Print

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

[starbow]

I feel a meaningful change would be allow a story point cost to "jailbreak" a single skill in each tree.

Or possibly tie it to a mission, "Captain, if you help this magnate of industry they will teach you something meaningful about how having all of your ships being broken shitheaps is good!"

Good idea +1

Thanks!

How about some bad ideas?
-Skyrim style skill system where you just have to fly in circles to increase helmsmanship for a 1% increase to maneuverability per level, etc.
-The captain gets a very limited set of skills and instead you have to recruit subordinates for some of the more advanced ones. For each subordinate slot you may have to choose between people that offer different skill trees. Examples, a chief engineer, a marine commander, a hotshot pilot, a phase physicist (a phasicist?), a guy with a hammer who hits panels to fix things, a dog (Lieutenant Woof), a rock you found floating in space that looks really cool.

You missed out space hamster!

There would have to be an OP cost for widening your hallways to fit a giant space hamster.

[Dex]

Aww you responded before i could append my mistake!

Im always for extra story elements, especially obscure references. If they are done in such away they arent immersion breaking they are just 'sideshadowing'. Quick google to sate curiosity and suddenly youve bought a 48hr audiobook.

[red_frog]

I too have a bad idea.
A Gothic 2 style of leveling up where when you want to learn new skill you need to find someone who can teach you. Same goes for improving skills but every time you want to improve them costs of doing so increases.

[Maethendias]

all that has been said i agree, but i have to add 1 thing


CR RECOVERY

PLEASE GIVE US MORE CR RECOVERY

[Flacman3000]

I actually refuse to update due to the story points (feels like magic points rather than concrete actions without resource requirements, skill, or even chance-based) but I will admit I wish the skill system remained the same with improvements and additions instead of being reworked and simplified. I love you Alex man but the skill system feels less progressive now. take this with a grain of salt I'm the minority here.

[Flacman3000]

I remember when I first got the game as a new player and was confused on what to go for, but as I played the game it became quite clear on the choices I would make in my skill tree. This was the best thing about the old system choice and preferred playstyle, now I can't help but feel like I'm missing out or not getting a little here and little there. It's straightforward, explosive, and simplistic. I much prefer increments of skills over explosive percentages or specializations. Forgive me but I wanted to like my character was learning not becoming a hero of the galaxy within 15 levels.

[Ryan390]

I actually refuse to update due to the story points (feels like magic points rather than concrete actions without resource requirements, skill, or even chance-based) but I will admit I wish the skill system remained the same with improvements and additions instead of being reworked and simplified. I love you Alex man but the skill system feels less progressive now. take this with a grain of salt I'm the minority here.

Your actually not the minority there's been a lot of people saying that. Of course, no one's got actual numbers on it because nobody has done a survey monkey yet..
But it does feel like from what I've seen or read that there's a lot of discomfort around the new skill system, from an array of different players with varying levels of experience.

[Locklave]

Not a fan of the new Industry tree, I feel like it's a shadow of what it was before. Also to re-enforce how broken the tree is to specialize in when one element removes d mods and the other requires them...

Also it's impossible to loop the tree without taking colony skills you may not want in a AI admin run. If I don't do admit personally then I'm wasting those points. Too many features of the tree are counter intuitive.

Now that I think about the industry tree feels like a side grade tree for the other 3 trees rather then a stand alone. It clearly wasn't designed with a 10 point industry build in mind. Do any of the other trees trip over themselves like this?

[TaLaR]

Now that I think about the industry tree feels like a side grade tree for the other 3 trees rather then a stand alone. It clearly wasn't designed with a 10 point industry build in mind. Do any of the other trees trip over themselves like this?

Leadership also has non combat Tier 5 which has nothing to do with rest of the tree.

Though even more troublesome is the Tier 4 lock. If you take Leadership to 4 or 9, you are forever locked that way. Which is much worse than lock at T5, because at least tech tree is pretty much unconditionally good to have 5 points in.

[Chthonic One]

Now that I think about the industry tree feels like a side grade tree for the other 3 trees rather then a stand alone. It clearly wasn't designed with a 10 point industry build in mind. Do any of the other trees trip over themselves like this?

Leadership also has non combat Tier 5 which has nothing to do with rest of the tree.

Though even more troublesome is the Tier 4 lock. If you take Leadership to 4 or 9, you are forever locked that way. Which is much worse than lock at T5, because at least tech tree is pretty much unconditionally good to have 5 points in.

My question is "Why is that lock there"? Seriously?

On one of the skills, I can sort of see why, but the other one has no reason at all to have a lock. Letting you use 10 officers in combat now, and later on, not letting you use 10 officers shouldn't be a problem. Just remove all of the officers from the ships when you reset your skills, and make you replace them.

[FelixG]

Not a fan of the new Industry tree, I feel like it's a shadow of what it was before. Also to re-enforce how broken the tree is to specialize in when one element removes d mods and the other requires them...

Also it's impossible to loop the tree without taking colony skills you may not want in a AI admin run. If I don't do admit personally then I'm wasting those points. Too many features of the tree are counter intuitive.

Now that I think about the industry tree feels like a side grade tree for the other 3 trees rather then a stand alone. It clearly wasn't designed with a 10 point industry build in mind. Do any of the other trees trip over themselves like this?

Almost all of the trees are shadows of their former selves, like leadership got trashed as well if you are a carrier player.

[Chaos Blade]

I get the feeling this new skill map (it is no tree) was designed backwards, that is to say starting by how it should look at the end, five pairs of picks in each aptitude field, for a total of ten that should feel like a "significant" choice.
The end result is that some skills are more significant than others, some picks make some sense together, sorta
But in the end this isn't even a skill tree, this is are perks
Skills would be how good you are doing X or Y, be it how good you are with kinetics or with beams, or how good you are as a helmsman, maybe modified by ship classes, how good a destroyer skipper you are, or a carrier driver or whatever.
in the end the "skill tree" doesn't do that, it offers me some perks (at the expense of others) and sometimes it offers me perks I don't care about (say Leadership 2) or puts perks I want waay up the end of the tree (leadership, Combat)

Think about the choices as well, Combat one: better helmsman (move faster, more agile) or a carrier skill (mind, the helmsman skill is also useful to carriers)
What about industry 1? more cargo, fuel and personnel, or a better salvage experience? mind a scavenger would like both.
Iindustry 5? more colonies or a slightly better colony? (I'd get if it were a tall versus wide, but it isn't at this moment) it also still isn't a skill
The only real picks that make sense to me in the tree are combat 3 and 4

AND then you have the issue that the perks have limits that water them down as the game goes on. so early perks become less interesting and useful as you progress thru the game (it should be the other way around, new perks should be special and interesting, desired, not important because the old ones are now a watered down variant of themselves)

Finally we have the immersion breaking perk, derelict contingent, but I've mentioned it a lot (I think I am going to make it my Carthago delenda est, or rather it is quickly becoming my thing)

[MaXimillion]

I feel the system overall in a step in the right direction, but I do have a few issues with the current implementation.

• Offering a choice between two skills that affect completely different ship types increases the barrier for a player to experiment with new ships. That seems like something the game's design should encourage, not discourage. Shields vs Phase is probably the biggest offender on this front, where one of the skills is always useless for your current ship.
• Skills that scale based on fleet size feel bad to take even when you're still small, because you know you'll have to respec them later. It's less of an issue for skills that scale with specific facets of your fleet like phase ships or fighter bays. The first choice in leadership is the worst offender, where you've got a choice between 1% damage boost or negligible boost to civvie ships¹. If you want to offer something that only helps small fleets, the alternative in that tier should be something generally useful.
• Colony skills feel really tacked on at the end of two of the trees, maybe a better solution would be to split them between all four trees and just give the one for that tree for free when the player picks a skill in the fifth tier?

¹ This is exasperated by militarized subsystems actually being the best mod you can put on your support ships for the support role, rather than being something you want for combat. I feel either the mod's functionality should be split between two mods, or this skill needs a redesign. At best it means you nerf your support ships in exchange for one or two slightly boosted ships that still don't perform that great.

EDIT: Also how come Officer Management is a permanent skill but Colony Management isn't? Is the game able to remove admins from colonies, but not officers from ships?

[Megas]

• Offering a choice between two skills that affect completely different ship types increases the barrier for a player to experiment with new ships. That seems like something the game's design should encourage, not discourage. Shields vs Phase is probably the biggest offender on this front, where one of the skills is always useless for your current ship.

It might be okay if respec is cheap, but it is not if player elites his skills.  Actually, if player changes flagship a lot, and flagship needs different skills to optimize, then respec should be free.

[Locklave]

Now that I think about the industry tree feels like a side grade tree for the other 3 trees rather then a stand alone. It clearly wasn't designed with a 10 point industry build in mind. Do any of the other trees trip over themselves like this?

Leadership also has non combat Tier 5 which has nothing to do with rest of the tree.

Though even more troublesome is the Tier 4 lock. If you take Leadership to 4 or 9, you are forever locked that way. Which is much worse than lock at T5, because at least tech tree is pretty much unconditionally good to have 5 points in.

Leadership and industry were the only trees I ever really used before. I was never about personally fighting and all about saving money and giving buffs to the fleet. I feel like my playstyle has really been gutted by these changes. I need to study these trees more carefully before I step in that leadership beartrap, thanks for the heads up.

I'm so disappointed by the lack of d mod support industry, before I could spec to save supplies on them. Now the only d mod thing is a mutant d mod combat builds... Something I'm sure the combat junkies love to toy with, but it shouldn't be in industry.