What about a "I prefer the new skills but hate the 'loop around' layout" option?
The new one only because it has respec while the old one did not. If the old one had respec, I would prefer the old one.
Old one didn't need respec nearly as much though, since it didn't marry you to a single ship.It effectively did if player took carrier skills. Player was locked to Drover, Mora, Heron, and Astral if he took pilot-only carrier skills.
What about a "I prefer the new skills but hate the 'loop around' layout" option?This. 0.95 brought a lot of conceptually interesting skills (and a few outright broken ones), but I'm not terribly fond of either the wrap-around layout or most of the DP Theshold limitations.
I like the new one because of the respec option. On the last patch I had to start over 3 times I think because I wasted 1 skill point. Restartaritis is real folks. On the complaints about the new skill set, I can live with all of it. What I can't live wihtout is the new field repairs.I think this patch is no better due to three specific skills are not re-spec-able.
I think people sometimes forget that the purpose isn't necessarily to give the player what they want per se (in which case we should just start at max level with all ships and weapons with all shipsystems and unlimited HP) but to have the player confront interesting choices and have to make meaningful tradeoffs. A lot of the complaints I see basically boil down to "but I can't get everything I want" which is entirely the point (and for those people who really think it's too limiting, you can just edit settings.json to give yourself as many levels and hence as many skill points as you want).You’re also missing some points:
The new skill system lets the player max/min more, but they have to give up more to do so. Want to have a Radiant in your fleet? Sure, but you'll have to give up essentially 10-15 OP on all of your ships (i.e. what you save with a 3rd s-mod) to do so. So you really have to think about if you want a single powerful ship or buffing all other ships.
Similarly, the DP maxes on some of the skills prevent them from being too powerful, and rewards having an effective fleet instead of simply spamming Paragons. So again it gives the player a meaningful choice to consider.
The new system certainly needs some tweaking (for example I'm not a fan of a choice between both frigate-buffing skills) but it gives the player more meaningful choices and potentially more powerful fleets if constructed properly.
And these skills that eventually hit a limit, after which they do nothing?So that the optimal use of any fleetwide skill isn't to spam 20 Paragons.
I don't like that. And why do not all skills have elite effects? Combat gets a lot of favoritism, I swear.Because, for example, when you get Special Modifications, you get 10-20 new opportunities to spend story points on ships. When you get Systems Expertise, you have no new incentive to spend story points on anything, so as a participation
The feel of wasted skill points is where all the complaints come from.There were wasted points in 0.9.1, too, though it typically had some good stuff at the level 3 (though it's not guaranteed, as with Defensive Systems 3 or Helmsmanship 3). Current system would feel better, if top skills were strong enough to guarantee their price without taking previous skills into much consideration.
The new version seem to be more clement toward players who'd rather pilot themselves rather than take full fleet and logistic skills.Adding a side note, combat tree is pretty no-brain picks. You either need one or the other, with the only exception of tier 5 that both may be useful. But noone is going to pay 4 points of skill tax just to wrap around to get both. Every other tree you’re making choices between similar skills that serve similar functions to some extent that it’s hardly counting as meaningful choices, if the results are similar.
However it's less because personal skills were buffed and more because non-personal ones were severely hampered by the "get half of it and loop for the other half" on top of diminishing returns on some and the trap of derelict+fieldrepair.
As someone who doesn't pilot, 0.9.1 but i do understand the point of those who prefer 0.95, and will too be in favour of it when skills gets some balancing to make the system flexible without leaving an aftertaste of doing concessions rather than specialisation.
The feel of wasted skill points is where all the complaints come from.
However all the skills are themed properly. When you get industry aptitude you get industry skills, hands down no dispute. It’s not barring all colony skills at tier 5 and force players to pay 80% of skill points as taxes. Not to mention you’re making a false assumption of people getting all aptitudes - which is often not the case.The feel of wasted skill points is where all the complaints come from.
In which case under the old skill system you had to burn 12 of your 40 points just to unlock tier 3 of each tree. That's almost 1/3 of your points going into exactly zero benefit except to unlock skills. The old system was also similarly tiered, with skills locked behind other skills which may or may not be useful, just 3 instead of 5.
New system 100%. Could still be improved, sure, but definitely a step in the right direction.Re:2. I play a monitor thus is forced to waste 3 points completely useless to get a better shield. Technology tier 2 is also a waste.
1. Stronger, fewer skills > weaker, more numerous skills. The old system suffered from far too many small incremental upgrades. While over time they could make a very strong character, any individual level rarely felt impactful unless you hit one of the few major upgrades like transverse jumping. Levels in 0.95 give you more per level overall and that feels good.
2. No dead levels. In the old system you'd usually have ~10 levels per playthrough where you just spent your skill points on raising aptitude. Now, there are some levels that might feel a little worse than others still, but you still always get SOMETHING.
3. More choice isn't always better. By limiting each level to a choice between 8 available skills, it helps players (especially new players) avoid getting overwhelmed with analysis paralysis.
4. (Most subjective opinion) I LIKE the fact you can't get everything you might want. In 0.91 being able to get whatever you wanted with few restrictions made each playthrough feel so incredibly same-y. Despite all the choices I had available I always found myself falling into the same general builds by level 50. Now, fewer choices force more player consideration and planning, which I find quite fun. And since each skill is fairly impactful, it helps the player feel good about their choice afterward, even if it was a hard choice to make.
In the old system, you were never forced to make difficult decisions because of the structure of the system. You just take all the best skills, and then pick which mediocre/QOL skills you want after that, so you're only ever making decisions between the weakest skills by design. There was no way to change that within the old system, which is why it was abandoned.What's "All the best skills"?
What's "All the best skills"?At least Fleet Logistics 3, Coordinated Manoeuvres 1, Fighter Docttine 3, Loadout Design 3 and Electronic Warfare 1.
In the old system, you were never forced to make difficult decisions because of the structure of the system. You just take all the best skills, and then pick which mediocre/QOL skills you want after that, so you're only ever making decisions between the weakest skills by design. There was no way to change that within the old system, which is why it was abandoned.Personally I (and at least a few other people) would be considerably happier if the system focused more on 'to get this really cool thing you have to give up on this other really cool thing' and less 'to get this really cool thing you have to spend a ton of skill points on things you didn't want to begin with'. More 'choice of prize' and less 'tax'.
Re:4. Vanilla level cap is at 40 and was offering equally tough decisions. Level 50 has to be modded (cheating) and the same would apply to current system if you give yourself something like 25 total skill points. The worse skills will be left unpicked and you'll be able to get "everything", which makes playthroughs still feeling same-ish.Vanilla level cap was 50.
I would argue that stronger skills feels way worse than weaker skills. If I don't want EVERYTHING in such bundle I feel I'm wasting skill points. Unlike the old system, I'm paying for what I get most of the time with a few exception of skill level 3 being very good. The skills are mostly in line and synergizes for all three levels so it's seldom wasted point.Huh, can't relate. For me it's the opposite: the 3 levels almost invariably have 1-2 junk levels I avoided if I could and got annoyed by if I couldn't, whereas if I get it as a "free" part of a package deal I feel like, whatever.
Can't speak for i_p, but for me:In the old system, you were never forced to make difficult decisions because of the structure of the system. You just take all the best skills, and then pick which mediocre/QOL skills you want after that, so you're only ever making decisions between the weakest skills by design. There was no way to change that within the old system, which is why it was abandoned.What's "All the best skills"?
3. More choice isn't always better. By limiting each level to a choice between 8 available skills, it helps players (especially new players) avoid getting overwhelmed with analysis paralysis.
What's "All the best skills"?
What "tough" decisions did you ever had to make in .95?
I'm legit curious.
Personally I (and at least a few other people) would be considerably happier if the system focused more on 'to get this really cool thing you have to give up on this other really cool thing' and less 'to get this really cool thing you have to spend a ton of skill points on things you didn't want to begin with'. More 'choice of prize' and less 'tax'.
However all the skills are themed properly. When you get industry aptitude you get industry skills, hands down no dispute.
It’s not barring all colony skills at tier 5 and force players to pay 80% of skill points as taxes.
Not to mention you’re making a false assumption of people getting all aptitudes - which is often not the case.
Like seriously, you can’t even get a tier 5 from each tree because you only have 15 points.
It’s far worse than previous iteration when you can actually get top skills from every tree.
You didn't need to burn 12 points in 0.91, Industry was entirely fine to skip. So only 9 points.
Stop using straw man.
You were demonstrating there is a max of 30% tax in the old skill tree while I demonstrate you there is a max of 80% skill tax in the new. If I for one solely want to run colony and build a trading empire, its extremely punishing in .95. All other skills are irrelevant as they don’t help with what I try to achieve, when I only want that sweet sweet monthly tick. Yes, 12 completely wasted points, that’s how I feel.
There is no meaningful choices for me as of current patch as I always pick the same set of skills.
Wolfpack is a blind pick. Special modification is a blind pick. Level 6 officer is a blind pick. Sensor is a blind pick. Industry tree doesn’t exist. I only need to respec combat tree for flagship but again it provided no meaningful choices as my flagship only benefit from one skill of any given tier than the other. It’s just annoying to need to spend SP to respec when switching flagship.
I know immediately you’re going to straw man by quoting I want to play colony and quote the last paragraph about fully despising industry tree. I can immediately tell you that since full colony play became impossible I ditched colony focus altogether as “it’s not the right way to play the game”.
I feel forced to pick combat tree otherwise there is no possible way to beat end game enemies. (Of course we’re talking about full vanilla, including any setting values.) I do understand the game was designed to be combat focus, but it’s now over emphasizing it. The addition of colony and whatnot was meant to have different approaches to combat, now it’s all nullified. It’s essentially expelling all players that had fun by utilizing features added between.8 and .91.
Are you claiming that there is no usefulness to more post-battle salvage, additional cargo/crew/fuel capacity, additional peak time, additional CR, etc.? Here you're arguing that the first 4 tiers of the new system don't provide any benefit whatsoever, when in the old system you explicitly had to burn points purely to access each tier of skills in each aptitude with no other benefit. You can certainly debate how much benefit each skill provides under the new system but every point provides at least some benefit to the player.
So that the optimal use of any fleetwide skill isn't to spam 20 Paragons.
Because, for example, when you get Special Modifications, you get 10-20 new opportunities to spend story points on ships. When you get Systems Expertise, you have no new incentive to spend story points on anything, so as a participationawardstory point sink, you get the elite upgrade.
You can also think of it this way: combat skills cost 1 1/4th of a skill point to fully unlock.
There is no meaningful choices for me as of current patch as I always pick the same set of skills.You having a skill preference doesn't mean the alternative is bad or the system is broken.
Wolfpack is a blind pick. Special modification is a blind pick. Level 6 officer is a blind pick. Sensor is a blind pick. Industry tree doesn’t exist. I only need to respec combat tree for flagship but again it provided no meaningful choices as my flagship only benefit from one skill of any given tier than the other. It’s just annoying to need to spend SP to respec when switching flagship.
I wouldn't do that to begin with. I don't do tryharding super optimal builds in a single player game, that's dumb.You might not, but the thought that getting a fleetwide skill over a personal/limited one because the former is potentially better is still there.
This would make sense if Industry also got a nice elite effect as a consolation prize, but it doesn't allow you to tap into comparable power. Only Combat and Technology get the good stuff either with or without elite effects, being vastly OP compared to Leadership and Industry.But Industry combat skills do get their elites and for what it's worth, I consider both of them to be pretty good, too. Now, the issue of Industry not giving you combat power (sans the combat skills and derelict contingent), unlike other trees, isn't an issue that should be solved by sprinkling some story point sinks on it.
There is no meaningful choices for me as of current patch as I always pick the same set of skills.Wolfpack Tactics is decent early game. I used it mostly for exploration, to take more expdrones with my Tempest. Specmods seems good, but I have a feeling that most people take it simply because it's a safer pick, or because they don't know just how good a Radiant is. Hm. I don't think it's worth comparing my choices with yours, unless there's a clear target to reach, like maximum power.
Wolfpack is a blind pick. Special modification is a blind pick. Level 6 officer is a blind pick. Sensor is a blind pick. Industry tree doesn’t exist. I only need to respec combat tree for flagship but again it provided no meaningful choices as my flagship only benefit from one skill of any given tier than the other. It’s just annoying to need to spend SP to respec when switching flagship.
I feel forced to pick combat tree otherwise there is no possible way to beat end game enemies. (Of course we’re talking about full vanilla, including any setting values.) I do understand the game was designed to be combat focus, but it’s now over emphasizing it. The addition of colony and whatnot was meant to have different approaches to combat, now it’s all nullified. It’s essentially expelling all players that had fun by utilizing features added between.8 and .91.Interesting. I actually feel the other way around: with the exception of phase ships (because of course...), combat tree isn't what it used to be and it's probably more optimal (though less fun) to invest into making your fleet stronger now. At least, I got a considerable power boost by accepting I can't do as much as I used to and focusing on getting fleet more optimised.
such as with Automated Ships competing with the obscenely better Special Modifications to where you actively gimp yourself by not choosing the latterI think Spec Mods is better for phase fleets and low-tech fleets (former benefit from extra s-mod than a Radiant, simply because phase ships are better than Radiants now, and the former cannot keep up with a Radiant, which means a higher risk of it overextending and dying) and Auto Ships is better for midline and high-tech fleets that can keep up with the Radiant as it pulverises anything in its path.
At the end of the day colony system is left in piles of unbalanced debris that poorly interacts with the rest of the game.As far as I know, colonies are supposed to be means that let you take on actual, proper endgame, once that actual, proper endgame is a thing, and not just hard battles you can do for fun. They don't give a "money making-focused playstyle enabler" vibe to me. I wonder if Alex is going to go through with his idea to remove colony skills (and administrators) entirely.
It’s a different story when you need to waste 4 out of 15 (wrapping) comparing to 2 out of 30.
I don't really like either due to mixture of there being officer skills, economic skills and fleet wide buffs. I generally just cheat my way to unlock all the skill since it's convenient in terms of logistics, even though a little OP.
IMO economic side of things should be on logistic ship and colonies rather then skill management and officer skills should be in their own category outside of player skills entirely so they can be balanced separately.
All in all it's kinda meh since it's largely modifiers to existing things that don't really provide more options but instead provide specialization.
I don't really like either due to mixture of there being officer skills, economic skills and fleet wide buffs. I generally just cheat my way to unlock all the skill since it's convenient in terms of logistics, even though a little OP.
IMO economic side of things should be on logistic ship and colonies rather then skill management and officer skills should be in their own category outside of player skills entirely so they can be balanced separately.
All in all it's kinda meh since it's largely modifiers to existing things that don't really provide more options but instead provide specialization.
Oohh I've thought of something like that before too, if your character was just an admiral type (only fleet wide and logistic bonuses) and you could decide whether you want to put an officer in your flagship or not, balancing officers would be far easier. I might start a thread to talk about that.
Alex has solidly denied this path. I have proposed it once and it got turned down immediately.
Alex has solidly denied this path. I have proposed it once and it got turned down immediately.
My sadnery knows no bounds. :'(
Then skill system should guarantee that player won't be left inferior to an average officer. It's just immensely not fun even in cases when it works. Like separate point pool that can be spent only on personal skills (you can spend general purpose points to go above minimum investment).
Oh what did they do in 0.72? I wasn't here for that.
In 0.95 you can blindly gun for "must have skills" and give little thought to anything else along the way. In 0.91 even if you had whole build planned from day 1 you still had to pick skills in order based on what was happening in space (what you've found, what type of gameplay you want to pursue early or mid game etc.) it was involving and fun process.I actually went straight for must haves or held off until I had ~20 points, because of decision paralysis. It didn't really matter what was happening or what ships I had, because I could do everything no matter the skills. There's not much difference between 0.9.1 and 0.95 for me.
Now we have 55/45 percent distribution. Then it will be 25/75, i guess. May be 20/80. It is still big part of comunity.Note that only a tiny fraction of players use the forums, and a small fraction of those who do voted in the poll.
Or it can be the opposite, because I’m reading more new system defending arguments in the thread . There is no telling of the voting demographics in first place. I also tried to be as neutral as can be to prevent any voting bias in my OP.Now we have 55/45 percent distribution. Then it will be 25/75, i guess. May be 20/80. It is still big part of comunity.Note that only a tiny fraction of players use the forums, and a small fraction of those who do voted in the poll.
People who feel they have been personally wronged by the skill changes are also much more likely to click on a thread like this.
Probably better not to read too much into it, beyond being a source of discussion.
Or it can be the opposite, because I’m reading more new system defending arguments in the thread . There is no telling of the voting demographics in first place. I also tried to be as neutral as can be to prevent any voting bias in my OP.
As you can see the total voters are double than the other new skill discussion thread, which I would consider it a good sign. Also do remember there are a lot of silent voters that don’t want to speak out loud.
Can we agree that we clearly aren't in a good place with the system if it's anywhere near this close?I do agree there is room for improvement, some skills are too good and with this structure (IMO!) it comes down to lead 4/tech 5 being obvious, probably with combat 5 or combat 4 + reliability engineering.
We aren't talking about a fringe % of people that aren't happy with X change(s). I hope Alex is taking a serious long look at how this system functions and how it isn't functioning for people like me for example. I've stopped playing, I don't enjoy this and that most certainly wasn't his goal. I look at this skill system and I feel like I have nearly no options. I shouldn't feel that way.
If you like it fine. But the goal isn't to leave a large section of the player base behind. It isn't good for the game or it's future.
Yeah, both systems feel pretty similar, at least for how different they seem. And I definitely did that few times too.In 0.95 you can blindly gun for "must have skills" and give little thought to anything else along the way. In 0.91 even if you had whole build planned from day 1 you still had to pick skills in order based on what was happening in space (what you've found, what type of gameplay you want to pursue early or mid game etc.) it was involving and fun process.I actually went straight for must haves or held off until I had ~20 points, because of decision paralysis. It didn't really matter what was happening or what ships I had, because I could do everything no matter the skills. There's not much difference between 0.9.1 and 0.95 for me.
Now we have 55/45 percent distribution. Then it will be 25/75, i guess. May be 20/80. It is still big part of comunity.Note that only a tiny fraction of players use the forums, and a small fraction of those who do voted in the poll.
People who feel they have been personally wronged by the skill changes are also much more likely to click on a thread like this.
Probably better not to read too much into it, beyond being a source of discussion.
People on forums are a tiny fraction and have very different tastes than the general population for the most part. They wouldn't be on forums if they didn't. There's a bunch of data underlying this, but basically, forums culture does not represent general player culture at all and making changes to gameplay based primarily on forum demands is a really bad road to go down.
Or it can be the opposite, because I’m reading more new system defending arguments in the thread . There is no telling of the voting demographics in first place. I also tried to be as neutral as can be to prevent any voting bias in my OP.
As you can see the total voters are double than the other new skill discussion thread, which I would consider it a good sign. Also do remember there are a lot of silent voters that don’t want to speak out loud.
I may safely assume some of these just never read or simply not willing to hear out. It's literally on the same page.People on forums are a tiny fraction and have very different tastes than the general population for the most part. They wouldn't be on forums if they didn't. There's a bunch of data underlying this, but basically, forums culture does not represent general player culture at all and making changes to gameplay based primarily on forum demands is a really bad road to go down.
Is what someone says when they want to dismiss the results of something they don't like.
Present a better larger cross section or remain silent, your line of thought isn't productive. If you have better data then this poll then present it. This is what we and Alex has to work with, not non existent imaginary more inclusive data more reflective of people who don't give feedback. So we can only base general thoughts off of this or we are just guessing based on nothing.
I do not accept your premise or suggestion of underlying data. The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is.
I think the poll is fine. While only a fraction of people will post here, that's only a fraction of those who voted, and those are only a fraction of who use the forum, and those are finally only a fraction of people who play the game. And it's the best we've got.
I'm surprised the results seem to be tending into a 50/50 split. How neat.
I may safely assume some of these just never read or simply not willing to hear out. It's literally on the same page.
I call this arrogance.
It's also funny that these "wow your poll is so biased" argument start pouring in after page 6.
I'm wondering when they'll call in dominion voting system. Any time now.
The poll doesn't matter. It is more a question what is Alex gonna do. Isn't it?No and yes. The poll is just there to present that there is a clear problem, the posts are here to explain those thought/feelings in detail. What Alex does matters the most but this is what we have to work with. So we keep walking forward, debating/arguing and hopefully creating something useful for him work with mixed in this mess.
I do not accept your premise or suggestion of underlying data. The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is.
I do not accept your premise or suggestion of underlying data. The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is.
So clearly you do accept the premise that there is a majority that doesn't speak up, since otherwise no-one could spoke *for them*, then?
I answered that in the quote already. The majority not speaking up here doesn't invalidate anything.
You are using this to try and dismiss the only actual data we have to work with. Are you saying guessing at what people think is better? It's clearly not, so come back with better data or stop talking about it.
Data we have is better then Data that doesn't exist. The community is conflicted on the changes and the poll and posts in here alone support this conclusion, not even getting into the countless other threads directly or indirectly addressing the same problem(s).
The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is. If they don't want that then they can speak, no one is stopping them. Just like people who don't vote in elections, they are allowing others to chose for them.
a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.All three unlearnable skills are made so to prevent technical complications.
I quite like the new system
I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.But that's just 0.9.1 with extra steps!
All three unlearnable skills are made so to prevent technical complications.I hope Alex will make at least Officer Management respeccable, just force de-assign all officers (or two random officers) and have the extras go over the cap. It's somewhat annoying since you can't stash those over the cap officers anywhere, though.
Still, unlearnable skills should provide a non-bonus XP gain boost.
I'm pretty sure if we had the .95 skill system first and now the .91 system, people would be way more upset. Losing the reskill ability and the elite skill option would be considered a major step backwards. That's why I can't take the nostalgia for the old system very serious.
I quite like the new system, although I don't think it is a enormous improvement - besides the reskill option - yet. The overall principle of always having a specialized and a general option to choose from is pretty cool. Just some details of how the individual skills work have to be iterated on.
My gripes are
a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.
b) skills where the general option is still so specialized that it might be useless for you, like coordinated maneuvers/wolfpack tactics.
I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.
I'm pretty sure if we had the .95 skill system first and now the .91 system, people would be way more upset. Losing the reskill ability and the elite skill option would be considered a major step backwards. That's why I can't take the nostalgia for the old system very serious.
I quite like the new system, although I don't think it is a enormous improvement - besides the reskill option - yet. The overall principle of always having a specialized and a general option to choose from is pretty cool. Just some details of how the individual skills work have to be iterated on.
My gripes are
a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.
b) skills where the general option is still so specialized that it might be useless for you, like coordinated maneuvers/wolfpack tactics.
I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.
Bad inaccurate data can be worse than no data. It is often lead to poor or wrong decision. Take it with a pinch of salt.That is certainly correct, but I don't believe that applies here. I strongly disagree with him suggesting/implying that is the case completely unsupported. There does not appear to be a bad faith effort by anyone on either side or even the middle of this issue.
Old system was significantly better.
Don't get me wrong I like the new SKILLS.
I just prefer the old SYSTEM.
The new system completely kills any sort of player agency, build diversity or interesting synergy.
There's like 2-3 optimal builds now and only like 5-6 ways to build a character period.
It's lame.
Huh, I feel like the opposite comparing versions: last version there were really only about 4 ways to build a good character because it was pretty well known that like 80% of skill picks were just plain better, and the only variety was in the last little bits of mid tier skills.
In this one I've seen a lot more ways to build good characters: double combat and double tech + any of the others work including each other, there's derelict contingent being bustedly good making a whole other set of industry builds plus mix and match of the others, there's broader builds with thing like L4, T5, C4, I2, there's leadership tier 2 choice of wolfpack or coordinated, T3 can go either way easily, C5 goes either way depending on ship, T5 can go either way... There's a deceptively large number of builds that are actually good simply because we can't always take the best skills in order like the last version.
There's a deceptively large number of builds that are actually good simply because we can't always take the best skills in order like the last version.