Print

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

[Amoebka]

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.

[Jet Black]

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.

[speeder]

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.

[Megas]

Worst part of Leadership if going to 5 for colony power is both Leadership 4 skills are permanent skills that cannot be unlearned.

[JUDGE! slowpersun]

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).

[bluevulture]

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?

[Chaos Blade]

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

[Dex]

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

[Destructively Phased]

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".

[TaLaR]

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.

[Dex]

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.

[SCC]

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).

[Dex]

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.

[TaLaR]

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.

[Dex]

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.