Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17

Author Topic: Skill Overhaul  (Read 96967 times)

Midnight Kitsune

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Your Friendly Forum Friend
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #120 on: December 18, 2016, 01:41:32 PM »

Now that skills merge (if I remember correctly), would it be possible to add in your own skills through modding?
Logged
Help out MesoTroniK, a modder in need

2021 is 2020 won
2022 is 2020 too

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #121 on: December 18, 2016, 01:43:31 PM »

Now that skills merge (if I remember correctly), would it be possible to add in your own skills through modding?

Yeah. It's already possible, but what the merging fix does is make it possible to adjust an existing skill without changing it wholesale.
Logged

Questionable

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #122 on: December 18, 2016, 02:28:36 PM »

Ahh, another reason I forgot about: stuff like burn drive. Makes a huge difference for a ship being able to flee successfully or not, and requires turning away.
This reminds me, is there a way to keep ships from using burn drive to charge ahead and ending up directly in the middle of the enemy fleet and instantly dying?
So far I don't trust anything that requires finesse to the AI because of things like that, so I only let it pilot *** proof ships and weapons like Sunder with beam weapons.
Logged

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #123 on: December 18, 2016, 02:29:53 PM »

So, we have enemy fleet admirals now?
Logged
Dauntless.

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4403
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #124 on: December 18, 2016, 02:50:24 PM »

So, we have enemy fleet admirals now?

We always had, but that's only the term for the part of the game that gives orders to AI fleets (deployment, retreat, capture), nothing tangible within the game world.
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Voyager I

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #125 on: December 18, 2016, 03:30:40 PM »

I'm not sure I'd agree with the blame assessment.  The AI is very good about overall reasonable behaviors, and so I generally expect orders to be carried out in that fashion.

Right, but that's only true until you know how it works. From that point, regardless of how you might like it to work, you know how it actually works, and it's predictable, so what happens when you give the order is entirely on you.

This feels like a pretty technical kind of correct.  You're right that an experienced player is ultimately responsible for how they use the tools a their disposal, but that doesn't inherently excuse a mechanic that isn't functioning ideally and creating potential gotchas for new players is a real cost.

Quote from: Alex
Ahh, another reason I forgot about: stuff like burn drive. Makes a huge difference for a ship being able to flee successfully or not, and requires turning away. That's a big problem, actually. If you take away predictable retreat behavior, then ships with burn drive will get a lot worse at retreating, and there'll be nothing you can do to force the current behavior. The benefit of the current behavior is that it gives the ship the fastest exit time.

This would be a lot more problematic than the current behavior, which *does* have the "just order them away from the fighting, and then retreat as a 2nd stage" solution. And, come to think of it, maintaining a "ships pulled back from fighting" waypoint in the back, and then mass-ordering a retreat (for just 1 point) when a few ships are ready to isn't so bad.

The workaround you're proposing now are still not ideal.  You've worked hard to make a game that minimizes the amount of micromanagement required (and rewarded) by the player, and this is going to involve a fair deal of hassle and attention (and checking to make sure a rogue Medusa isn't prowling your extraction point).  With the current implementation of Command Points it's not even mechanically feasible most of the time, though that may no longer be as much of restriction in the coming patch.  Even if it's possible, the level of babysitting involved isn't in line with the AI's general capacity for autonomy.  If it's just not a big enough problem to be worth investigating a complicated solution then I can certainly understand, especially with how much other stuff is already going on presently.


It seems like the problem you're mentioning with Burn Drive can be simplified into two clearly defined categories: ships with mobility systems that require them to be facing their direction of travel, and everything else.  For the former, the current behavior is likely ideal, but for the latter their odds of survival would be significantly improved even if they did the exact same beeline but with their shield arcs facing towards their threats.  I get the sense you try to have as few ship/module specific AI exceptions as possible and you definitely don't want to have to hard code some kind of retreat behavior variable into every single hull, but would it be feasible to teach the AI to recognize the difference?
Logged

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #126 on: December 18, 2016, 03:34:08 PM »

We always had, but that's only the term for the part of the game that gives orders to AI fleets (deployment, retreat, capture), nothing tangible within the game world.
I mean enemy admirals have actual skills like the player does now.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 03:36:16 PM by Morgan Rue »
Logged
Dauntless.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #127 on: December 18, 2016, 03:49:54 PM »

Ordering ships without Omni or 360 shields to retreat is a death sentence, and makes your retreating AI ships look stupid.  I got surprised by this.  (I should not since I usually exploit that against the AI.)  Now, if I pilot such a ship myself, I will personally drive it off the map, before I deploy a replacement flagship to chain to.
Logged

Sordid

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #128 on: December 18, 2016, 03:55:28 PM »

I've always found building up my ship and my character until they are super strong and soloing stuff with maybe one or two wingman ships tops to be much more fun.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to still do that to a great degree. I mean, we're not talking about two ends of a spectrum where it's "solo is the only thing you can do" vs "fleets are the only thing you can do". More like, it's shifting from .4 to .6 (if that) if that spectrum is 0 to 1. If I can generalize a bit, it feels like a lot of concern I see expressed assumes it's going all the way to the other end.

Well that certainly encouraging. :) I kinda wonder what that means, though. When you say you're making soloing weaker and fleet actions stronger (that's what this boils down to, correct me if I'm wrong), does that mean it's more difficult/longer to get to the point where you can solo everything? Or do you actually lower the ceiling of what's possible to solo? Because the blog post kinda reads like you're doing the latter. I don't mind taking a longer route as long as I get to where I want to go, but not being able to reach my destination at all, that I wouldn't be happy about.
Logged

Schwartz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #129 on: December 18, 2016, 04:54:52 PM »

This looks like a pretty elegant re-work, and I'm glad you identified the right direction to fix the combat mode and went that way. I just think you may have gotten a bit of a skewed impression by a very small but very vocal minority of people (lookin' at you, Megas ;)). Players really don't solo fleets that much. I've never found it easy or rewarding to do, not even in earlier versions. And discouraging it by adding skills that improve stats the more ships you have deployed is, well, problematic because the larger fleet already has an easier time winning a fight. I think these buffs may work a bit too well against a rather insignificant problem. Other than that, nicely done.
Logged

Sy

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #130 on: December 18, 2016, 06:37:25 PM »

i thought my hype for 0.8 was already near max since the fighter blog post, but nope! :D

the changes sound all around good to me, i just have two little suggestions and one question:
1) several of the skills could use clearer wording. i see Gothars already mentioned it for CM and EW, but the "+X% post-battle salvage" in the screenshot of the Salvaging skill also isn't clear (to me) whether it's a total or cumulative over the three ranks.
2) if officers will have 7 skills, how about keeping 20 as max level and giving them a bonus point at lvl 1? since it works similarly for player skills, and then you can keep the round 20.
3) the EW skill says "the uncapped total for each fleet is compared". since the higher ranks only increase the cap, doesn't that mean getting more than one rank will only ever be useful while significantly outnumbering the enemy? since in all roughly even battles (not just while soloing), the higher max won't have any effect, regardless of how high the opponent's skill is. or am i reading something wrong here?

mass-ordering a retreat (for just 1 point)
just a little note here, it's possible to give an unlimited amount of retreat orders for one point (assuming the tactics screen isn't closed in between) but it's not possible to order more than one ship to retreat with a single order. having more than one ship selected hides the order-buttons, and even the hotkey for ordering them to retreat doesn't work. it's the most minor of annoyances, but would still be nice if the hotkey worked, so i don't have to individually select and give the order for several ships. ^^
Logged

ChaseBears

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #131 on: December 18, 2016, 07:18:55 PM »

hmmm, based off some wording used and from the pictures and from this 'derelict rating' stat i'm going to irresponsibly speculate that the Industrial playstyle is based off deploying platforms in battle, possibly at the predefined objective locations, including folding the objective system under Industry's wing.  Maybe also using derelicts in battle somehow, like grappling them to provide cover from enemy fire, or reenabling some turrets remotely...

I wouldn't stress too much about the solo vs fleet thing. That is an extreme example that shows how powerful a highly modded ship can be in starsector, but it will probably be more controlled by the other changes to the skill system.   The fleet bonuses seem more about encouraging you to deploy your ships rather than leaving them out of the fight so they don't get damaged.
Logged
If I were creating the world I wouldn’t mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o’clock, Day One!

RickyRio

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #132 on: December 18, 2016, 08:44:13 PM »

I remember reading something about the effect of the rank 10 damage control skill being removed (the slow hull heal to 50% in combat)

Any comment on what is replacing this? While I agree that it is likely too strong for large hull HP ships (capitals mostly) in prolonged fights, is it just getting replaced with a more flat survival bonus?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #133 on: December 18, 2016, 10:57:22 PM »

This feels like a pretty technical kind of correct.  You're right that an experienced player is ultimately responsible for how they use the tools a their disposal, but that doesn't inherently excuse a mechanic that isn't functioning ideally and creating potential gotchas for new players is a real cost.

I feel like it's both a very clear-cut, non-technical kind of "correct", and also, yes, you're right about the other stuff.

The workaround you're proposing now are still not ideal.  You've worked hard to make a game that minimizes the amount of micromanagement required (and rewarded) by the player, and this is going to involve a fair deal of hassle and attention (and checking to make sure a rogue Medusa isn't prowling your extraction point).  With the current implementation of Command Points it's not even mechanically feasible most of the time, though that may no longer be as much of restriction in the coming patch.  Even if it's possible, the level of babysitting involved isn't in line with the AI's general capacity for autonomy.  If it's just not a big enough problem to be worth investigating a complicated solution then I can certainly understand, especially with how much other stuff is already going on presently.

Yeah, agreed 100%.

It seems like the problem you're mentioning with Burn Drive can be simplified into two clearly defined categories: ships with mobility systems that require them to be facing their direction of travel, and everything else.  For the former, the current behavior is likely ideal, but for the latter their odds of survival would be significantly improved even if they did the exact same beeline but with their shield arcs facing towards their threats.  I get the sense you try to have as few ship/module specific AI exceptions as possible and you definitely don't want to have to hard code some kind of retreat behavior variable into every single hull, but would it be feasible to teach the AI to recognize the difference?

I don't think it's even clear-cut at that point. It really depends on the tactical situation - turning around to burn could be suicide or it could be acceptable damage in exchange for getting away.

Was thinking about this while driving today; got an idea that I think might work without needing to recognize the difference. Something like a "Retreat Waypoint" task you can give instead of ordering a retreat (better name, perhaps?) where if a ship is assigned to it, it'll go there and then automatically engage the normal retreat behavior when it reaches it. Or, you can order it to retreat immediately.

So that way there's a choice about what you want done. The UI flow is not super great - click to create waypoint, press shortcut to make it a "retreat waypoint", select ship and then right-click on the waypoint to give the order. Gets better if you reuse the same waypoint, though, and does cover most of the bases mechanically - only one command point spent, gives choice of behavior, doesn't require further babysitting. I think I like this, made a note to take a look. If it's not too involved will probably code it up.


Well that certainly encouraging. :) I kinda wonder what that means, though. When you say you're making soloing weaker and fleet actions stronger (that's what this boils down to, correct me if I'm wrong), does that mean it's more difficult/longer to get to the point where you can solo everything? Or do you actually lower the ceiling of what's possible to solo? Because the blog post kinda reads like you're doing the latter. I don't mind taking a longer route as long as I get to where I want to go, but not being able to reach my destination at all, that I wouldn't be happy about.

I mean, there's already a ceiling to how much you can do solo, and it's already lower than what you can do with a fleet. Toning down skills is going to lower that ceiling some, that's just unavoidable, regardless of the details of how they're toned down. I'd also like to note that "being able to win the hardest battles solo" is not a design goal and never was - however, that's very different from whether soloing is a viable way to play or not.

But there's no real endgame, still, so it's hard to really talk about with specifics. Suppose there are ways to "win" the game - is taking on the hardest combat challenge necessary to win? What exactly does winning mean? Etc. Flying solo or with a small fleet has plenty of natural advantages - cheaper, sneakier. If it also gives you the same amount of power as running a large fleet, it'd be pretty broken, wouldn't it? But again the question is, why are you fighting? Probably because of some larger goal. If there are other ways to accomplish that goal that don't involve taking on the biggest enemies all at the same time, and that running a small fleet facilitates, then that's another possibility.


This looks like a pretty elegant re-work, and I'm glad you identified the right direction to fix the combat mode and went that way. I just think you may have gotten a bit of a skewed impression by a very small but very vocal minority of people (lookin' at you, Megas ;)). Players really don't solo fleets that much. I've never found it easy or rewarding to do, not even in earlier versions.

Yeah, I definitely don't think that everyone runs solo. However, that doesn't mean that playing with a fleet is in an ideal place, and this rework is just trying to address that, though it's only part of the overall effort towards that. So if it looks like it doesn't handle it by itself, it probably doesn't.

And discouraging it by adding skills that improve stats the more ships you have deployed is, well, problematic because the larger fleet already has an easier time winning a fight. I think these buffs may work a bit too well against a rather insignificant problem. Other than that, nicely done.

Again, I think looking at CM and EW as an "overall nerf to objectives" is probably the best way to get a sense of their effect. I think it was a mistake to present it in a skill-centric way in the blog post; it should've been presented as a rework of battle objectives with skills participating in it. The way I wrote it, I think, leads to misunderstanding the magnitide of the impact. Probably because I was a bit too enthusiastic about it.

The argument that the CM/EW skills are insignificant and not worth investing in might be an easier one to make than the one that they're overpowered and must-get - but hopefully, neither is right and they're in the sweet spot in the middle :)

So, overall: a larger fleet will have a *less* easy time winning with CM/EW than it would with the current objectives (provided the enemy admiral even has both of those skills), but the other difference is that these effects now have a place in battles without objectives, which is nice. It makes objectives feel a lot less random, and more a natural extension of these mechanics as battles get larger.



1) several of the skills could use clearer wording. i see Gothars already mentioned it for CM and EW, but the "+X% post-battle salvage" in the screenshot of the Salvaging skill also isn't clear (to me) whether it's a total or cumulative over the three ranks.

It's cumulative. Let me think about how to adjust that...

2) if officers will have 7 skills, how about keeping 20 as max level and giving them a bonus point at lvl 1? since it works similarly for player skills, and then you can keep the round 20.

3) the EW skill says "the uncapped total for each fleet is compared". since the higher ranks only increase the cap, doesn't that mean getting more than one rank will only ever be useful while significantly outnumbering the enemy? since in all roughly even battles (not just while soloing), the higher max won't have any effect, regardless of how high the opponent's skill is. or am i reading something wrong here?

Correct. Well, you can also deploy sensor jammers, deploy ships with hullmods that enhance the ECM rating, etc, so it's not just outnumbering.

just a little note here, it's possible to give an unlimited amount of retreat orders for one point (assuming the tactics screen isn't closed in between) but it's not possible to order more than one ship to retreat with a single order. having more than one ship selected hides the order-buttons, and even the hotkey for ordering them to retreat doesn't work. it's the most minor of annoyances, but would still be nice if the hotkey worked, so i don't have to individually select and give the order for several ships. ^^

Noted. Honestly, I probably won't get to it (see: "most minor of annoyances"), but noted :)


Any comment on what is replacing this? While I agree that it is likely too strong for large hull HP ships (capitals mostly) in prolonged fights, is it just getting replaced with a more flat survival bonus?

IIRC -25% hull damage taken and -25% overload duration is the level 3 Damage Control bonus, but that's subject to change.
Logged

Cyan Leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Overhaul
« Reply #134 on: December 19, 2016, 02:21:33 AM »

Regarding the retreat order, how about giving officers different behaviors? Cautious officers for example would always keep their guard up while retreating, allowing the player the option of having ships behave like that.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17