have multiple flagships, but it doesn't really make sense because of limited bonuses from fleetwide skills, so I don't.

About potential admin changes: I can't say I will be bothered anyway, I treat colonies mostly as shipyards and storage. This isn't Endless Space.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 20, 2021, 04:51:43 AM

Re: No skill admins
They, or rather the Industrial Planning skill they can get, are very useful when trying to meet demand, especially for no item run (unlikely with Military Base demands) or trying to meet demand 10.  If not for that, Colony Management would be a no-brainer choice to pick over Industrial Planning.  Currently, I am mulling over getting Industrial Planning for my character just for four worlds with IP instead of three.

Re Alpha admins
My solution to inspections is to sat bomb and wipe Hegemony off the map for permanent peace of mind.  Pathers are the ones I fear more because they are zombies like pirates and cells cannot be sat bombed off the map.  Fortunately, I can avoid them by not letting those colonies grow past size 3.  Just wished there was a way to freeze growth so I do not need to remove Spaceport every so often to reverse growth.

While money is nice, I just want to colonize the whole sector, or at least several constellations worth.  Four worlds do not feel like enough for an empire.

If Alphas become too onerous to use as admins, then I probably would avoid them altogether and want to get colony skills to make my colonies better.

Re: Capstone at 4
While I can see the reasoning (because I might do it too if I made a game, after getting tired of hyper-specialization that is encouraged in other games), this really hurts those who want colony skills.  In particular, getting Ground Operations is impossible without locking the player into an officer skills.  That really hurts.  Similarly, both Industry 5 skills work great together, but getting four unwanted skills after wrapping around is worse than three points in dead aptitude in previous release.

Also, this is inconsistent.  Combat and Tech have good or great capstones.  Leadership and Industry are either very important to colony enthusiasts or useless.

@ SCC
I would wrap around Tech to make phase ships hit harder.  Energy Mastery lets the smaller ships hit harder.  (I always take Gunnery Implants for more shot range.)  It lets Afflictor and Harbinger fry things faster.  Harbinger needs all the shot range boosters it can get to match the expanded range of its system boosted by Systems Expertise.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Malignity. on April 20, 2021, 06:14:56 AM

Quote from: Megas on April 20, 2021, 04:51:43 AM

Re: Capstone at 4
While I can see the reasoning (because I might do it too if I made a game, after getting tired of hyper-specialization that is encouraged in other games), this really hurts those who want colony skills.  In particular, getting Ground Operations is impossible without locking the player into an officer skills.  That really hurts.  Similarly, both Industry 5 skills work great together, but getting four unwanted skills after wrapping around is worse than three points in dead aptitude in previous release.

i very much agree!! very unsatisfying

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 20, 2021, 07:19:48 AM

IMO colony skills should all be in one tree so they can be completely avoided without interfering with wrapping, or over specialized. I think it's fine to nerf them so that that is balanced. Officer skills make sense as capstones for leadership IMO.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: speeder on April 20, 2021, 08:07:02 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 06:09:50 PM

The colony master type player ...
Personally, I don't see why colony skills are considered tier 5 worthy in the first place.  Doubly so for the ones in the fleet tree.  How is +25% colony fleet size and +30% access on a colony you potentially don't even have better than an extra skill buffing all your ships with officers?

Just wanted to comment on this real quick: they're there because they're out of the way. The "real" top-tier skills are in L4 and I4. I don't think "colony master" is really a thing; there's only 4 skills total that have to do with colonies. And as you say, colonies are profitable without skills. You can pick a few skills there if you want them, but you're not obligated to in order to get the good skills in I/L (unless you're planning to wrap).

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing. Incidentally - I'm now remembering - this is also why it felt reasonably alright to have Field Repairs and Derelict Contingent be contradictory, since the difference between I8 and I10 is basically just a "boring" colony skill.

So, to repeat, colony skills are in tier 5 so that you mostly don't have to pick them if you don't want to. And in some cases they have some non-colony bonuses so e.g. if you're wrapping Leadership, you can at least pick Ground Operations that boosts your fleet in some way.

I am a colony master player.

And the reason is partially because I like it, and partially because I often roleplay someone being absolutely "lawful", never doing smuggling, never betraying whatever faction I am comissioned to, etc...

When playing that way, you get much less money, so the colony money helps a lot.

And when you manage to make a really high powered "empire" you draw a lot of fights to your way, and end having those massive battles with tons of capital ships and officers on both sides, that make the default 400 dp maximum feel like it is way too low.

So yes, Colony Master IS a thing.

So what skills make sense for me? 1. all skills that boost colonies. 2. skills that let your colonial fleet shine, possibly even fleets that you are NOT controlling personally.

To be honest it feels to me you are struggling with the industry skill tree, not only it was developed last, you still don't know what you want out of it, it feels like it is half-assed colony tree, half-assed pirate tree, half-assed exploration tree, all at same time.

If you wanted it to be about exploration, you need to give back the skills to boost finding cool stuff.
If you wanted it to be more about actual industry, it need skills to boost production, lower tariffs, make easier to find trade contacts, etc...
If you wanted it to be more about being a pirate, it should have skills that help you smuggle things (for example more stealth not tied to tech), and more "junker" skills instead of shoving all junker effects i na single skill.
If you wasnted it to be more about colonies, it should have skills that boost the fleets of your factions, make your faction officers better, let  you control your faction better (for example a skill that let you from afar call your faction for help, so the Patrol HQ fleets can be used by you in combat), etc...


Right now the industry tree feels like a big mess with tons of half-baked ideas, and considering two of its skills ended on leadership it is clear it is affecting the rest of the design too.


Also if you planned for people never wrapped around, why on earth a ton of synergistic skills are on same tier and same class? It is obvious anyone wanting more salvage will also want more cargo to carry that salvage! So if your goal was that people would stop at tier 4 you are screwed up there, because if the person wants to play as salvagar he is guaranteed to want to wrap around to have the cargo skill too, so if you put the colony skills there to keep them out of the way, you basically forced any salvager player to take a useless skill.

Neutrino Skill and Traverse Jump skill also both are great for exploration oriented players, and thus it is highly likely they would want both. So again if  your idea was people would avoid wrapping around, you made the tier combinations go against that design.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Flying Birdy on April 20, 2021, 08:29:25 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 06:23:21 PM

Which is a fair counter-point. How much are people "wrapping"? My assumption was that it would be a fairly rare thing. Incidentally - I'm now remembering - this is also why it felt reasonably alright to have Field Repairs and Derelict Contingent be contradictory, since the difference between I8 and I10 is basically just a "boring" colony skill.

In my three vanilla runs so far I've wrapped in every single one. Granted, I have not wrapped around directly each time. But in two out of three runs I've gone I4, T5, C5, reassign all Industry skills for either T10 or C10.

A huge part of the reason why I wrapped was that a lot of ships I want to fly and "need" to wrap. While I can see how some of the combat trees and technology trees are supposed to be "mutually exclusive" playstyles between phase and shields, I echo the sentiment that many others have made that C10 and T10 actually really complement each other. Doom doesn't feel the same without C8, Odyssey doesn't feel the same without C10, and T9 is incredibly useful for all phase ships.

I've also never in a single playthrough felt that I wanted to just play with phase ships or just play with normal ships; I've always wanted to use both or have the option to do so at any point. I mean it's certainly true that I could fly a doom without any of the phase skills, but it's just not "fun" to do so. There are not enough phase ships for me to justify a pure phase specialization build without wrapping, but I also still want to fly phase ships at a moment's notice. So the solution is to always wrap.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 20, 2021, 11:00:42 AM

If I get Industry 4 (which I do because I do not want d-mods, and there is no other cheap way of removing them), I like that Industry 5 is only one point away.

Field Repairs is convenient.  Just wished it removed d-mods faster and/or reduced Restore costs.

I like Industry 2.  Without it, I would need Reinforced Bulkheads to avoid losing ships.  (Of course, flagships might need Reinforced Bulkheads because they become officerless ships if player changes out of it and lose guaranteed recovery from skills.)

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 20, 2021, 07:19:48 AM

IMO colony skills should all be in one tree so they can be completely avoided without interfering with wrapping, or over specialized. I think it's fine to nerf them so that that is balanced. Officer skills make sense as capstones for leadership IMO.

Colony skills are kind of underwhelming, especially Industrial Planning and Fleet Logistics.  Colony skills better give something good for giving up combat power.  Slightly more income or slightly bigger babysitter does not cut it.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: FooF on April 20, 2021, 05:45:51 PM

Re: Doing away with colony skills/admins

Might cut the Gordian Knot, honestly. I avoid Administrators because they cost too much for early colonies and by the time I want them, I don't need them or I have Alpha Cores. I actually lament finding a "good" Admin early because that's a negative monthly expenditure and if I do decide to use him/her it's $25,000/month on a colony that doesn't even make $10,000. It's lose/lose. I think "generic" or "one-skill" Admins ought to be much more plentiful and the "good" admins need to cost less to govern. They don't really become a net positive until a colony is well on its way.

On the one hand, it's nice to have ways of governing more than what you can personally but I don't think it's implemented really well at the moment. Likewise, I don't see why a Beta Core couldn't be used as a "generic Admin" without the risk of Alpha-Core shenanigans (whenever that becomes A Thing).

As for Colony Skills themselves, I don't think I'd miss them if they vanished one day from the skill tree. I'd actually get to wrap Leadership and Industry faster. Or, if they were baked-in to Leadership/Industry somehow (i.e. you get a single Colony perk for each point spent in the tree with more powerful ones at the end) you could make the T5s something more interesting and powerful while still retaining Colony skills. It would also make Industry and Leadership more attractive relative to Combat/Technology from a meta-game perspective.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 20, 2021, 05:57:46 PM

I would not mind getting rid of colony skills provided production is raised +1 across the board (since demand seems to assume IP as standard, and no IP is a penalty) and maybe raise maximum colonies to five or six.

I do not mind admins since it seems silly that the player can rule multiple planets while the faction leaders with the most colony skills can only govern their capital world and nothing else.

However, even if I want an empire, if I did not have interest in Field Repairs, I probably would have ignored Industry 5 because I want combat power too.

As for cores, they should have limits just like human admins, unless Alex wants to support the possibility of full Sector colonization (after annihilating core worlds so player can take over their worlds and build new colonies in their place).  Either AI would be too punishing or not punishing enough to use.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Malignity. on April 21, 2021, 02:55:01 AM

i think colony skills are great to have and they are very useful. so to me personally it would be a shame if they were removed. but the way they are on the tree now is a real pain; i had to give up my t1 navigation (which is very helpful) to get a third colony skill

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: nathanebht on April 21, 2021, 01:27:12 PM

Realize the skill tree is a work in progress but not a fan of making d-mod's help you in some way.

D-mods should make the player feel pain. Then you get to enjoy the feeling when you can afford ships that don't have d-mods.

On a related note, the each month a free d-mod removal skill is great. It would be better if it was a more random occurrence. Something you couldn't plan on so much.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: KDR_11k on April 21, 2021, 01:46:01 PM

I strongly agree that colonies as an aptitude would make sense. No idea how to fit that into the binary choice design or pad it to 5 tiers but it's definitely a playstyle choice that should be disentangled from the other aptitudes.
I don't think we have to worry about players getting to the colony skills too quickly, they're not so great that they would change the early lifecycle of your colonies much.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Rudette on April 23, 2021, 04:34:49 PM

After playing with for a couple hundred hours it I've been trying to put my finger on what I like about it and what I don't, so bare with me. Skill System feels like a rough prototype. Skills are a mixed bag. I like the idea of a tiered progression system, where you have choices to make. I love making builds and what not in games more than I like a free form system, but this one doesn't feel good. Yet, at least. There are a number of problems with it's current incarnation:

If Generalist (Left) vs. Specialist (Right) is the goal, then early iterations of these brackets fail at this- and I think that makes people feel bad or just confused:

There are several wonderful tiers that really make you think about what you want to choose: Navigation vs. Sensors or Damage Control vs. Reliability Engineering are good examples of tiers that really make you think about what you want and both pull their weight.

Leadership is probably the key example here. Weapon Drills is weak due to fleet cap, especially compared to Auxiliary support's numbers. But, you don't always want Auxiliary Support depending on how you like to set up your logistical ships, leaving you feeling like Weapon Drills is doing very little for you. Leadership 2 gives you the choice between two specialist skills that deal with frigates, which bucks the trend of the rest of the system and leaves a player with a non-frigate strategy with skill that's not necessary working towards their goals. With precious few skill points, this feels bad. Though, personally, I'm all about Wolf Pack and Auxiliary Support.

Industry 1 kind of feels bad because you have to choose between getting more loot or actually being able to carry it. It's also not clear to me how the Salvage skill interacts with diminishing returns from Salvage Gantrys. Between the caps and diminishing returns it feels like you're just choosing between alleviating part of your fleet composition (less salvage rigs or less logistics ships) The + 1 Burn Speed of Bulk Transport would make more sense rolled into Auxiliary Support I think, where as bulk transport could receive some kind of other nudge. If you're not taking Auxiliary Support, then you're likely militarizing your logistics vessels for + 1 Burn and lower maintenance on cargo expansion. Maybe the intent is opening up more ordinance points?

Personally, I'd almost like to see Auxiliary Support moved to Industry tier one, with the + 1 burn from bulk transport rolled into it. I think industry feels weird because of where the choices are. I think maybe the choice breakdown there should be Fleet Buff vs. Logistics buff instead of Logistics Buffs vs. Logistics buff- then going through three tree you could specialize, mix and match, or whatever.

My favorite parts of the industry tree are the parts that don't feel like an economic difficulty slider. At first I was kinda iffy about the Containment Procedures vs Makeshift Supplies but there is some synergy here. Damage Control on your officers + Field Repairs helps you on the supply front while Salvage + Containment Procedures can help you keep your fuel topped off from fighting. You don't have the passive supply boons of Makeshift Supplies, but you do recover a big chunk ship damage after battle for free, lose less crew, and so on. I'm not good enough at math to figure out which saves me the most money, but my gut says Makeshift Supplies probably does anyway due to the amount of time spent in systems as opposed to traveling.

Leadership, Technology, and Industry are kind of chaotic, thematically and mechanically. Industry isn't so bad, I think it's placement that makes people feel weird about it:

Leadership is another example here too.

Ideally, early skills should be Generalist vs. Specialist. Deeper skills should be Specialist vs. Specialist to reflect the investment in climbing that lane and solidifying playstyles. Categories are now an eclectic mix of fleet buffs, personal buffs, logistics buffs, and colony buffs with little in the way of a cohesive theme in most trees. Leadership has an odd first couple of tiers, then goes right into

I'll echo the sentiment that T4 in Leadership and Engineering feel like the 'capstone' abilities due to the colony skills.

I think this is also jarring for a lot of people but not necessarily bad. And, if you do get rid of the colony skills, maybe Industry and Leadership will feel less chaotic.  I do like the idea of a personal combat/piloted ship buff in every tree though. Maybe if you remove colony skills then this would feel less chaotic? Another idea, might be to roll some of the logistics skills in Industry together, adjust the numbers if need be. There'd be room for it without the colony skills. Or, it could make room for colony skills if you kept them.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 23, 2021, 09:49:39 PM

Due to recent nerfs there is no longer skill system in the game but this:

(https://i.imgur.com/h9UDLP3.png)

Anything else will severely hinder your combat capabilities and can be compared with shooting yourself in the leg. Yes, you can live with that but why would you do it?

As anyone could guess this also defines fleet composition for the most part.

And the play style.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 23, 2021, 11:32:05 PM

Lmao why on earth would you take ranged specialization over impact mitigation when you are locked into flying a phase ship. If you are not planning on flying a phase ship, then taking the phase skills is very sub optimal. There's no way that's the best possible skill set lol.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on April 23, 2021, 11:50:39 PM

Impact mitigation now gives +50 armor instead of +150. What a big buff, lmao...

Seriously, armor always (well, i v seen only 9.1 and 9.5, so, maybe, for earliest versions it is not the case) was weaker than the shield. Here were a lot of complains about tougher enemies. We can choose: nerf shield skill or nerf armor skill. Both will work, but, as i mentioned earlier, armor need buffs. We nerf armor... Brilliant!

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 24, 2021, 12:41:10 AM

... 50 residual armor is the equivalent of having 1000 extra armor base for the purposes of residual armor and hullpoints. By the math for midcaliber weapons, it reduces incoming damage by more than damage control. The skill also has -25% armor damage total for medium/heavy armor ships, and 50% less damage done to weapons and engines, which is a really good benefit. Salamanders not knocking out engines alone is very nice for ships that rely heavily on maneuvering to live, and weapons staying online is great for ships that rely on slugging it out.

Is the skill overnerfed? Maybe it is a little bit yeah, but more than two days worth of playtesting with the new skill is needed to get a solid read on how it feels and how it changes things. Theory can try and address points before playtesting has matured by running the numbers, but the vast majority of posts about it show a lack of understanding of what the skill actually does and don't show any numbers, so its hard to take those posts seriously.

Lucky33's post is a good satire post that I got a laugh out of. Its a bit subtle because first it seems like a reasonable skill build, but then I looked more closely and saw whats really going on in relation to forum chatter and I just started laughing.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on April 24, 2021, 12:54:16 AM

You overrate the armor. For example, Heavy armor hullmod by any means doesnt valuable as 40 OP (well, may be it is, but cost few times more than Hardened shields? Nonesense...).

Even if you evaluate it correctly, you already made this part to be an elite bonus, so, most of enemies will not have it. Yes, remnants will. But the most profit this skill gives to small ships, because of fixed number. And small remnants never were a problem.

And the last one. You need to strip armor once and enemy will be vulnerable. While enemy with high flux will just fall back, vent and return.

Quote

1000 extra armor

Good. And shield skill gives you many times more (potentially infinite).

The only reason why i agree the nerf was required: other tier 3 skill was way worse. But it was possible to fix that by buffing it.

UPD. I just wanna say: you nerfed player more than enemy. If it was the goal - ok.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 02:01:02 AM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 23, 2021, 11:32:05 PM

Lmao why on earth would you take ranged specialization over impact mitigation when you are locked into flying a phase ship. If you are not planning on flying a phase ship, then taking the phase skills is very sub optimal. There's no way that's the best possible skill set lol.

Because Ranged will at least be of some practical use.

Two best ships in the game are Ziggurat (err) and Radiant. You can't pilot one of them and another one is phase. So choose carefully since it is so easy to make a mistake.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 02:09:36 AM

Quote from: Thaago on April 24, 2021, 12:41:10 AM

... 50 residual armor is the equivalent of having 1000 extra armor base for the purposes of residual armor and hullpoints. BY the math for midcaliber weapons, it reduces incoming damage by more than damage control. The skill also has -25% armor damage total for medium/heavy armor ships, and 50% less damage done to weapons and engines, which is a really good benefit. Salamanders not knocking out engines alone is very nice for ships that rely heavily on maneuvering to live, and weapons staying online is great for ships that rely on slugging it out.

Is the skill overnerfed? Maybe it is a little bit yeah, but more than two days worth of playtesting with the new skill is needed to get a solid read on how it feels and how it changes things. Theory can try and address points before playtesting has matured by running the numbers, but the vast majority of posts about it show a lack of understanding of what the skill actually does and don't show any numbers, so its hard to take those posts seriously.

Lucky33's post is a good satire post that I got a laugh out of. Its a bit subtle because first it seems like a reasonable skill build, but then I looked more closely and saw whats really going on in relation to forum chatter and I just started laughing.

I've already summed this up. Now it's a skill for the low-tech.

After two days of playtesting I simply abolished its use altogether. That's all to it.

I got a laugh of how the game destroyed its skill system in just a month after release.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 24, 2021, 04:48:19 AM

If I did not care about Industry, I would probably make a build identical to Lucky's.

I only took Impact Mitigation because of the reduced damage for knockout, which alone is not enough, and because I piloted Harbinger much at the time.  But, I am strongly considering changing that to Ranged Specialization because 800 range is not very long, and unless I play a melee ship (which is seldom for me), Ranged Specialization seems like a better idea to kill things faster.  Also, faster shot speed is fun.

Harbinger can get close to 1000 range with Phase Lances, which is about the range of Quantum Disruptor enhanced by Systems Expertise, so even it can benefit from Ranged Specialization a bit.

Quote from: Thaago on April 24, 2021, 12:41:10 AM

Lucky33's post is a good satire post that I got a laugh out of. Its a bit subtle because first it seems like a reasonable skill build, but then I looked more closely and saw whats really going on in relation to forum chatter and I just started laughing.

I think Lucky was serious, because I would do the same if I did not care enough about Field Repairs and Industry 2 and 5.

Since I do not abuse cores because I do not want to deal with faction politics, plus I do not have time to grind for cores, my character does not have unlimited money, and Field Repairs is nice QoL for fixing s-mod ships back to pristine without breaking the bank.  I just wished Field Repairs worked at least as fast as every month instead of two months.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Havoc on April 24, 2021, 05:28:26 AM

does point defence skill work with tactical lasers?
what weapons are "point defence" only the one with point defence in the description or PD in the name? like Heavy Burst Laser or PD Laser

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 06:30:56 AM

As for "unlimited money". Contact bounties now yield 1.5-2 times more. 1.2mil for tesseract and 0.6 for hunter killer ones.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Retry on April 24, 2021, 06:39:08 AM

Quote from: Mordodrukow on April 23, 2021, 11:50:39 PM

Impact mitigation now gives +50 armor instead of +150. What a big buff, lmao...

It's a bigger buff than +0% damage from Ranged Specialization since a phase ship is engaging at CQC in the first place.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: IonDragonX on April 24, 2021, 06:52:05 AM

Quote from: Havoc on April 24, 2021, 05:28:26 AM

does point defence skill work with tactical lasers?
what weapons are "point defence" only the one with point defence in the description or PD in the name? like Heavy Burst Laser or PD Laser

No. Description: Primary Role = Point Defence.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 24, 2021, 10:20:49 AM

Quote from: Thaago on April 24, 2021, 12:41:10 AM

Lucky33's post is a good satire post that I got a laugh out of. Its a bit subtle because first it seems like a reasonable skill build, but then I looked more closely and saw whats really going on in relation to forum chatter and I just started laughing.

It's close to what I used to solo everything with a Doom. I took Weapon Drills instead of Automated Ships, as I had no use for other ships.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 23, 2021, 09:49:39 PM

Anything else will severely hinder your combat capabilities and can be compared with shooting yourself in the leg. Yes, you can live with that but why would you do it?

You can alternatively go with Derelict Contingent. Less efficient, since you can't solo everything with a Doom, but you can win battles by doing nothing.
I don't get picking Ranged Specialisation over Impact Mitigation. While IM was nerfed, you seem to be flying phase ships and not Conquest, Eagle or Falcon, which are the only ships that can reliably pick their range, while being long-ranged enough that you get some decent numbers with RS.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 02:01:02 AM

Two best ships in the game are Ziggurat (err) and Radiant. You can't pilot one of them and another one is phase. So choose carefully since it is so easy to make a mistake.

Doom is best.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 01:59:00 PM

Derelict Contingent is already marked for the nerf.

Reason for the Ranged Specialization is called Ziggurat.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on April 24, 2021, 06:24:22 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 01:59:00 PM

Derelict Contingent is already marked for the nerf.

Reason for the Ranged Specialization is called Ziggurat.

Balancing your skill over some ship is never a good idea. "This skill is good if you take ONE ship" is so specialized it's ridiculous. It should be dropped to 1k range IMO, but alex himself admitted a non hot-fix balance patch is needed.

I do disagree with lucky. Industry has a lot of potential use and combat only needs minor upgrades to keep up. Remember, almost every one of these skill is made from scratch, it will take a lot of life playtesting to fix. I've posted my solutions before on that part. I admit to just not grasping the armor vs shield argument, so I'll let other people have that discussion. In general though, I do agree that the general vs specialist rundown isn't always the best. The discussion for Impact mitigation mitigation being a perfect example. That skill should remain powerful, but be left to less general ships, mostly being a staple of low tech and some closer ranger type midline. But range damage buff is useful to anyone, is the minimum was lowered to 700 or so.

Leadership is the only real mess, but that's a whole bag of worms

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 10:47:36 PM

Well, this ship is the most powerful thing in the current release so why is it a bad idea to center your build around it? Second, RS is also much more helpful on the way to this ship. You do not tank damage in the phase ships like in the others. The first iteration of the IM could help on the Afflictor just as on any other frigate but it doesn't exist anymore. However, you do shoot projectiles. And the faster they go the more likely they are to hit. I did see SO ships literally dodging incoming AM blaster shots. The Matrix grade stuff.

Thus, why would I choose IM over RS? To pilot non-phase ships? Well, about that, as I said, you simply cant pilot the best non-phase battleship. Whats left are subpar obsolete ships incapable of the same performance. Choosing them is choosing to handicap yourself. It's a struggle to get the third place.

And, finally, Industry. Yes, it has a lot of potential to solve all the problems you are creating for yourself by picking large fleets of those obsolete ships mentioned earlier. Pick the optimal path and you don't need to think about logistics whatsoever. The only fun thing in the whole aptitude is already scheduled to get balanced.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 10:47:36 PM

Well, this ship is the most powerful thing in the current release so why is it a bad idea to center your build around it?

I didn't say your build, I said the balancing of a skill in general. If a skill is defined by being only useful to a -single- ship, then it's so overspecialized as to never really be a pick for the player. Remember, that thing is suppose to be a secret.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 10:47:36 PM

Thus, why would I choose IM over RS? To pilot non-phase ships? Well, about that, as I said, you simply cant pilot the best non-phase battleship. Whats left are subpar obsolete ships incapable of the same performance. Choosing them is choosing to handicap yourself. It's a struggle to get the third place. And, finally, Industry. Yes, it has a lot of potential to solve all the problems you are creating for yourself by picking large fleets of those obsolete ships mentioned earlier. Pick the optimal path and you don't need to think about logistics whatsoever. The only fun thing in the whole aptitude is already scheduled to get balanced.

And not we're into the extreme min-maxing. Just do everything perfect and play by math! Im sure you're good enough to pilot those ships perfectly and enjoy it, but I'm not. Nor are a lot of people, and none of us not in the phase ship party enjoy phase ships. Saying [redacted] battleship, SNK ship(exageration) it is, makes every other choice invalid is ridiculous. To just get alone is a nightmare and a half, often costing more than it's worth, and you need to drop a specific skill to even have it. Even if DP limits were removed it still wouldn't be black and white min-maxing since you're ignoring availability. Even if you weren't it's an issue with ship balancing at worst. You need to expand your horizons more man.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 25, 2021, 07:15:40 AM

By the time Derelict Contingent gets neutralized, other skills might get whacked too, like all of the phase ship skills in Combat.  Doom is the new Drover.

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

And not we're into the extreme min-maxing. Just do everything perfect and play by math! Im sure you're good enough to pilot those ships perfectly and enjoy it, but I'm not. Nor are a lot of people, and none of us not in the phase ship party enjoy phase ships. Saying [redacted] battleship, SNK ship(exageration) it is, makes every other choice invalid is ridiculous. To just get alone is a nightmare and a half, often costing more than it's worth, and you need to drop a specific skill to even have it. Even if DP limits were removed it still wouldn't be black and white min-maxing since you're ignoring availability. Even if you weren't it's an issue with ship balancing at worst. You need to expand your horizons more man.

Drover spam was the rage last release, but I did not like Drover spam last release because I could not respec skills (and carrier skill set was specialized), I needed to micromanage fleet more (as done in various videos), and it chugged my old computer.

I do like phase ships with the current skills that speed them up.  Systems Expertise means I can use weapons with more range than AM Blasters on Harbinger (because long range weapons are no good if Quantum Disruptor does not keep up), and zipping around fast in the bigger phase ships are fun.

I do not like that the classic battleships are not up to snuff like they used to.  Paragon would be fine if it did not cost so much DP.  Conquest seems nerfed (shield may be smaller, and Heavy Needler does not have enough range to pair with 900 range weapons anymore)  I have not tried Onslaught yet.  Since carriers are sub-par in this release, Legion is merely a gutted Onslaught.

I originally planned to get C4L and maybe C5R, but after getting Ziggurat, I changed my mind and built to pilot phase ships.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 25, 2021, 07:41:55 AM

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

I didn't say your build, I said the balancing of a skill in general. If a skill is defined by being only useful to a -single- ship, then it's so overspecialized as to never really be a pick for the player.

Many good builds in 0.95 are either for single ship or very narrow selection of ships. Reasonably universal builds are a thing of 0.91.

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

Remember, that thing is suppose to be a secret.

Yeah... this doesn't really work on forums. We may use words like [Redacted] or [Hyper-redacted], but everybody knows what these mean.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 25, 2021, 07:51:08 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on April 25, 2021, 07:41:55 AM

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

I didn't say your build, I said the balancing of a skill in general. If a skill is defined by being only useful to a -single- ship, then it's so overspecialized as to never really be a pick for the player.

Many good builds in 0.95 are either for single ship or very narrow selection of ships. Reasonably universal builds are a thing of 0.91.

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

Remember, that thing is suppose to be a secret.

Yeah... this doesn't really work on forums. We may use words like [Redacted] or [Hyper-redacted], but everybody knows what these mean.

Agreed.

It is a sled moment, and I think "Redacted" is silly and overused.  I have no problem identifying so-called spoilers as they really are freely.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 09:41:13 AM

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 06:53:15 AM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 10:47:36 PM

Well, this ship is the most powerful thing in the current release so why is it a bad idea to center your build around it?

I didn't say your build, I said the balancing of a skill in general. If a skill is defined by being only useful to a -single- ship, then it's so overspecialized as to never really be a pick for the player. Remember, that thing is suppose to be a secret.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 24, 2021, 10:47:36 PM

Thus, why would I choose IM over RS? To pilot non-phase ships? Well, about that, as I said, you simply cant pilot the best non-phase battleship. Whats left are subpar obsolete ships incapable of the same performance. Choosing them is choosing to handicap yourself. It's a struggle to get the third place. And, finally, Industry. Yes, it has a lot of potential to solve all the problems you are creating for yourself by picking large fleets of those obsolete ships mentioned earlier. Pick the optimal path and you don't need to think about logistics whatsoever. The only fun thing in the whole aptitude is already scheduled to get balanced.

And not we're into the extreme min-maxing. Just do everything perfect and play by math! Im sure you're good enough to pilot those ships perfectly and enjoy it, but I'm not. Nor are a lot of people, and none of us not in the phase ship party enjoy phase ships. Saying [redacted] battleship, SNK ship(exageration) it is, makes every other choice invalid is ridiculous. To just get alone is a nightmare and a half, often costing more than it's worth, and you need to drop a specific skill to even have it. Even if DP limits were removed it still wouldn't be black and white min-maxing since you're ignoring availability. Even if you weren't it's an issue with ship balancing at worst. You need to expand your horizons more man.

There is no balance in the current version.

You have legacy fleet (low, mid and high non-phase techs) what was designed as mutually balanced as possible and lives by its rules. And you have new fleet of ships what break said rules. Intentionally, since they are either fleet destroying bosses or "exotic touch" needed for other ship to look "normal". Of course they are hands down better. By design. I see no room for discussion here. We can have endless debate about whats better: Paragon, Onslaught or  Conquest but not about this.

As for availability issue, I have to say that the hiding place of Zig was found in about 5 minutes from the start of the new game and first salvaged Rad was the result of the Pather mission to survey what to my surprise happened to be the Red Planet itself. I never asked for this!

With all that said I must add that my point is that current skill system is non-existent because all that "no fun allowed" policy towards legacy fleet. Phase road is like fast track career option you know. You just got yourself your first Afflictor(P) and the next thing you know you are so overpowered that the game have nothing to offer as a challenge. But on the slow track you are getting your bonus armor cut into thirds because it is so important that old ships should be still vulnerable to medium caliber guns. I just can't stress enough how important this all is under Rift Torpedo fire...

And since I'm unable to unsee the whole Zig blitz possibility I'm feeling like I'm done with the current build.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 25, 2021, 09:54:32 AM

Legacy fleets still work well enough to kill everything. If you don't want to play with phase ships, you can still do everything in the game. I personally think the phase skills should be removed entirely, and maybe some of the bonuses can be distributed to other skills in weaker forms.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 10:01:17 AM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 25, 2021, 09:54:32 AM

Legacy fleets still work well enough to kill everything. If you don't want to play with phase ships, you can still do everything in the game. I personally think the phase skills should be removed entirely, and maybe some of the bonuses can be distributed to other skills in weaker forms.

Well enough? How many fights are you doing with them at 500% difficulty rating? And how fast do you farm SPs after lvl15?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 10:22:45 AM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 09:41:13 AM

There is no balance in the current version. You have legacy fleet (low, mid and high non-phase techs) what was designed as mutually balanced as possible and lives by its rules. And you have new fleet of ships what break said rules. Intentionally, since they are either fleet destroying bosses or "exotic touch" needed for other ship to look "normal". Of course they are hands down better. By design. I see no room for discussion here. We can have endless debate about whats better: Paragon, Onslaught or  Conquest but not about this.

Secret ships and the like are explicitly out of balance and shouldn't even be factored in. I don't like those kinds of easter egg style 'secrets'(and they aren't well hidden either) are even in the game, but they are 100% harmless since they dont have any investment cost. I dont have to spend a skill point or dedicate a colony slot to it or something. Mind you I still think it's bad, but it doesn't suddenly drastically effect the flow of the game, unless Alex is using it to consider the difficulty scaling for end-game superboss style fights. That would indeed be trash and be of serious issue. The balancing here depends on how much your required to interact with it. Far as I know, neither the enemy designs for what is effectively post-game or any permanent cost, actually use it. You can ditch them all without sacrifice of any kind.

tl;dr: The existance of the scarab gun in Halo 2 doesn't make the game unbalanced. A lot of things do, but the scarab gun isn't one of the,

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 09:41:13 AM

With all that said I must add that my point is that current skill system is non-existent because all that "no fun allowed" policy towards legacy fleet. Phase road is like fast track career option you know. You just got yourself your first Afflictor(P) and the next thing you know you are so overpowered that the game have nothing to offer as a challenge. But on the slow track you are getting your bonus armor cut into thirds because it is so important that old ships should be still vulnerable to medium caliber guns. I just can't stress enough how important this all is under Rift Torpedo fire... And since I'm unable to unsee the whole Zig blitz possibility I'm feeling like I'm done with the current build.

Okay if your blaming .9.5 for phase ship balancing then you are way off in another universe. They were a "problem," since way before this new update. Phase ships are extremely high reward high risk ships, for lack of sustainable defenses you get near invulnerability. Effectively, you decide how much flux to use regardless of enemy fire. But, it means you have nothing to small arms, so even light attacks which would mean nothing to other ships, are a drain on your flux, and defending and defending at the same time is impossible. some people have managed that into a such a skill they are effectively untouchable. Using this st a staple of balancing, is like balancing the difficulty of Minecraft mobs to speedrunners like Dream. Phase ships have to be balanced with the AI and general players, not the literal best of the best. If you found a way to use a skill I don't have to break the game, cool. But not everyone can use phase ships effectively.

Now, I have made clear, within my knowledge, why people see success with these ships. I am not one of those people, and if I am wrong to exactly what mechanics and numbers make them so overpowered, perhaps you would be wise to start a thread discussing the ins and outs of phase ships and what specifically allows this supposed behavior. As for the Zig(debating if I wanna go spoiler on that one), it is addressed above. If you cant stop yourself from using an optional SNK boss not likely considered in balancing your opposition, then it's entirely a you problem. You don't blame the scarab gun, for you using the scarab gun.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 25, 2021, 10:24:08 AM

I can kill any fleet, that's good enough for me. I also tried phase ships, and I could kill any fleet, just two different approaches. I don't enjoy grinding SP, and I couldn't care less about min-maxing experience. I find that when my colonies get to max size with full cores and items and I've explored everything, there's nothing left to do that's interesting. I'll farm cores for a bit for the challenge, but I usually abandon the campaign some time around there.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 10:26:08 AM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 25, 2021, 10:24:08 AM

I can kill any fleet, that's good enough for me. I also tried phase ships, and I could kill any fleet, just two different approaches. I don't enjoy grinding SP, and I couldn't care less about min-maxing experience. I find that when my colonies get to max size with full cores and items and I've explored everything, there's nothing left to do that's interesting. I'll farm cores for a bit for the challenge, but I usually abandon the campaign some time around there.

Hey I'm not alone. I also never understood the obsession with phase ships. I see the results sure, but I'm also one of those guys who can't get those results.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 10:01:17 AM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 25, 2021, 09:54:32 AM

Legacy fleets still work well enough to kill everything. If you don't want to play with phase ships, you can still do everything in the game. I personally think the phase skills should be removed entirely, and maybe some of the bonuses can be distributed to other skills in weaker forms.

Well enough? How many fights are you doing with them at 500% difficulty rating? And how fast do you farm SPs after lvl15?

Why are you fighting fleet battles with that kind of difficulty? I got close to post-game and never once had anywhere near that kind of disadvantage. I called at 325% and that was when I got ambushed due to my own mistakes. If this is hard end-game, then maybe discussion of the difficulty balancing of the superboss grade optional fights are in order. Or maybe you're just rushing into fights your not anywhere near prepared for and you deserve to get crushed.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 25, 2021, 10:45:12 AM

As far as I know, with current balance, fleet composition tier list would probably be something like this: phase ships and derelict contingent at the top, then high-tech with a Radiant, then most other fleet compositions, then low-tech fleets.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 10:01:17 AM

Well enough? How many fights are you doing with them at 500% difficulty rating? And how fast do you farm SPs after lvl15?

What are those 500% fights? I forgot the game has an XP bonus for fighting at a disadvantage until now. About SPs, I earn them at a rate of roughly one per bounty, thanks to a massive pile of bonus XP I can't get dispose of quickly enough.

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 10:22:45 AM

[Phase ships are extremely high reward high risk ships, for lack of sustainable defenses you get near invulnerability.

Heh heh heh heh heh heh...

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:04:11 AM

Zig being secret is a joke. As I said, I've found Alpha Site in about 5 min. No spoilers. And I can and will use anything available without cheating. This is why Rad was perfectly balanced prior to 0.95. Cant get it. Case closed. Also I have no idea what that Scarab gun is. And don't want to know because it is irrelevant.

The last time phase ships were near that good Harbinger lost its frontal Reaper battery variant. However, now they are better. But the problem is that the skill system now forces you to choose something. Well, don't mind if I do...

I was constantly fighting at 500% difficulty to earn the SP faster (that's x5 xp gain). And you need them to respec yourself, your officers and refit your fleet. To try some new exciting possibilities that the game had to offer. Recent nerfs solved all these problems. No need to do anything of that now.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:10:28 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 25, 2021, 10:45:12 AM

As far as I know, with current balance, fleet composition tier list would probably be something like this: phase ships and derelict contingent at the top, then high-tech with a Radiant, then most other fleet compositions, then low-tech fleets.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 10:01:17 AM

Well enough? How many fights are you doing with them at 500% difficulty rating? And how fast do you farm SPs after lvl15?

What are those 500% fights? I forgot the game has an XP bonus for fighting at a disadvantage until now. About SPs, I earn them at a rate of roughly one per bounty, thanks to a massive pile of bonus XP I can't get dispose of quickly enough.

Quote from: sector_terror on April 25, 2021, 10:22:45 AM

[Phase ships are extremely high reward high risk ships, for lack of sustainable defenses you get near invulnerability.

Heh heh heh heh heh heh...

Yeah. 1 per bounty.

8 officers. 8 SP to mentor, 8 SP for elite skills, 16 SP for built-in modules for 8 ships. 32 SP.

32 bounties to try a new "normal" build.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on April 25, 2021, 11:27:36 AM

Made a spreadshit for better visualisation. I cant understand some Alex's patchnotes (and i still play RC9, because i dont want to start new game before some mods will be updated). Especially this one:

Quote

- Gunnery Implants:
    Switched elite effect (-50% recoil) with the electronic-warfare-boosting effect
     Note: REDACTED fleets always have the elite level and are not affected by this
- Now also applies a 1% ECM bonus on cruisers and capital ships

So, pls, leave a comments there, how exactly to edit, i ll apply.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IWhaeedEB2xDvt9qDsTHY4SFBVtaqz83ShVbu1miYFk/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IWhaeedEB2xDvt9qDsTHY4SFBVtaqz83ShVbu1miYFk/edit?usp=sharing)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:30:05 AM

Now Gunnery Implants provide boost to recoil suppression as a default effect but the ECM one is elite.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on April 25, 2021, 11:33:25 AM

Ah. Got it. I forgot that Gunnery implants have ECM bonus and thought that the bonus was taken somewhere from Electronic warfare.

Updated.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 25, 2021, 12:20:03 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:10:28 AM

Yeah. 1 per bounty.

8 officers. 8 SP to mentor, 8 SP for elite skills, 16 SP for built-in modules for 8 ships. 32 SP.

32 bounties to try a new "normal" build.

Assuming you have nothing but your current fleet. Ships in my storage that don't fit my current doctrine have a total of 21 s-mods. I also have 30 SPs that I didn't spend yet, but I hire enough mercenaries to always be at 2-3 of them, so that number could be higher. Admittedly, majority of my officers were found in cryopods, so I didn't really spend story points on them. I wonder how important making sure your officers are perfect is now, it was something I just kinda eye-balled in 0.9.1 and in this run in 0.95.
Though if I wanted a radical change of fleet composition instead of gradual, I would probably start a new game isntead.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 01:26:41 PM

Quote from: SCC on April 25, 2021, 12:20:03 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:10:28 AM

Yeah. 1 per bounty.

8 officers. 8 SP to mentor, 8 SP for elite skills, 16 SP for built-in modules for 8 ships. 32 SP.

32 bounties to try a new "normal" build.

Assuming you have nothing but your current fleet. Ships in my storage that don't fit my current doctrine have a total of 21 s-mods. I also have 30 SPs that I didn't spend yet, but I hire enough mercenaries to always be at 2-3 of them, so that number could be higher. Admittedly, majority of my officers were found in cryopods, so I didn't really spend story points on them. I wonder how important making sure your officers are perfect is now, it was something I just kinda eye-balled in 0.9.1 and in this run in 0.95.
Though if I wanted a radical change of fleet composition instead of gradual, I would probably start a new game isntead.

Yes, I counted the basic minimum. And no, starting new game requires re-enabling all the contacts, boosting all reputation etc etc etc. More importantly its beyond the point. What is - playing at x5 difficulty saves time. But not for the legacy fleets. Their owners have to suffer the consequences of full time farming job.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 25, 2021, 02:31:39 PM

The impression that I'm getting from what you are saying is that with the new skills, phase ships are so powerful as to make other ships obsolete. This has been shown by a lot of people to be true, though its more an existing problem from past releases that was magnified by certain new skills than a new problem (phase ships in past versions were also extremely strong). What I don't see is this as being a general problem with the skill system. Its a specific problem with how phase ships interact with the skill system. Just like how Derelict Contingent is a specific problem with how D mods interact with the skill system. And how Radiants are a specific problem with automated ships, etc.

The problem IMO comes from two player preferences: optimization and varied content. Each player has a different amount of desire for those preferences just by who they are. Currently, there is no problem for a player with a strong preference for one and not the others: optimizers can grab phase ships and be happy. Varied content players can grab a lot of different fleet compositions and still beat everything. No problem. But a player with a preference for BOTH is in trouble, because phase ships are so much stronger than anything else. They can't satisfy both preferences simultaneously because there is an unbalanced option.

To me, it seems simpler to fix this problem by dealing with outliers (either too strong or too weak) than by dealing with the median. Both because its more work to change the median, and because it would break the balance on every mod that is attempting to be balanced. If the median can solve game challenges and different options are roughly balanced, then both optimizers are happy, varied content people are happy, and people with both preferences are happy because there are multiple "local maxima" of playstyles that are all competitive.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 10:29:08 PM

You missed my point entirely.

Phase and automated ships not just good or better, the whole gameplay with them is something else.

You get xp faster -> you overtake everything else in progression. You do not need large fleet -> don't have to spend skill points on the logistics. Again, resulting in player getting comparatively stronger. Do not bother about combined arms or officers? Same thing, goodbye Leadership.

And yes, this is the problem with the skill system because originally, prior to nerfs, legacy system had something to offer. It was not as good as phase/automated but decent enough comparatively to the phase/auto. Although I picked phase doctrine at the beginning of my run, later I was respeccing into different things. It is when the nerfs struck. And opened the whole freaking rift between new and legacy. Contrast was too strong.

And again. all I hear is nerf-nerf-nerf. Nerf this, nerf that and look, there is something shiny, too different and not like the others so lets nerf it too for a good measure. Why did the new skill system was even implemented in the first place? After all the fixing there will be only some shortened and bland version of 0.91 left. Do you really think that replacing the whole phase lineup and the player controlled Radiant with some neutered versions is actually a good idea? It is the real fix to the problem? I guess you never actually tried to take a candy from a baby. It will be the end of vanilla as it cease to be the source of the new content.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 25, 2021, 10:54:50 PM

Uhh, did you actually read anything I wrote? You basically restated the exact meaning of my first sentence (after saying I missed the point) then ignored everything I said, including some pretty detailed reasoning about why you DO have a point from your perspective, and why other people might disagree with you from their perspective, what the problem is, and possible ways to fix it.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 25, 2021, 11:02:19 PM

Phase benefits more from player piloting than anything else. There is just too much untapped potential that AI misses entirely. This was true in 0.91 and became even more so in 0.95.

In general, impact from conventional player piloted ships has been nerfed with transition from 0.91 to 0.95. Less offense (weaker general-purpose offensive skills) and mobility for player (CM frigates are inaccessible due to sharing tier with Wolfpack + DE alternative needs too many of them vs CM just being a default maxed out buff in 0.91). Almost every enemy ship has officer now - so the only sources of raw player stat advantage may be sub-optimal skill distribution on enemies, and having multiple elite skills (most elite effects are meh anyway).

But phase did benefit where the rest lost - new skill system and phase ships do synergyze quite well, creating this:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J2RPBqutec

[close]

I do like phase cloak gameplay and don't want it overnerfed (looking at fighters, now barely above complete uselessness). But this is too much, I simply have no incentive to pilot anything else.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:11:40 PM

Quote from: Thaago on April 25, 2021, 10:54:50 PM

Uhh, did you actually read anything I wrote? You basically restated the exact meaning of my first sentence (after saying I missed the point) then ignored everything I said, including some pretty detailed reasoning about why you DO have a point from your perspective, and why other people might disagree with you from their perspective, what the problem is, and possible ways to fix it.

You said that the problem is the phase/auto ships being op and not the skill system. I said that it is the other way around. Due to skill nerfs the legacy has no longer anything decent to offer. So it is the problem with the skill system and not the problem of the phase/auto ships being op.

The skill system no longer has skills what make legacy fleets competitive enough.

This way your whole argument about some work needed to make a fix is false. Work has already been done. Reverting the skill system back to the original 0.95 will fix the problem.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 25, 2021, 11:38:18 PM

Wait, you think the skill changes between .95 initial release and now were that drastic and BAD for non-phase ships?

Quote

Skills:
Gunnery Implants:
Switched elite effect (-50% recoil) with the electronic-warfare-boosting effect

Pure buff for ballistic ships and stops non-Remnant fleets from destroying the player with ECM. Significantly lowers the value of Gunnery implants on frigates like phase ships.

Quote

Now also applies a 1% ECM bonus on cruisers and capital ships
Electronic Warfare/ECM: reduced maximum range reduction to 10% (was: 20%)
Coordinated Maneuvers: now also applies a 1% nav rating bonus on cruisers and capital ships

More buffs for non phase frigates. ECCM to 10% is a major reduction in remnant fleet power.

Quote

Energy Weapon Mastery: reduced max bonus damage to 30% (was: 50%)

Nerf to phase ships and high tech ships, including endgame threats, makes this an indirect buff to everything else.

Quote

Impact Mitigation:
Changed effective armor bonus to 50 (was: 150)
This is now the elite effect
Old elite effect (-50% kinetic damage taken by armor) removed

This may be overnerfed but its still an ok skill for ships with high armor. It is a much weaker skill for high tech ships and other ships with light hulls like phase ships and remnants. With how many officers enemies have, the enemy got easier to kill, which buffs all player ship builds offense at the expense of defense. Given that phase ships generally avoid damage rather than tank in the first place, this narrows their margin of error but doesn't impact their 'ideal' use case on defense.

Quote

Increased deployment point and fighter bay thresholds for some of the fleetwide skills
More skill adjustments etc will be forthcoming, but are not hotfix material

Buffs to larger fleets and buffs to carrier counts. Again, more buffs for non phase fleets.

Lets see, the helmsmanship elite perk also got removed from overloading ships, which makes it easier to kill enemies that overload on both sides. I would say thats just an increase in lethality across the board, no real change of relative compositions. If anything I'd say its a buff to non-phase ships: phase usually kills with sudden alpha bursts of AM blasters, phase lances/blaster, or mines rather than sustained gunfire on overloaded targets.

So... what were the skill changes I missed? I looked through the patch notes for changes and these are the only ones I can find, and they don't really seem to benefit phase ships that much if at all. Are you talking about built in SO getting removed, because thats not part of the skill system, its part of ship building.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 25, 2021, 11:39:16 PM

0.95: 0.7.2 boogaloo

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 25, 2021, 11:57:29 PM

Quote from: Thaago on April 25, 2021, 11:38:18 PM

Wait, you think the skill changes between .95 initial release and now were that drastic and BAD for non-phase ships?

I'm saying this the whole time. Welcome to the discussion.

• You can no longer destroy enemy fleets with your ECM.
• You can no longer have the synergy between EWM and IM.
• You can no longer have free SO.

That's three major legacy strategy what made it competitive.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 26, 2021, 12:03:59 AM

Thank you for the welcome, but I think I'll be leaving... I think all your points are unsupported by any reasoning and dubious at best considering that me and everyone else are using the so called "legacy" ships to defeat endgame challenges. And you again either didn't read or didn't choose to attempt and argue against any of my points that disagree with you, so there's not that much point in me trying to convince you.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 12:26:18 AM

Quote from: Thaago on April 26, 2021, 12:03:59 AM

Thank you for the welcome, but I think I'll be leaving... I think all your points are unsupported by any reasoning and dubious at best considering that me and everyone else are using the so called "legacy" ships to defeat endgame challenges. And you again either didn't read or didn't choose to attempt and argue against any of my points that disagree with you, so there's not that much point in me trying to convince you.

Reasoning is very simple:

ECM was nerfed. It no longer provide qualitative advantage. Cant outrange enemy so much that their whole defense system breaks.
Both IM and EMW were nerfed. They no longer provide qualitative advantage. Survivability of the thin armored high-tech ships dedicated as the short ranged energy weapon strike platform dropped considerably.
SO was blocked from being built-in. And yes, again, it no longer provide qualitative advantage. In this case, lotsa free flux and speed.

It was never about possibility of defeating endgame challenges.

Let me quote myself from the beginning:

"Anything else will severely hinder your combat capabilities and can be compared with shooting yourself in the leg. Yes, you can live with that but why would you do it?"

And I did address all your points. Twice actually.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 26, 2021, 12:35:33 AM

Well, phase ships and derelict contingent fleets are way stronger than normal fleets. They are in their own league regardless of IM, EWM or SO changes (unless built-in SO is just that strong. I don't play with SO). It will be easier to nerf the two outliers, than to have everything else power creep to their levels. I wouldn't want this especially because that is too much power, when a Champion with an Enforcer escort can destroy several other capital ships and cruisers, and a Doom can destroy everything in the game on its own.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 12:41:25 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 26, 2021, 12:35:33 AM

Well, phase ships and derelict contingent fleets are way stronger than normal fleets. They are in their own league regardless of IM, EWM or SO changes (unless built-in SO is just that strong. I don't play with SO). It will be easier to nerf the two outliers, than to have everything else power creep to their levels. I wouldn't want this especially because that is too much power, when a Champion with an Enforcer escort can destroy several other capital ships and cruisers, and a Doom can destroy everything in the game on its own.

It is the median what was nerfed. Phase, Auto and Derelict are still there and just fine. Snap out of this outlier/median fallacy.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 26, 2021, 12:45:47 AM

Okay. Then phase ships and DC are ***, because they remove all the challenge and fun out of the game. Simple as that.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Mordodrukow on April 26, 2021, 02:01:59 AM

They sayin that if you want challenge - you can avoid playing phase or derelict fleets. Problem is: you still need to fight against them sometimes. And every damn TT bounty has Dooms. Do i want to fill every possible hardpoint with point defence to beat Dooms specifically? No, sir, thank you...

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 26, 2021, 04:51:44 AM

Actually, I want ships to be brought to phase level.  High-powered is fun!  Lucky is right about "no fun allowed" in this patch.

And "legacy" ships as a whole feel nerfed... and more sluggish.

My endgame fleet is primarily Dooms, plus Ziggurat and Radiant.  May bring Paragon or other legacy battleships if I want to beat up core worlds incognito (by blowing up a battlestation before raiding for special items) or as backup if I anticipate back-to-back fights (because Ziggurat and Radiant are hangar queens).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 05:19:27 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 26, 2021, 12:45:47 AM

Okay. Then phase ships and DC are ***, because they remove all the challenge and fun out of the game. Simple as that.

You forgot Auto Ships...

The fun part is there. Challenge? As I see it, the major part of the legacy challenge is farming. You need larger fleet so you need more money and SPs, but you gain them 2-3 times slower and you have to struggle as to not got bored to death. For me this is the fun killer.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: robepriority on April 26, 2021, 05:58:52 AM

Bit of a tangent, but if bonus xp multipliers could scale off of how much you have stored up, that would really help the problem of having to take the hardest battles to actually, well, use it up.

Money doesn't seem like an issue with the new raiding mechanics tbh.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 26, 2021, 06:44:06 AM

Quote from: robepriority on April 26, 2021, 05:58:52 AM

Bit of a tangent, but if bonus xp multipliers could scale off of how much you have stored up, that would really help the problem of having to take the hardest battles to actually, well, use it up.

Once player can comfortably take out endgame named bounties one after another, it does not take too long to use up bonus xp.  But another way would be nice for those who do not want to fight much.  For those who prefer to explore or trade, bonus xp just... stays there.  Player needs to be a battle maniac at max power to use up bonus xp in a timely manner.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 26, 2021, 07:21:42 AM

If everything was buffed to phase ship levels, then phase ships wouldn't feel high powered anymore, the numbers would just be higher... That's classic power creep. It's fine if people like playing with OP stuff that trivializes the game, but that should be the domain of mods, not the base game.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 26, 2021, 07:50:38 AM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 26, 2021, 07:21:42 AM

If everything was buffed to phase ship levels, then phase ships wouldn't feel high powered anymore, the numbers would just be higher... That's classic power creep. It's fine if people like playing with OP stuff that trivializes the game, but that should be the domain of mods, not the base game.

Phase ships would not be as strong compared to others if the others were powered up, but at least fights would be faster and maybe more exciting.  Maybe PPT timeout would be less of a problem since things die faster.

And power creep is not a bad thing when things were stronger, faster, and more fun before 0.8a.  Not to mention AI before 0.8a was not as much a wuss.  The only bad thing back then was replacing ships was a pain due to how rare things not in Open Market were.

Lately, we have had nerf creep or "no fun allowed", with exceptions.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 26, 2021, 08:35:33 AM

Quote from: Megas on April 26, 2021, 07:50:38 AM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 26, 2021, 07:21:42 AM

If everything was buffed to phase ship levels, then phase ships wouldn't feel high powered anymore, the numbers would just be higher... That's classic power creep. It's fine if people like playing with OP stuff that trivializes the game, but that should be the domain of mods, not the base game.

Phase ships would not be as strong compared to others if the others were powered up, but at least fights would be faster and maybe more exciting.  Maybe PPT timeout would be less of a problem since things die faster.

And power creep is not a bad thing when things were stronger, faster, and more fun before 0.8a.  Not to mention AI before 0.8a was not as much a wuss.  The only bad thing back then was replacing ships was a pain due to how rare things not in Open Market were.

Lately, we have had nerf creep or "no fun allowed", with exceptions.

If you want combat to play faster, increase the battle speed (I know you already do but most people don't and are quite happy with the game, myself included, so I don't that should be a driving balance objective). If PPT is an issues, then increase PPT. Buffing damage/speed on everything has way more far-reaching balance implications than just TTK and combat pacing. The entire philosophy of low tech ships would be ruined. I think a lot of the current issues with low tech are because damage has outpaced defense making slow/heavily armored ships bad, and you seem to be proposing to make that worse. If you buff defenses to keep up with crazy damage on phase ships, you end up in a world where everything has derelict contingent level tankiness so it doesn't die instantly to unavoidable 4x am blaster with 300% damage boost. I also think low TTK just feels wrong with big hulking battleships, they should be hard to take down.

Also, low TTK is bad for the AI as it leaves much less room for error. You will see many more AI ships randomly dying if you go for across the board speed/damage buffs. The AI is not good at utilizing speed or range, so making those more critical to survival seems like a bad call.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 05:19:27 AM

As I see it, the major part of the legacy challenge is farming. You need larger fleet so you need more money and SPs, but you gain them 2-3 times slower and you have to struggle as to not got bored to death. For me this is the fun killer.

For me, challenge is about how difficult it is to win fights/make progress. Being so strong that fights are not challenging is boring. I don't farm boring fights. If I get to a place where I need to do a lot of boring/easy tasks to get something, I stop playing. I like this game because you can have fun in difficult combats while also making money. Adding a bunch of OP stuff that trivializes combat makes normal/fun gameplay into boring farming and ruins the fun for me.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 26, 2021, 09:15:54 AM

@ intrinsic_parity:  Game loses fidelity beyond 2f, and I already play at 2f, which is still slower than other similar games.  If not for losing fidelity, I probably would play at 3f or maybe 4f.  Default Starsector is way too slow-paced.

I wish game speed was in the in-game settings where map size is.  I do not like tampering with the settings.json.

As for combat, being overpowered is more fun than fighting fair, especially when losses are so punishing.  In Starsector, I avoid fair fights unless I have no better option.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 26, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 05:19:27 AM

You forgot Auto Ships...

I rank it between phase ships & DC, and normal fleets. With DC you can go make some tea while the battle goes on, with a Doom you need no other ship. A Radiant is good, but it can still fall to other Radiants.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 05:19:27 AM

The fun part is there.

As far as I am concerned, parts where I'm overpowered and my victory is certain are those that make me want to play the game the least. If I will get the same results by fighting as if just typed "nuke" in the console and the only difference is that I don't waste a couple of minutes in the latter case, why not just skip it? Better yet, why not just skip playing Starsector entirely?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 26, 2021, 10:02:49 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 26, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

As far as I am concerned, parts where I'm overpowered and my victory is certain are those that make me want to play the game the least. If I will get the same results by fighting as if just typed "nuke" in the console and the only difference is that I don't waste a couple of minutes in the latter case, why not just skip it? Better yet, why not just skip playing Starsector entirely?

Because it is fun killing and watching things explode and listening to the pew-pew and explosions.  You do not get that by typing a kill all and the result is a simple "U WIN!".

In early Starfarer (when skills were first added), the most effective build was max Leadership/Tech for the auto-resolve character.  Hit auto-resolve in every fight to win in seconds and power-level to get 10-10-10 instead fighting Hegemony System Defense Fleet and the rest for minutes and level slowly to get only 10-10.  It was boring because it defeated the point of all of the eye-candy and gameplay provided by the game.

Quote from: SCC on April 26, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

A Radiant is good, but it can still fall to other Radiants.

Also, if player does not have the best weapons, it can fall to a concentrated attack from a normal late-game fleet.  At first, I only had beta core and Autopulse Lasers which, while decent, did not stand up to the worst threats.  After upgrading to alpha core and three plasma cannons (and two Paladins for anti-small stuff), Radiant performed better.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Helldiver on April 26, 2021, 10:16:05 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 09:12:28 PM

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 08:49:45 PM

Derelict contingent - well, you're aware of issues. :)  Personally, hull tanking feels a little too much like a gimmick, and without the faster repair skill/free repair skill in the opposite skill, somewhat lacking.  Waiting 10-12 days after a rough fight with the shield shunt radiants sets the combat cadence.  I miss d-mod specialized fleets combined with the fast repair and 20-40% CR recovery if they get truly destroyed and recovered.

Yep! FWIW, for .1 I'd like to have it go back to roughly how it worked before as far as junkfleets go. The new DC was a bit of an experiment, and it's not looking like it worked out.

WHY

I love the current Derelict Contingent skill. It find that it finally makes shieldless ships actually worth playing and makes junker fleets fun and rewarding and not the useless, always inferior choice that they were before.
The old D-mod skills reduced negative effects of D-mods and made ships cost less supplies but that didn't ever make them worth using over pristine ships. The supply costs and procurement of pristine ships have never been an issue past 1 hour into a campaign and D-mods being less bad didn't actually do anything for you, just make your ships less inferior but still inferior with no gameplay change.

I am currently playing a junker campaign and having a blast with my shieldless ships, crushing raid fleets with my tanky, misshapen masses of metal. I'm having a blast working around the full effect D-mods on every ship while taking advantage of the loadout freedom of not having to deal with shield flux. It is a completely different playstyle where you gain unique strengths, unlike before where your weaknesses were watered down (boring) while you gained nothing new.

Whatever you do in the next update, please do not take away the ability to play effective shieldless ships or just return D-mod skills to their old state. There is gold in the concepts that you've brought forward with DC. It reminded me of the Hazard Mining mod's Junker ships that would gain ordnance points for each D-mod and had additional features to fight unshielded.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

intrinsic_parity

It was already mentioned in this topic earlier how much SP it takes to build a fleet. There is no real options here. You either farm less targets but at x5 rate or you have to take 2-3 more fights. New meta broadens up the definition of "easy target" and the legacy one more stuck to soloing pirate fleets in Odyssey or Conquest. I see no another way around it. Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:30:19 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 26, 2021, 09:43:15 AM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 05:19:27 AM

You forgot Auto Ships...

I rank it between phase ships & DC, and normal fleets. With DC you can go make some tea while the battle goes on, with a Doom you need no other ship. A Radiant is good, but it can still fall to other Radiants.

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 05:19:27 AM

The fun part is there.

As far as I am concerned, parts where I'm overpowered and my victory is certain are those that make me want to play the game the least. If I will get the same results by fighting as if just typed "nuke" in the console and the only difference is that I don't waste a couple of minutes in the latter case, why not just skip it? Better yet, why not just skip playing Starsector entirely?

So it is still above the legacy.

Well... Win is certain in any case.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:42:12 AM

Quote from: Helldiver on April 26, 2021, 10:16:05 AM

There is gold in the concepts that you've brought forward with DC. It reminded me of the Hazard Mining mod's Junker ships that would gain ordnance points for each D-mod and had additional features to fight unshielded.

There was a whole mother load in the initial release. Honestly, I have no idea why is it all being wasted in such a spectacular manner.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: intrinsic_parity on April 26, 2021, 04:17:21 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

intrinsic_parity

It was already mentioned in this topic earlier how much SP it takes to build a fleet. There is no real options here. You either farm less targets but at x5 rate or you have to take 2-3 more fights. New meta broadens up the definition of "easy target" and the legacy one more stuck to soloing pirate fleets in Odyssey or Conquest. I see no another way around it. Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

My goal is to have fun, not get the most powerful fleet in the least amount of time. I do wish that those two things aligned though. For now, I intentionally ignore OP strategies so that the game is more fun, even though it bothers me to not use the best strategy. That's also why I wish the OP strategies would get nerfed, so that I can pick the best strategy and still have fun.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 06:23:01 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

Not being able to farm several dozens of SP in [arbitrary short period of time] is a good thing.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Retry on April 26, 2021, 08:54:57 PM

Quote from: Helldiver on April 26, 2021, 10:16:05 AM

Quote from: Alex on April 19, 2021, 09:12:28 PM

Quote from: Hiruma Kai on April 19, 2021, 08:49:45 PM

Derelict contingent - well, you're aware of issues. :)  Personally, hull tanking feels a little too much like a gimmick, and without the faster repair skill/free repair skill in the opposite skill, somewhat lacking.  Waiting 10-12 days after a rough fight with the shield shunt radiants sets the combat cadence.  I miss d-mod specialized fleets combined with the fast repair and 20-40% CR recovery if they get truly destroyed and recovered.

Yep! FWIW, for .1 I'd like to have it go back to roughly how it worked before as far as junkfleets go. The new DC was a bit of an experiment, and it's not looking like it worked out.

WHY

DC allowing already tanky Capital Ships to tank planet killers and require turning them into the center of a all-sucking gravity well (several times) in order to kill them is a bit excessive.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 09:12:00 PM

Quote from: intrinsic_parity on April 26, 2021, 04:17:21 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

intrinsic_parity

It was already mentioned in this topic earlier how much SP it takes to build a fleet. There is no real options here. You either farm less targets but at x5 rate or you have to take 2-3 more fights. New meta broadens up the definition of "easy target" and the legacy one more stuck to soloing pirate fleets in Odyssey or Conquest. I see no another way around it. Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

My goal is to have fun, not get the most powerful fleet in the least amount of time. I do wish that those two things aligned though. For now, I intentionally ignore OP strategies so that the game is more fun, even though it bothers me to not use the best strategy. That's also why I wish the OP strategies would get nerfed, so that I can pick the best strategy and still have fun.

We both have the same goal. Means, however, are quite different. Removal of the very possibility to optimize fleet building to OP level will literally kill any interest in the game for me.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 09:13:56 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 06:23:01 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

Not being able to farm several dozens of SP in [arbitrary short period of time] is a good thing.

Why is that?

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Hiruma Kai on April 26, 2021, 10:21:18 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 09:13:56 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 06:23:01 PM

Not being able to farm several dozens of SP in [arbitrary short period of time] is a good thing.

Why is that?

This strikes me as a fundamental game design question.

The answer is likely for similar reasons people are much more concerned with the balance and nature of the campaign part of the game, as opposed to asking for more interesting missions and fine tuned control over them (I mean missions picked from the main menu, not campaign missions).  It's the same reason people seem to prefer a system where you level over time as opposed to picking 15 skills or 52 skills or whatever at the beginning of the game and never earning more.  Or simply having no skill system at all, with all the skill benefits in 0.9.1a or 0.9.5a just active 100% of the time.

Now, that's not to say longer is always better, but there's ideally a balance to be struck between player investment and reward or progression for that investment.  Too quick or too much, and most people lose interest.  Too slow or too little, then it becomes a boring grind.  People are going to disagree where that line exactly is or should be, as that's a personal taste question.  But that line definitely exists.

Then there's the desire for consequences for actions or decisions.  If I've got more SP than I could ever possibly spend, there's no consequence to spending them, and doesn't matter what I pick - I can pick everything.  If people didn't like consequences, I should expect more people asking for a better mission UI interface from the main menu that lets you pick from any ship to be placed on either side, along with picking fleet skills, officers skills, and any type of outfitting.  Just pure combat configured exactly as you like, without consequences or progression.  I don't think I've ever seen such a request on these forums (although I could have missed it). 

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 10:36:59 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 09:13:56 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 06:23:01 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

Not being able to farm several dozens of SP in [arbitrary short period of time] is a good thing.

Why is that?

Hiruma Kai has an interesting post on the subject as usual, but for me it's much simpler:

If the game has a resource that's supposed to be at least slightly scarce, but is trivially available in large amounts, then it is not meaningfully a resource. Make it not trivial to amass, or remove the mechanic entirely: either make it actually infinite instead of only effectively so, or else remove it outright and remove all the things that used it.

If the implications of this are somehow not clear enough: Consider what the game would be like if the player had infinite credits (while everything else worked the same).

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: SCC on April 26, 2021, 11:19:10 PM

I wouldn't mind earning SPs quickier in the end game. It's really hard to get rid of bonus XP.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 11:19:50 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 10:36:59 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 09:13:56 PM

Quote from: Histidine on April 26, 2021, 06:23:01 PM

Quote from: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 10:17:13 AM

Several dozens SP will not farm themselves.

Not being able to farm several dozens of SP in [arbitrary short period of time] is a good thing.

Why is that?

Hiruma Kai has an interesting post on the subject as usual, but for me it's much simpler:

If the game has a resource that's supposed to be at least slightly scarce, but is trivially available in large amounts, then it is not meaningfully a resource. Make it not trivial to amass, or remove the mechanic entirely: either make it actually infinite instead of only effectively so, or else remove it outright and remove all the things that used it.

If the implications of this are somehow not clear enough: Consider what the game would be like if the player had infinite credits (while everything else worked the same).

The only resource in any game is the player's time. What you call "resources" is only a means to set up the process of spending it. And the focus is the controllable challenge. The sole role of the SPs/money accumulation is to boost the anticipation of fight. The "arming up" scenes in the action movies serve the same purpose. Make it too long and you've ruined the moment. Human is unable to be excited that much for too long. Situation either resolved or becomes a routine and in the worst case get ignored altogether.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Lucky33 on April 26, 2021, 11:30:08 PM

Hiruma Kai

Mission interface of the game:

(https://i.imgur.com/mQ5Ic2I.png)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: CrixM on April 27, 2021, 02:18:16 AM

The technology tree is ridiculously good, and the leadership and industry tree need to be brought up to its level (rather than just coasting on a single broken skill like derelict contingent)

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: bob888w on April 27, 2021, 05:02:56 AM

Quote from: CrixM on April 27, 2021, 02:18:16 AM

The technology tree is ridiculously good, and the leadership and industry tree need to be brought up to its level (rather than just coasting on a single broken skill like derelict contingent)

IMO the leadership and industry trees up to T4 are fine, it's just the colony capstone should be a whole other tree. It feels like combat is actually the worst of the bunch to me. Trying to one man carry with a phase/capital ship versus the AI which can deploy like 50 more DP then you and have 10% more range. I personally feel like going down leadership for frigate,more officers, and +CR is so much more valuable

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 27, 2021, 05:07:27 AM

Quote from: bob888w on April 27, 2021, 05:02:56 AM

IMO the leadership and industry trees up to T4 are fine, it's just the colony capstone should be a whole other tree.

L1R is useless and poisons wrap-around.
L5 as you noted doesn't even belong, so also poisons wrap-around.
L2L CM is near useless without L2R WP (but would be strong together). Yet you can't wrap around because of the 2 above and lock in L4.

Industry is just one overpowered skill (Derelict Contingent) and 3 levels of tax to get there.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 27, 2021, 05:16:52 AM

I would not mind Leadership 5 if they were not blocked by permanent officer skills.  No way to get Ground Operations without locking skill points in officers.  Ground Operations would have been useful for my raids for rare items.  (Losing about a thousand marines per raid at some of the stronger core worlds when I cannot replace them immediately is a bit annoying.)  Got to collect them all (the blueprints).  Also steal those forges to permanently weaken their fleets.

One of the Leadership 4 skills should not be permanent.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Draba on April 27, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: TaLaR on April 27, 2021, 05:07:27 AM

L1R is useless and poisons wrap-around.
L5 as you noted doesn't even belong, so also poisons wrap-around.
L2L CM is near useless without L2R WP (but would be strong together). Yet you can't wrap around because of the 2 above and lock in L4.

Industry is just one overpowered skill (Derelict Contingent) and 3 levels of tax to get there.

Coordinated Maneouvers (L2L) "Affects" text says it only works with frigates/destroyers, but it does give the 1% for every larger hull.
~10% speed boost isn't gamebreaking but very nice.

On top of that: monitors are always good, 6 DP immortal PD distraction that can get 2% s-mod nav relay boost without sacrificing anything important.
Stick an officer in it and you are looking at a 15-20% speed boost. Sunders are never bad, add a few to cap out if needed.
Is a decent skill, IMO made great by monitors being a bit on the too good side.
Needed to get crew training anyway, crew training is the bee's knees.

L1 is really bad though.
Weapon drills DP limit is only 120 so you get <5% damage out of it later on. Wouldn't ever pick auxiliary support.



Reliability engineering (I2R) is very good IMO. +5% damage/maneouverability, -5% damage taken, better autofire, can be deployed more often in a pinch and the extra peak/lower overload are minor bonuses on top.
Does have the industry 1 tax so I might wrap around 2 levels in tech instead, but if it was a standalone it'd be an easy pick for me.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 27, 2021, 08:41:25 AM

L2L is not very useful if it does not enable frigates to stay long enough.  Endgame fights are at least as big as the previous release, and (lack of) PPT is just as much a problem today.

I pick Reliability Engineering for the extra PPT/CR.  Guaranteed recovery is good on officers, but not so much on your ship-swapping character.  I am half-tempted to burn-in Reinforced Bulkheads on Ziggurat because if I crash it, I want to switch to a new ship, but losing big Z permanently would hurt.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Hiruma Kai on April 27, 2021, 10:19:59 AM

Quote from: SCC on April 26, 2021, 11:19:10 PM

I wouldn't mind earning SPs quickier in the end game. It's really hard to get rid of bonus XP.

If the aim is to get rid of bonus XP, you really need to reduce the % amount of bonus XP given for many choices, rather than speed up the acquisition - although doing both simultaneously would also work.

Look at this way, as it stands right now, if I spend a SP that provides 100% XP back every time I earn a SP (say I have a nice cushion of 10 in the bank, and choose not to go below that), I will never run out of bonus XP, and it will continue to grow, as I earn 50% real XP, I use up 50% bonus XP, and now I spend that newly earned SP on another 100% XP option.  Now I've got 150% bonus XP in the bank (growing to 200% after the next point, 250%, etc), and am spending 1 SP every 500,000 real XP earned.

Now increase the rate at which bonus XP is used, say make it 10:1.  So I earn 10% XP, and that burn 90% XP.  I spend a 100% XP SP.  Now I've got 110% bonus XP remaining, and spend 1 SP every 100,000 real XP earned.  The bonus grows to 120%, then 130%, etc.  Bonus XP is still growing, despite earning SP at 5 times the rate.

The only way to have bonus XP truly guaranteed to run out, is remove bonus XP options above the gain rate.  I.e. if you're earning triple XP, bonus XP cannot be above 66% per point.  If you're earning quadruple XP, bonus XP cannot be above 75% per point, if you're earning quintuple XP, bonus XP cannot be above 80% per point, and so on.  The closer you are to those break points but below them, the slower any built up XP reserve will drain out.  Going above it just means faster SP gain potentially without reducing XP backlog.

The other way to look at it, is if everyone spent SP only on less than 50% bonus XP choices, you wouldn't have a backlog eventually in the current implementation.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: J3R on April 27, 2021, 11:37:59 AM

My only problem is endgame fleets need to be toned down or limited in the same way the player is with skill thresholds and deployment. Super massive fleets that would never be sustainable should not exist aside from maybe REDACTED.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Thaago on April 27, 2021, 11:42:23 AM

I think leadership is a good tree thats hampered by dud skill in L1R and the colony skills in tier 5. For 3 points going down the left hand track gives to every ship in the fleet: +10-15% damage, +14-25% speed, +5% maneuverability, -5% damage taken (armor, hull, shield), better autofire accuracy, -5% fighter refit time, +30s PPT.

Thats to every ship including the player, and looks like roughly 2 combat skills worth? Something like that, maybe 1.5 combat skills. Giving that to every ship for 3 points is good. 4th point more officers/better officers is good too.

Wolfpack is a specialty skill that I think is very good if most of the fleet is very high speed frigates that are going to be doing the majority of the total fleet damage. The PPT I think is overrated: its good, sure, but ships already get +90s between crew training and reliability engineering (which also gives more CR for performance and -25% tickdown rate that stacks with hardened subsystems). Its just not needed. If the fleet's main power isn't high performance frigates, coordinated maneuvers is a lot better.

For looping, I want to double up on tier 3 and 4, and I guess wolfpack wouldn't be terrible as it would help a few ships. But woof that tier 1R and tier 5 :(.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Rudette on April 27, 2021, 11:53:32 PM

I actually kind of like L1R/Auxiliary Support's playstyle, and wish it weren't limited to just the early game due to caps.

Making civilian junk ships into tanky brawlers is pretty useful in the early game. Turn a couple Kites into little monsters. Use the money you save to get a Colossus MKIII or something sooner, go raiding. Make a Super-Venture. It's fun, and funny, can give some of the hybrid freighters more staying power.

But..Just like lots of other stuff? it's severely hamstrung by fleet and DP caps. Another weird thing that makes it undesirable is that you kinda want the +1 burn from Bulk Transport to make it work, since normally you want to militarize your civilian vessels for the sensor benefits and the lower maintenance from expanded cargo and the like. But, if you do that with Auxiliary Support, you dilute and lose your bonuses if you do that.

Meanwhile, Bulk Transport wants to militarize for more cargo if you don't have Auxiliary Support, so it doesn't really gain anything from the + 1 burn. So, really, I think the +1 burn should just be rolled into Auxiliary Support, where it would be used, instead of just floating there uselessly for everyone else.

The whole idea of tinkering with subsystems of junk civilian ships with after market modifications belongs in the Industry Tree, I think. Auxiliary Support would fit there better thematically.

Take it out of L1. Stick it in I1. Adjust the cap or make it a flat bonus. Move Bulk Transport's +1 Bonus to it, give Bulk Transport earlier access to the Efficiency Overhaul mod or something to compensate. Buff Salvaging and move it further up the tree somewhere. Really, I'd prefer the Industry Tree be reworked into actual choices between L = Logistics Buff and R= Fleet Buff; Each tier would should be a choice between making your fleet tougher, or making it run more efficiently. Which is way more interesting than "do you want to save money this way or that way" It would be easier to stuff those choices in there without the colony skills. I2 can keep it's piloting bonuses, but everything else would feel so much better than how it is now.

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: TaLaR on April 28, 2021, 12:12:50 AM

Quote from: Rudette on April 27, 2021, 11:53:32 PM

I actually kind of like L1R/Auxiliary Support's playstyle, and wish it weren't limited to just the early game due to caps.

Skills that niche below tier 5 are not compatible with wrap-around. You might as well just prohibit it, since wrap-around becomes too expensive to ever consider.

Though this more a rant towards the wrap-around mechanic...

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Megas on April 28, 2021, 04:59:43 AM

Industry is the campaign QoL tree.

I could live without Industry 1, but the bonuses are nice if I am forced to take it to get to higher skills.  I like Bulk Transport's bonuses, more cargo and +1 burn (exit Military Subsystems, enter Surveying Equipment or Solar Shielding).

Industry 2 is combat, and well... PPT is a problem with some ships, so I2R.  Guaranteed Recovery on flagship only works if I stay in my wrecked ship and sit out for the rest of the battle - lame.  (Great on officers.)

Industry 3 I can live without, but the fuel one I3L is convenient, and no CR loss from e-burn is handy when I want it to navigate through storms or coronas, or just need to accelerate instantly in a pinch.  If not for Bulk Transport, I3R would be tempting for the cheaper surveying.

Industry 4, I want Field Repairs!  I do not want d-mods - ever!  I know about DC abuse, but I do not want to pilot clunkers!  Also, sometimes, I lose ships and I recover them with no d-mods.  Last big fight, I lost three Dooms, and recovered them pristine.

Industry 5... I want to be a colony lord or space baron too, but the skills are weak!  Still after putting five in Combat and Tech, what would I get?  Gunnery Drills for +3% or 4% (since my fleet is big)?  What a joke, just like Industry 5.  Strike Commander?  Not piloting a carrier this release.  Sensors, I already got Neutrino Detector from the early Galatian quests.  With only one point left, gimme my empire to rule!

Title: Re: Impressions about skills in 0.9.5
Post by: Sarissofoi on April 28, 2021, 07:29:23 AM

I personally in my humble opinion think that planetary skills should be all removed. Just increase amount of available admins(they cost $$$) that can be hired.
Player is not sitting at home and running colonies anyway - he fly around so he should hire admins to do stuff.
Heck add admin skills to the admin skill pool for bigger diversity. heck make separate skills for AI admins and human admins for more fun. Having admins with some lesser traits(like affecting only some industries etc) wouldn't be bad.
Most industry tree is useful only early when you are starving for money/supplies/fuel. Derelict contingent with this dodge mechanics is busted and I refuse to use it.
Some caps make sense(at last from game play balance point), like Automated Ships(tho I wish it won't count derelict ships), but some are just meh and not fun at best.