Print

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

[The_DigitalAlchemist]

Hi! I know I'm late to the party, just got Starsector for my self a while back, and was oogling about to learn about things when I came across the blog post for the new skill system, and wanted to throw my voice out into the choir. I also havnt read all 30 pages (yet), so forgive me if anything I point out has been mentioned, and if so, just consider this my support for it.

Reading the blog post I was quite interested, but as soon as I saw the reduced pool of skills, and the "This or That" design of it (reducing it further!), I grimaced. To me, it entirely cripples the flexibility of characters and the overall "choice" they really have, rather than expanding it. As some one who adores having tons of options, this is quite yucky to me. I actually was already mildly disappointed by the limited pool of skills available already, though how one unlocked them was interesting and made me feel like I was building a commander. On the flip side, Story Points are interesting, even if the name is (in my opinion) terrible, and could also be the solution to this.

Without seeing what all the new skills and this-or-that choices are, or what the level curve is like, it's hard to say how valuable this would be, but an option could be to spend vast sums of story points to unlock a limited number of additional skill points (say 3-5) from anywhere that ignored tier requirement. I think a good calculation would be (StP per level)*(Tier of Skill+1). Essentially, a minimum "buy in" of 1 level of StP, plus the equivalent skill point worth. So, for a tier 1 it would be a minimum investment of 8 StP, and a tier 5 would cost a whopping 24 non bonus XP generating StP. This would give some late game progression, and be a big choice, but still offer the option. An expensive one, but an option none the less. The associated cost also ensures that, if the option is available, it's universally more desirable to use regular level-up skill points instead.

Overall, the new design is concerning to me being that it seems extremely limiting and linear, both of which I believe go against the core concepts of Starsector as a whole. I RELALY hate the "This or That" design mechanic. I understand choice, but if theres a tier 3 skill thats got both of something I want for how I want to be and would have otherwise stopped there, I suddenly have to dump 5 more skills in to get it, potentially none of which I wanted or cared about. A potential solution around this could be to have the option to use an actual skill point with a Story Point to get the lateral skill to one you already had, perhaps with some scaling depending on tier level if thats a concern.

Just some ideas, hopefully worth pondering.


As a great aside... I, like many others, also don't care for the name "Story Points". It just sound corny and it doesn't fit. I've been thinking about what might best, but nothing quite works, so I see the problem. My vote is currently on "Feats", achievements of great skill and courage. They could, for story purposes, also be recorded in a little log, so you could see all the great feats you've accomplished over the course of your story, and recall how you escaped a patrol at the last moment with a cunning trick, performed an marvel of engineering integrating a hullmod, subtly inspire an event that distracted the port authorities so they didnt notice your back alley dealings, or managed to hide those stolen kidneys at the last second, ect.

[Alex]

Hi there - welcome to the forum! I'll keep this a bit brief since a lot of this was, indeed, hashed out in the almost-30 pages of this thread.

First off, I totally get that this is somewhat subjective and you're well within your rights not to like it. That said, personally I think this system is a huge improvement. You've still got a lot of choices, but now they're about what you want to do, where in the old system a lot of the choice gets bogged down in figuring out an optimal way to spend the points (i.e. combat skills - "what gives you the most power for X points" is a question that largely has a right answer, so a lot of the choice there is somewhat superficial). Plus, the new system makes it possible to have more powerful/fun skills since they don't all have to try to be balanced against each other.

The skill pool is actually increased, not reduced! There are 40 where there were... 28, I think?

The "use story points for a lateral movement" approach doesn't really work out - skills generally power up as you go up in tier, and it would be an absolute no-brainer to pick both tier 5 skills, for example, if you could do that. Even if the story point cost was really high - you can get more story points by grinding, and you can't get more skill points. That sort of thing is an extra "option" that ultimately reduces choice, and a higher story point cost would necessitate grinding and prevent you from spending story points on other fun things.

They could, for story purposes, also be recorded in a little log, so you could see all the great feats you've accomplished over the course of your story, and recall how you escaped a patrol at the last moment with a cunning trick, performed an marvel of engineering integrating a hullmod, subtly inspire an event that distracted the port authorities so they didnt notice your back alley dealings, or managed to hide those stolen kidneys at the last second, ect.

Actually currently working on something that includes this! But,

[kenwth81]

Hi there - welcome to the forum! I'll keep this a bit brief since a lot of this was, indeed, hashed out in the almost-30 pages of this thread.

First off, I totally get that this is somewhat subjective and you're well within your rights not to like it. That said, personally I think this system is a huge improvement. You've still got a lot of choices, but now they're about what you want to do, where in the old system a lot of the choice gets bogged down in figuring out an optimal way to spend the points (i.e. combat skills - "what gives you the most power for X points" is a question that largely has a right answer, so a lot of the choice there is somewhat superficial). Plus, the new system makes it possible to have more powerful/fun skills since they don't all have to try to be balanced against each other.

I think your insistence on rolling out the skill overhaul is clear. Your effort to stop people from making optimal builds will futile though.

You can always add severely overpowered skills. Yes you can. Overpowered skills are problematic, so designers avoid putting them in. Just like how Riot occasionally intentionally release overpowered champions; but it is good for sales.

The skill pool is actually increased, not reduced! There are 40 where there were... 28, I think?

31.

The "use story points for a lateral movement" approach doesn't really work out - skills generally power up as you go up in tier, and it would be an absolute no-brainer to pick both tier 5 skills, for example, if you could do that. Even if the story point cost was really high - you can get more story points by grinding, and you can't get more skill points. That sort of thing is an extra "option" that ultimately reduces choice, and a higher story point cost would necessitate grinding and prevent you from spending story points on other fun things.

That explain things... Tier 5 skills would probably be stronger than their Tier 1 skills. This skill progression bar is necessary because skills is only balanced against their paired skills, isn't even remotely balanced against each other at all.

[Goumindong]

Your effort to stop people from making optimal builds will futile though

Tiers and restrictions can very easily produce non-dominant decisions where such a thing is more difficult to produce in an "open" system.

[The_DigitalAlchemist]

Snip!
The skill pool is actually increased, not reduced! There are 40 where there were... 28, I think?

Thanks! And thanks for taking the time to respond! 


By icon count, yes! Though, in my head I kinda included each of the 3 subsequent upgrades within those skills to be it's own thing. In that vein, I kinda saw it as going from "50 potential skills" to "15 potential skills". Or rather, 'choices'... I think that's more direct to the point of what I meant, and is what makes me a sad panda  . But your right, it is 100% a personal preference, I do prefer deep and complex character building with a long but consistent path of improvement. In essence, it feels like the players character will ultimately grow less, though I do acknowledge that there will be more growth via Story Points in the means of how they apply them to ships, commanders and scenarios.

And as some one else pointed out, the effort to stop min/maxing is indeed ultimately futile, and personally I actually dont have a problem with it. IMHO, theres 2 ways to play, optimally, and creatively. As long as both are equally effective and viable, then it's all good. Just another personal choice.

That said, ultimately, I'll have to wait to get my hands on it to really form an opinion.

There is also the aspect that I'm also quite concerned about, which is that the specialist options will make a player feel "Obligated and Locked" into playing into their choice, and only that choice. As one of the examples cited, I adore phase ships, but some times I dock mine up for a change of pace (part of this being that theres no phase capital, though as a new player I do also like just trying out other ships). I understand that you can replace skills for an SP, but I would honestly feel obligated to do so every time I wanted to change things up.

As a final question, I'd like to ask if you've considered instead of 2 choices, if there could be 3. I think this would be an excellent balance, as you could have two specializations, then a truly generalist option that was a bit of both, but as good as neither. I think that would eliminate this as a concern, because if the player wasnt sure yet, they could go the generalist rout, then if they found they really preferred one side or the other, they could dive into that once they were sure it's what they wanted to do.

[Megas]

There is also the aspect that I'm also quite concerned about, which is that the specialist options will make a player feel "Obligated and Locked" into playing into their choice, and only that choice. As one of the examples cited, I adore phase ships, but some times I dock mine up for a change of pace (part of this being that theres no phase capital, though as a new player I do also like just trying out other ships). I understand that you can replace skills for an SP, but I would honestly feel obligated to do so every time I wanted to change things up.

That is better than it is now, which is player cannot change skills ever once confirmed.  That means if I pick carrier skills, I am married to one of the few dedicated carriers in the game, and need to start another game and build another character.  Building up multiple characters in Starsector without cheating tools takes too much time, or at least more time than I allot for the game.  Even after I build several characters, I need to toggle games if I want to play one specialist now, then another specialist later.

[SCC]

By icon count, yes! Though, in my head I kinda included each of the 3 subsequent upgrades within those skills to be it's own thing. In that vein, I kinda saw it as going from "50 potential skills" to "15 potential skills". Or rather, 'choices'... I think that's more direct to the point of what I meant, and is what makes me a sad panda  . But your right, it is 100% a personal preference, I do prefer deep and complex character building with a long but consistent path of improvement. In essence, it feels like the players character will ultimately grow less, though I do acknowledge that there will be more growth via Story Points in the means of how they apply them to ships, commanders and scenarios.

And as some one else pointed out, the effort to stop min/maxing is indeed ultimately futile, and personally I actually dont have a problem with it. IMHO, theres 2 ways to play, optimally, and creatively. As long as both are equally effective and viable, then it's all good. Just another personal choice.

That said, ultimately, I'll have to wait to get my hands on it to really form an opinion.

There is also the aspect that I'm also quite concerned about, which is that the specialist options will make a player feel "Obligated and Locked" into playing into their choice, and only that choice. As one of the examples cited, I adore phase ships, but some times I dock mine up for a change of pace (part of this being that theres no phase capital, though as a new player I do also like just trying out other ships). I understand that you can replace skills for an SP, but I would honestly feel obligated to do so every time I wanted to change things up.

As a final question, I'd like to ask if you've considered instead of 2 choices, if there could be 3. I think this would be an excellent balance, as you could have two specializations, then a truly generalist option that was a bit of both, but as good as neither. I think that would eliminate this as a concern, because if the player wasnt sure yet, they could go the generalist rout, then if they found they really preferred one side or the other, they could dive into that once they were sure it's what they wanted to do.

            There aren't 52 potential choices and not every skill has upgrades. Some have just waste levels that prevent you from getting the actually good benefit at the end, some skills are pretty mediocre to consider on their own. In addition to that, you don't need any skills to succeed in any kind of career, so the skill choice quickly devolves into "essentials" and "everything else". I mean, is there any reason not to take things like Fleet Logistics 3 or Loadout Design 3? Not only they are quite good on their own, but it also decreases opportunistic cost of other skills in those trees, and they both have quite some useful ones. So, after you get all the "there's no reason not to take them" skills, then the real choices begin, after you've spent about half of your skill points.
            Whether the player character will grow less or more depends on the power level of those new skills. What would be better? To have 10 skills that barely impact your game, or 3, with the choice and impact being enough to allow you to play like never before, instead of making your current playstyle slightly better? Having restrictions and limited choice should lead to more powerful skills, since you need to invest and risk more, when you're getting them. That said, if new skills don't end up being more powerful than old ones, it's a loss for both gameplay reasons (you get less fun) and role playing ones (investment gives you smaller return). So, Alex, make those new skills count a lot.

            I have to admit that your concerns about specialisation skills might be right. Going for both tier 5 combat skills will force me to get 2 skills I don't care about (I don't use carriers and I don't use phase ships). On the other hand, perhaps synergy of both tier 5 skills will prove strong enough for me to ignore this waste, in the same vein I don't care about Loadout Design 1 and 2 much.

[SonnaBanana]

What about making non-combat skills eliteable but instead of giving bonuses, they unlock hullmods and structures when they're made elite?

[Mordodrukow]

I mean, is there any reason not to take things like Fleet Logistics 3 or Loadout Design 3?

Never picked first one. It needs you to max Leadership. What it gives you if you dont spec into fighters? 4 extra officers and something for speed (cant remember...)?

I always take Leadership 1. +2 officers, fleet log 1 and the third skill to the right of it.

What it actually means: if everybody has their own opinion about what skills are better, than the system is complex and interesting enough. I actually dont think it needs any changes. But also i dont think that new one will be bad. Just different...

[SCC]

Never picked first one. It needs you to max Leadership. What it gives you if you dont spec into fighters? 4 extra officers and something for speed (cant remember...)?

Up to 6 additional officers (Officer Management), a fleet-wide buff to fighters (Fighter Doctrine), a fleet-wide speed boost (Coordinated Manoeuvres), some flagship buffs to fighters, a raiding/colony buff (Planetary Operations) and some gimmick stuff (Command & Control). Roughly in order of importance. There's also the fact that, on its lonesome, Fleet Logistics gives you: at level 1, some QoL stuff and a very good buff to colonies, at level 2 it's a useful decrease of running costs and another very good buff to colonies, finally it gives you fleet-wide bonus to all combat capability and another good colony buff at level 3. Fleet Logistics is like two skills rolled in one.

[Megas]

I would max Leadership for Fleet Logistics 3 (and Coordinated Maneuvers 1) alone.  SCC explains why.  Also, given how big endgame fights are, four officers do not feel like enough even with an all capital fleet.  I want at least six officers, so Officer Management 1.  If I want use fighters much, Fighter Doctrine 3 is almost must-have.

I would not touch the personal fighter skills (Carrier/Wing/Strike Command) unless I want to be locked or married to Astral (or Drover) for the whole game.

[Mordodrukow]

I repeat: if you dont use fighters (like me), whats left?

Yes, you can pick 10 officers. I pick 6. If you think about it, it is not a big difference here (may be with battle size of 500 it is noticeble... never played in such way).

Yes, you get +30% access. I get +15%, cause i pick 1st level. 15% is not a big difference. Only thing it gives you is slightly more money (10-12%, may be... and only on the colonies, you manage by yourself).

25% larger fleets? They scale of colony size, you dont really need extra 25%.

25% less supply usage? Another money bonus. Yes, it is good at the start of a game, but will you trade combat effectiveness for some credits at the end? I dont think so...

Coord maneuvers? Yes, extra 20% (10% actually, cause, 1st level gives some) can be useful, but for extra 2 points (4, because i need to max leadership)... to be honest, cant say that it makes no sense. Never tried it before (always just installing unstable injector on every thing which can fly, so extra speed can save me some OP and weapon range...). Also, 3rd level of command and control gives additional 5%.

Planetary operations needless except for 3rd level, which lets you have more colonies over personal limit (mostly needed as strategic points, not as extra income).

So, the real deal is:
- extra 15% combat readiness (cause it means some general buffs for all the fleet)
- good bonus for speed

Is it worth invested points? Pretty debatable... What will you sacrifice for that?

[Yunru]

Yes, lets just wait and see how things will play out before we critic something that isn't there yet. What is important is finding good fun gameplay elements, and pushing the limits on them as much as possible. It is great when a skill choice dramatically changes how someone plays, but the really hard part is making sure it isn't the only way to play. Considering that this is an upcoming expansion of gameplay and this isn't dota I very much doubt that the upcoming versions META will be any less flexible.

Why must you use colour black?
All it does is make it hard to read on the darker skins.

[SCC]

The thing about accessibility is that it gives a flat increase and that accessibility also serves as a straight income from exports multiplier. If you are at 100% accessibility, it would indeed be a 15-30% income increase, and it would somewhat decrease at higher accessibility (but then again, more accessibility also increases your marketshare, and bigger marketshare a bigger base number is multiplied by accessibility). However, below 100% accessibility, it's going to be more than 15-30% income increase. At 50% accessibility, it would make it 65%/80%, for an actual increase of 30%/60% higher income.
I don't put more than 1 point in Coordinated Manoeuvres or any points in in Planetary Operations. I listed the latter just because I was going over all the skills. I typically pick Fleet Logistics 3, Coordinated Manoeuvres 1, Fighter Doctrine 3 and Officer Management 1 or 2. Are those skills worth it? I consider Fleet Logistics 3 alone worth 6 points. Everything else, with lowered opportunistic cost, becomes better deal, too. Then again, I spend my points by going for things I actively want, instead of looking for things I can give up most easily.

[Mordodrukow]

However, below 100% accessibility, it's going to be more than 15-30% income increase. At 50% accessibility, it would make it 65%/80%, for an actual increase of 30%/60% higher income.

Yes, i understand how it works. So... do you often have access less than 100%? I mean: if we dont concider spending all Alpha's for extra colonies and use em in Megaports instead. Because if we use AI as managers access stat is even more pointless, because you can have a lot more colonies.

With Alpha in megaport and Freeport enabled its possible to hit around 200%. So, 215/200=1.075.

I m a new player, but i heard that in previous versions colonies were harder to sustain in terms of debet/credit balance. May be in those times it was nice to have extra 15% access. For now you can have pretty sustainable 1 colony (pays for itself and for your fleet), profitable 2. With 4 and more you can faceroll and give money to every faction that tries to intimidate you (if you dont wanna babysit or dont have big red shield). May be in Nex they can, you know, made a blockade and kill every fleet you have to make your worlds starve... But i never saw such situations.

Then again, I spend my points by going for things I actively want, instead of looking for things I can give up most easily.

In my first playthrough i played like that. My current one differs for 1 or two skillpoints.

I really wanna try i build with maxed impact mitigation. May be one with Missile spec (dont like missiles, actually, but need to try). One carrier spec.
And now (because of this discussion): something with maxed Coordinated maneuvers.

Picking things like planetary operations? No, thank you... It is not Master of Orion, you cant attack your opponents from different angles (not in geometrical terms, if you understand). The game is about space combat. Mostly. Not 100%. May be even not 80%... But definetely more than 60%, imo.

P.S. And yeah, returning to character building...

I really wanna try i build with maxed impact mitigation.
May be one with Missile spec (dont like missiles, actually, but need to try).
One carrier spec.
And now (because of this discussion): something with maxed Coordinated maneuvers.

Here we have some builds, but you dont do any real choices here. If you wanna max missiles - you pick missile skill. If you wanna max armor - 2 armor skills. Etc.
The real choice you do each time: what you will NOT pick. So thats why i suggest to concider it that way. I dont pretend to be fully right, just suggest to think about that.

Also, about extra combat readiness:
70 to 100% increase will give us:
Maneuverability: +10%
Damage taken: -10%
Damage dealt: +10%
Fighter refit time (for ships with a flight deck): +10%

So, extra 15% will give half of that. Again: i dont know anything about fighters, but if i understand it right, damage mitigation bonuses are multiplicative, so, if we have, for example, 90% reduction from armor, and 5% from combat readiness, the damage will be lowered to 0.1*0.95=0.095 (9.5%). Not a big difference (actually: EXACTLY 5%). Extra 5% damage dealt is nice to have, but you defenitely will not die without it. Extra 5% of maneuverability you even will not notice (may be you do, if you are professional korean player...).

So... Yea. Fleet logistics gives you something. But 6 points worth of value... not, imo.