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] 2 3 ... 8

Author Topic: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game  (Read 17461 times)

Whitey_f242

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile

I remember hopping in on starsector about a year or two ago, and enjoying the kind of scope and scale and wealth of diversions there were. Ship customization allowed for several viable builds, the endgame was fighting radiants and no loadout I could make guaranteed a victory if they were multiple joined fleets, colonies could, in time and with great investment, become larger and more economically powerful than established core worlds.

That was fun.

I come back to the game later and find  that sparse content has been added, less than a handful of ships, but more than that the player has been neutered in their options. I read patch notes and see a long list of "you can no longer do this," "you can no longer do that," and an endless list right above the bugfixes that is nothing added to the game and dozens of viable or interesting builds taken out.

This is not fun.

This is largely a sandbox game. The player is free to do as they please and find their own amusement, with some "story missions" but ultimately a galaxy to explore, to conquer, to interact with others in. And all we're getting is a long list of patch notes indicating that the direction the game is going is like that for a PvP game, a foolish, positively foolish and unwise obsession with trying to balance a galactic sandbox game. Why? There is no multiplayer. There is nothing forcing the player to utilize minmax builds, or at least there wasn't, until development saw to it that rather than let players advance and overcome the idea of "difficulty" necessary for this game was exclusively "give the AI every numerical advantage possible and limit viability for endgame encounters to phase ship piloting abuse."
And now by writing that I fear that I've somehow motivated Alex to nerf phase ships to useless boring sameness the way armor tanking was neutered to nothingness, automated ships was neutered to nothingness, several dozen skills require an impossible or not just suboptimal but pointless fleet composition, while D-mod ships become the only meta or viable way of tackling endgame. Frigates get endless love, carriers are a waste of OP. There's lots of problems and none of the real ones are getting tackled, more or less it seems anything that is good is just getting beaten into the ground until no skill or hull mod selection makes any sense or looks interesting. That civilian grade hull skill? That'd be nice if I could field more than two kites without tipping it downward, considering that nearly anything already civilian grade is trash for combat to begin with and needs that full bonus. There's no reason it should be limited at all, from a lore or gameplay "balance" reason. Players shouldn't ever be railroaded or chided in a sandbox game for their choices, there should be options not restrictions.

Stop, dude. Stop. If you have problems with skills or hull mods that are powerful like it's somehow making content trivial, while players who are not abusing them are struggling because you have designed encounters meant to create frustration from a numerical angle rather than challenge the player in any way, maybe the whole skill tree should be brought to that level rather than just making every hull mod into a pointless marginal adjustment, and maybe the endgame needs to be toned back. There is so many options in this game but not a single time have I seen changes and gone "that makes that interesting," it's been a continual disappointment and aggravating cycle of "there goes another fun strategy in this single player game," while endgame encounters continue to be a crapshoot if you play "fairly."

Incentivize skill picks, do not penalize players for them. Incentivize hull mods, do not penalize players for them. There is no reason single player games like this should be so ruthlessly destroyed for the sake of imaginary "balance" while I can't think of a single set of notes outside the D-mod ship hull changes that brought anything new or interesting, just skewed and pidgeonholed players into one style with clear superiority, by way of making everything else crap one gimmick after another, irony seemingly lost in development.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 02:54:02 PM by Whitey_f242 »
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2021, 03:23:41 PM »

"So, what are the goals of the skill overhaul? First and foremost, the skill system should increase the replay value of the game – that is, depending on what skills are picked, the player should be able to explore new ways to play the game."

"I think reducing the number of options at any given point will also make for more impactful and considered choices for players of any skill level."

With all the recent nerfing, skill system turns into its previous version of minor, situational, buffs but with only 15 skill points to spend and this is most certainly not the direction I was expecting after reading these explanations and seeing the initial 0.95.
Logged

Whitey_f242

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2021, 03:25:57 PM »

"So, what are the goals of the skill overhaul? First and foremost, the skill system should increase the replay value of the game %u2013 that is, depending on what skills are picked, the player should be able to explore new ways to play the game."

"I think reducing the number of options at any given point will also make for more impactful and considered choices for players of any skill level."

With all the recent nerfing, skill system turns into its previous version of minor, situational, buffs but with only 15 skill points to spend and this is most certainly not the direction I was expecting after reading these explanations and seeing the initial 0.95.

Reducing the skill points has just made it more obvious to take the good ones to stand a chance against endgame encounters. There is less options that are viable, there is no replay value when if you waste skill points on stuff like administrator skills you cripple yourself, and you cannot do most of the content with "new ways" anymore, the fake deployment point disadvantages, infinite fleet sizes possible, etc. make sure of that.
Logged

WesternFail

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2021, 03:36:02 PM »

"Starsector (formerly “Starfarer”) is an in-development open-world single-player space-combat, roleplaying, exploration, and economic game."

I don't see the word "sandbox" ever being mentioned anywhere on the front page of the game. Starsector was never meant to be a sandbox game.
Logged

Harmful Mechanic

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • On break.
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2021, 03:56:21 PM »

Starsector shares a lot of design DNA with Star Control 2, in fact, which is also not a sandbox game (although you can mistake it for one, if you want to. Just expect that to bite you come Death March time). Some of the design choices are questionable, some of the edges are rough, but on the whole, I kind of like the new skill system. It works, more or less, the way Alex told us it would in the blogpost; there are individual issues with some values, but it's not catastrophic.

You can want this game to be what an 'ironic' internet racist told you it was, and have your heart broken, if you want. You're clearly upset about a lot of the balance decisions being made. You can catastrophize them, and get spun out and rageful about it, or you can register your complaints, and at worst, figure out how to make the changes you want to see. All this stuff is extremely moddable, it's just a matter of putting in the effort.

(It's funny you mention PvP; you're not being specific, but I'm guessing you had some favorite exploits that are now gone. I actually made and sent Alex a whole private balance mod to argue for some changes to the ULTRA REDACTED, etc. and phase ships; he was polite and receptive. No giant angerpost required! He's ridiculously responsive and pleasant to deal with if you approach him the same way.)
Logged

tseikk1

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2021, 04:28:54 PM »


You can want this game to be what an 'ironic' internet racist told you it was, and have your heart broken, if you want. You're clearly upset about a lot of the balance decisions being made. You can catastrophize them, and get spun out and rageful about it

I'm guessing you had some favorite exploits that are now gone.

No giant angerpost required!

holy moly you are angry and bitter for absolutely no reason at all. I really do not get people like you on these forums; don't you realize criticisim and different points of view are important? why do you want everyone to stop speaking out on what they think is wrong? And why on earth do you feel the need to not only attack them, but also another, separate person who is in no way shape or form even mentioned in the whole thread?
Logged

Whitey_f242

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2021, 04:36:12 PM »

Starsector shares a lot of design DNA with Star Control 2, in fact, which is also not a sandbox game (although you can mistake it for one, if you want to. Just expect that to bite you come Death March time). Some of the design choices are questionable, some of the edges are rough, but on the whole, I kind of like the new skill system. It works, more or less, the way Alex told us it would in the blogpost; there are individual issues with some values, but it's not catastrophic.

You can want this game to be what an 'ironic' internet racist told you it was, and have your heart broken, if you want. You're clearly upset about a lot of the balance decisions being made. You can catastrophize them, and get spun out and rageful about it, or you can register your complaints, and at worst, figure out how to make the changes you want to see. All this stuff is extremely moddable, it's just a matter of putting in the effort.

(It's funny you mention PvP; you're not being specific, but I'm guessing you had some favorite exploits that are now gone. I actually made and sent Alex a whole private balance mod to argue for some changes to the ULTRA REDACTED, etc. and phase ships; he was polite and receptive. No giant angerpost required! He's ridiculously responsive and pleasant to deal with if you approach him the same way.)

I'd like to think of what you think "exploits" I'm mad about going away if you think this post is in anger instead of concern. Recently, we lose SO's built in, but now it's just relegated to a never-or-rarely-used hull mod, like many others with marginal impact or too prohibitive an OP cost, and I didn't even bank on that one. I didn't use D-Mod tanking, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth that the optimal strategy is "fly a fleet with a pile of clunkers as your officer vehicles." I can confidently say these changes aren't even personally affecting my last playthrough, it's more the philosophy at play that is rubbing me the wrong way, taking a lot out, giving nothing back. I'm used to things like Path of Exile where before a skill gets a massive negative overwork, they'll take into account the rest of skills of and try to either rework or adjust others instead of making it blatant they're narrowly scratching a few. I think this game, as demanding as it is on Alex personally, could use a more careful and broad stroke if we're gonna' get "balancing passes" like this where we don't just see stuff pummeled into the ground but instead something brought down, others brought up to meet said elements half way, thus actually fulfilling the intention stated in the devblog post.
Logged

Rudette

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2021, 04:55:55 PM »

Eh, Come on. I think we all know what he's trying to say here when he says sandbox. I think arguing rather or not Starsector is a sandbox or not is a semantics game. This is due to how these terms mean different things to different people rather than being solid categories anymore, due to games just throwing them on their store tags for visibility in digital stores rather they fit or not. I personally wouldn't call it a sandbox but I see what he's getting at and why some people would. It's got open world elements, but sandbox implies no rules.

On topic and on balance though? I feel the complete opposite of OP. I've never liked the "balance doesn't matter in single player games" mentality. Yes, balance IS important in single player games- it's pretty silly to pretend it doesn't because then there would be no game at all. And, in a lot of ways, you're asking for more balance towards the end game lol so you're kind of arguing against yourself.

Balance is important because it facilitates a satisfying gameplay loop, provides tension, choices, stakes, losses, and victories. Even build variety. Balance is about creating a stable gaming experience. A game space, an environment, without parameters and rules ceases to really function or even exist. Without structure there is no game. Think about it like this: If you didn't want balance in your single game then why aren't you playing Gary's Mod or Goat Simulator or smashing lego space ships together and using your imagination? The reason you're playing this game instead of any of those other things is because you enjoy the game space created by the structure, the rules, and ultimately the balance. Ergo, balance matters. 

Player choice is actually greatly expanded upon when there is no 'best' option to choose. When there is a best choice to do something that far outweights all the other choices, then there's really no choice at all. When there is no single best choice, you get more build variety.

Like, I'm totally the opposite of you- I think the game needs -more- balance. I think money is too easy to make. I think smuggling doesn't have enough consequence, raiding is too easy and too profitable, and I have a love/hate relationship with the new skill system in a lot of ways. It feels like a rough prototype with some good ideas about choice and a sense of progression that shows lots of promise, especially compared to the old skill system, but it's also kind of a mess in a few spots that rub me the wrong way.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 05:06:08 PM by Rudette »
Logged

Whitey_f242

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2021, 05:22:02 PM »

Eh, Come on. I think we all know what he's trying to say here when he says sandbox. I think arguing rather or not Starsector is a sandbox or not is a semantics game. This is due to how these terms mean different things to different people rather than being solid categories anymore, due to games just throwing them on their store tags for visibility in digital stores rather they fit or not. I personally wouldn't call it a sandbox but I see what he's getting at and why some people would. It's got open world elements, but sandbox implies no rules.

On topic and on balance though? I feel the complete opposite of OP. I've never liked the "balance doesn't matter in single player games" mentality. Yes, balance IS important in single player games- it's pretty silly to pretend it doesn't because then there would be no game at all. And, in a lot of ways, you're asking for more balance towards the end game lol so you're kind of arguing against yourself.

Balance is important because it facilitates a satisfying gameplay loop, provides tension, choices, stakes, losses, and victories. Even build variety. Balance is about creating a stable gaming experience. A game space, an environment, without parameters and rules ceases to really function or even exist. Without structure there is no game. Think about it like this: If you didn't want balance in your single game then why aren't you playing Gary's Mod or Goat Simulator or smashing lego space ships together and using your imagination? The reason you're playing this game instead of any of those other things is because you enjoy the game space created by the structure, the rules, and ultimately the balance. Ergo, balance matters. 

Player choice is actually greatly expanded upon when there is no 'best' option to choose. When there is a best choice to do something that far outweights all the other choices, then there's really no choice at all. When there is no single best choice, you get more build variety.

Like, I'm totally the opposite of you- I think the game needs -more- balance. I think money is too easy to make. I think smuggling doesn't have enough consequence, raiding is too easy and too profitable, and I have a love/hate relationship with the new skill system in a lot of ways. It feels like a rough prototype with some good ideas about choice and a sense of progression that shows lots of promise, especially compared to the old skill system, but it's also kind of a mess in a few spots that rub me the wrong way.

The problem is allowing a larger scope of options doesn't restrict you, but outright cramping down does restrict folks who want more. There is nothing stopping you from self-handcapping in a more open system, but when development slides the opposite direction an entire swath is cut through folks who want a higher ceiling.
Logged

robepriority

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • robepriority#2626
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2021, 05:31:42 PM »

Story points and built in hull-mods are a new, massive buff to player power. the recent RC patches afterwards are to essentially make sure that the game isn't broken.

Whitey_f242

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2021, 05:37:01 PM »

Story points and built in hull-mods are a new, massive buff to player power. the recent RC patches afterwards are to essentially make sure that the game isn't broken.

You would be correct, if the game was not newly tuned harshly against the players with hard restrictions in later encounters, where these become not "buffs" but mandatory selections
Logged

robepriority

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • robepriority#2626
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2021, 05:43:57 PM »

Later encounters as in new .95 bosses, or later encounters as in the general lategame from .91?

general lategame difficulty has been tuned down with RC patches due to AI fleetcomps having a reduction in officer counts and impact mitigation nerfs making them a lot easier to chew through. Skill tweaks apply to AI fleets too.

The first .95 boss has a fairly nasty gimmick if you're unprepared, but it actually favors .95 style capital focus to deal with.

The second .95 boss can be made *easier* with a frigate, but it's not nessasary.

Both bosses are optional for progression.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2021, 05:47:33 PM »

You would be correct, if the game was not newly tuned harshly against the players with hard restrictions in later encounters, where these become not "buffs" but mandatory selections
Just look at people not wanting Automated Ships in part because they want that third s-mod from Special Modifications so badly.  And yes, player almost needs s-mods to keep up late.

My biggest gripe with s-mods is it removes building new ships with Orbital Works as a viable replacement for ships lost in battle.  Now, if player wants to keep his s-mod ships pristine, he needs to recover his s-mod ships then either pay exorbitant Restore costs or get Field Repairs and wait months for d-mods to disappear slowly.
Logged

ModdedLaharl

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2021, 06:19:42 PM »

Story points and built in hull-mods are a new, massive buff to player power. the recent RC patches afterwards are to essentially make sure that the game isn't broken.

Which is why I would personally argue that story points and built in hullmods were a horrible, horrible mistake. They're not remotely thematic and in fact directly circumvent and devalue a lot of the game's systems, especially where ship loadout and fleet balance is concerned, which is true whether you argue for a sandbox or not. Even without those, however, the game was arguably broken because of officer and DP abuse and the over-incentivization, or indeed 'pigeonholing', of small fleets and small ships, as well as narrowing down what kinds of strategies and fleets can work into a very few categories that are arguably more abusive than anything that came before.
Logged

Harmful Mechanic

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
  • On break.
    • View Profile
Re: Limiting player options is the antithesis of a good sandbox game
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2021, 06:33:37 PM »

holy moly you are angry and bitter for absolutely no reason at all.
I was perhaps excessively blunt, but I'm not angry. Contemptuous, maybe. I tend to make people cry when I'm being especially curt with them, but I don't have to be angry or even upset myself to do it.
I really do not get people like you on these forums; don't you realize criticisim and different points of view are important
Your lack of understanding is going to make many things about this response confusing to you. Critical responses don't need to be hyperbolically aggressive to be effective, and indeed, are more likely to be heard and internalized if they're not. I don't expect you to listen to me regardless, so I'm being harsh in order to prove a point. If I needed you to listen to me, I'd butter you up a bit.
why do you want everyone to stop speaking out on what they think is wrong?
I don't. I wish they'd be more polite and constructive about it because I'm an adult, not a 14-year-old, and limitless forum toxicity isn't novel or entertaining to me any more. Filling a post with loaded terms like 'ruthlessly destroyed' might get people's goats, and attention, but it's not going to endear you to them.

This is basic social stuff; if you want something from someone, be polite and learn to be persuasive, or hire a really good lawyer. Not knowing it smacks of immaturity, not correctness. It might look suave in a carefully edited Ben Shapiro video, but in real life, it tends to mark people who are going to learn better or else die alone.
And why on earth do you feel the need to not only attack them, but also another, separate person who is in no way shape or form even mentioned in the whole thread?
It's a description, not an attack; there's no functional difference between 'pretending to be racist for the lols' and actually being racist, because what matters is not your intent deep and secret in your heart, but your expression of your intent. People only interact with the meaning of what you say through your specific expression of it, a distinction you and the OP both would be wise to learn.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8