Print

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

[Serenitis]

Serenitis' playstyle appeared to be 'pick the best skills and be super at everything while ignoring every weak skill' which is just ignoring the problem of skill balancing and not making choices anyway.

Not that it matters...
But how I chose skills in the previous version was by how much they reduced effort 'overhead' or micromanagement first, and then by whatever seemed appropriate at that time a very distant second.
Almost every every game I played I picked very similar skills explicitly because I know I want a very specific thing out of the game, and those skills were the means to do that.

The skills I picked, I guarantee would be considered hopelessly 'underpowered' by most because they focused on passive campaign effects rather than 'buffs'.
Because that's the bit that's got the most dull stuff in it, so I picked all the things that mitigated that.
I don't consider skills for re-playability purposes, because tbh most of them don't really interest me that much. And finding different things is much better in that regard anyway.
It literally does not matter that I'm picking (almost) the same skills every time because I know I want to do the same thing every time. I am not picking these skills because they are 'the best', I'm picking them because they let me do the thing I want to do.

This is where the disconnect is.
You might consider taking different skills to be part of the re-playability.
I want to explore the procgen - that's where my re-playability is.
The skills (for me) are just a means to that end. A means which have been made... less accessible than they could be.

The old system wasn't great because it had those 'dead' levels where you have to spend points to get nothing in order to proceed.
The new system has exactly the same thing. It's just dressed up like it's a choice because those 'dead' levels do actually do something, just not anything you really care about.

[kenwth81]

What is the optimal build now?

You are not picking skills, you are picking skill trees. There is only so many way you can go... and there is only 4 skill tree...
Some People think this is better?

[intrinsic_parity]

If you put a bunch of constraints on how you are willing to play the game, then you've already made your choices, but you still had them. The choices in the skill system are about playing the game in different ways, so if you refuse to play the game in different ways, then you will naturally not have as many choices...

[sector_terror]

Almost every every game I played I picked very similar skills explicitly because I know I want a very specific thing out of the game, and those skills were the means to do that. [...] I don't consider skills for re-playability purposes, because tbh most of them don't really interest me that much. And finding different things is much better in that regard anyway.

Exactly. You want to play the same way every time with the exact same amount of power. You can CHOOSE to replay again and again all youd like, picking the same ships, using the same tactics and strategies, with the same ksill picks. But then your not really using the replay value given to you. That's fine, you can choose to do that if you'd like, but demanding your choices means the replay value doesn't exist is just short-sighted. It may not be the thing you're interested in, but that replay value is quite valuable to me and many others, and you can't just declare it non-existent because it's not the kind of variation you personally want.

and look, that's fine. Go pick the best skills for the "Easier" play experience if you'd like. IF that's what you wanna do cool, but the old skill system has exactly as many problems with skill balancing, and the only reason people didn't notice was they just ignored it. But now you have to make choices to choices to get what you want, you can't just get everything all at once. We agree it's still in desperate need of fine-tunning, Alex himself has said so and I've written full essays on it multiple time, but let's not ignore what's there and call the hole system trash because you dont get the end-result you use to get.

[Locklave]

These choices are not about playing the game in a different way. Many playstyles have been gutted and replaced with generic sameness because we can't specialize in a playstyle/build the way we could before.

The complete insanity of people that argue less options is more playstyle.

30ish points into the old Industry tree was my preferred playstyle before, had to give up tons of combat bonuses for personal and fleet. That playstyle is gone now. But I forget I'm not playing the game right according to individuals in this thread. Because I need to play completely differently every time to get reply value. Good to know I wasn't enjoying those hundreds of hours.

sector_terror, don't tell people what they need to do to enjoy replays.

[kenwth81]

Exactly. You want to play the same way every time with the exact same amount of power. You can CHOOSE to replay again and again all youd like, picking the same ships, using the same tactics and strategies, with the same ksill picks. But then your not really using the replay value given to you. That's fine, you can choose to do that if you'd like, but demanding your choices means the replay value doesn't exist is just short-sighted. It may not be the thing you're interested in, but that replay value is quite valuable to me and many others, and you can't just declare it non-existent because it's not the kind of variation you personally want.

and look, that's fine. Go pick the best skills for the "Easier" play experience if you'd like. IF that's what you wanna do cool, but the old skill system has exactly as many problems with skill balancing, and the only reason people didn't notice was they just ignored it. But now you have to make choices to choices to get what you want, you can't just get everything all at once. We agree it's still in desperate need of fine-tunning, Alex himself has said so and I've written full essays on it multiple time, but let's not ignore what's there and call the hole system trash because you dont get the end-result you use to get.

This is arguably worse. Just coming in a bigger package.  Unattractive clutter is still Unattractive. Trying to balance around a whole cluster of skills make imbalance more significant. Some skill in the upper tier is vastly better and more important than the other skills. It overshadow other skill, and possible reason to pick that entire tree. It simply mean it isn't balance against other skills, it unbalance the whole skills tree and probably unbalance the whole skill system. Nothing change, it is not balanced.

[sector_terror]

This is arguably worse. Just coming in a bigger package.  Unattractive clutter is still Unattractive. Trying to balance around a whole cluster of skills make imbalance more significant. Some skill in the upper tier is vastly better and more important than the other skills. It overshadow other skill, and possible reason to pick that entire tree. It simply mean it isn't balance against other skills, it unbalance the whole skills tree and probably unbalance the whole skill system. Nothing change, it is not balanced.

Oh I agree, it's not balanced. The choices are just more highlighted since they're now more directly compared against others. The old system wasn't balanced either, but it remains unbalanced as is. But the idea it isn't even a choice in concept and that it's the systems fault is the thing I have a problem with. It being disbalanced? We agree, I've made my concerns on that before. But it doesn't mean choice is removed, just that it isn't a well balanced choice

[SCC]

These choices are not about playing the game in a different way. Many playstyles have been gutted and replaced with generic sameness because we can't specialize in a playstyle/build the way we could before.

0.9.1 wasn't really about specialising. If anything, it was about going broad. My typical skill set got me everything I wanted from tech, leadership and nearly everything from combat. The only industry skill that interested me was Field Repairs 2, because of the repair bug (it seems unfixed still). I could also not pick any skill and still play fine. It makes gutting of Fleet Leadership pretty funny to me.

[intrinsic_parity]

30ish points into the old Industry tree was my preferred playstyle before, had to give up tons of combat bonuses for personal and fleet. That playstyle is gone now. But I forget I'm not playing the game right according to individuals in this thread. Because I need to play completely differently every time to get reply value. Good to know I wasn't enjoying those hundreds of hours.

So what you are missing is the effects of skills available in the old industry tree which no longer exist? That can easily be resolved by adding those effects... For instance, replace derilect contingent with a 'reduced effect of d-mods' skill, and maybe combine some of the effects of the I3 or I1 skills into one skill and add a skill that gives the old 'd-mod DP reduction applies to maintenance as well'. If that is not enough, you can keep adding effects that were available in the old tree, it's just an issue of adding/removing/combining/balancing skills, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that the new skills need a significant amount of balancing. I don't see how that is related to the structure of the system though...

The problem with the old system was always that every skill needed to be balanced so that it could be taken during the tutorial, and every skill needed to be balanced against every other skill. Now some skills can be balanced around requiring a significant investment of time/experience before they are available (high tiers), skills can be balanced with the knowledge that it requires a lot investment to combine them with their opposite skill, and skills can be primarily balanced against other skills at the same tier rather than every other skill. That's not to say this balance is good right now, but the system allows for balancing in ways that were not possible in the old system. There are so many ways to improve the system without losing that: adding tiers, raising level cap, adding more skills per tier, rebalancing skills etc.

[kenwth81]

So what you are missing is the effects of skills available in the old industry tree which no longer exist? That can easily be resolved by adding those effects... For instance, replace derilect contingent with a 'reduced effect of d-mods' skill, and maybe combine some of the effects of the I3 or I1 skills into one skill and add a skill that gives the old 'd-mod DP reduction applies to maintenance as well'. If that is not enough, you can keep adding effects that were available in the old tree, it's just an issue of adding/removing/combining/balancing skills, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the statement that the new skills need a significant amount of balancing. I don't see how that is related to the structure of the system though...

The problem with the old system was always that every skill needed to be balanced so that it could be taken during the tutorial, and every skill needed to be balanced against every other skill. Now some skills can be balanced around requiring a significant investment of time/experience before they are available (high tiers), skills can be balanced with the knowledge that it requires a lot investment to combine them with their opposite skill, and skills can be primarily balanced against other skills at the same tier rather than every other skill. That's not to say this balance is good right now, but the system allows for balancing in ways that were not possible in the old system. There are so many ways to improve the system without losing that: adding tiers, raising level cap, adding more skills per tier, rebalancing skills etc.

I would rather not. The old system has its own merit. What this is trying to do here is creating a skills set and possibly player class system. Not only is the structure different, it is changing the entire system.

[Locklave]

I would rather not. The old system has its own merit. What this is trying to do here is creating a skills set and possibly player class system. Not only is the structure different, it is changing the entire system.

That sums it up extremely well.

[SCC]

Now some skills can be balanced around requiring a significant investment of time/experience before they are available (high tiers)

God, I wish. At the moment, only Tech tiers 4 and 5 and Leadership tier 4 are seemingly balanced in this way. Everything else isn't really powerful enough.

[Morrokain]

I think the idea that people are feeling that the skill system is too restrictive is, in fact, indication that the system is working as intended. If you get the skills you want and think to yourself "ugh but I also want these skills!" then I'd argue that is the meaningful choice coming into play. While it doesn't feel good coming from the system prior where you could get everything, the whole point of the rework is that you are going to want more than you can get so that you try other things out the next playthrough. So for those saying the choices aren't meaningful, you are kind of contradicting yourself merely by the fact that you want them so bad.

But the idea it isn't even a choice in concept and that it's the systems fault is the thing I have a problem with. It being disbalanced? We agree, I've made my concerns on that before. But it doesn't mean choice is removed, just that it isn't a well balanced choice

I agree. If there is a problem with most of the player base using the same skill build as is claimed here, then it doesn't mean there is less player choice. It just means the balance between choices is a bit off and needs to be addressed.

Imo, the argument that the new skill system restricts player choice in a sandbox is a misunderstanding of choice. It's one thing to say it's restricting the amount of available bonuses the player has access to, but wanting all those bonuses each play through isn't a "choice" it is a desire. Choosing everything is actually not choosing anything. You have it all. If that is important to players then that's fine don't get me wrong. But say it as it really is. Saying that player choice has been reduced is a disingenuous claim under that context. All of the campaign options that were there before are still there. At most, some are just a bit harder/costlier to do.

Is it because skill design now means you can't comfortably get X skill in your playthrough? Even more importantly, why is X skill required in the first place?

Again, why does it matter?
Every player has a different thing they want to do, and different abilities they consider more valuable than others.
Some players want to want make themselves more powerful, some want to be able to do 'interesting' things, and others want to just remove as many 'chores' as possible.
The first two groups have been catered to quite well. While the latter group has not.

Er, it matters because that's how detailed feedback works? I don't quite understand the counter question.

The second part kind of answers my question though. Essentially you feel like a lot of campaign or combat elements are chores that you want to avoid. That's important to know too - because if that is the root of the issue then some of that can be solved in a different way. That's pretty much what I was getting at.

You don't need to remove the meaningful choice from the skill system design to ease up exploration restrictions. Alex could, for instance, introduce a setting that reduces supply and fuel costs, increase cargo space, etc.

[sector_terror]

Well spoken morrokain. Your a better orator than I. If I could give you thumbs, I would

[AcaMetis]

I think the idea that people are feeling that the skill system is too restrictive is, in fact, indication that the system is working as intended. If you get the skills you want and think to yourself "ugh but I also want these skills!" then I'd argue that is the meaningful choice coming into play. While it doesn't feel good coming from the system prior where you could get everything, the whole point of the rework is that you are going to want more than you can get so that you try other things out the next playthrough. So for those saying the choices aren't meaningful, you are kind of contradicting yourself merely by the fact that you want them so bad.

I do find skill points to be too limited, but I don't find the choices to be at all "meaningful". It ultimately just boils down to whether you want to compromise your choice of specialized combat boosts by dipping into Industry/Leadership 5 for campaign QoL stuff. There's nothing that a fleet without any of those skills can't do that a fleet with those skills can, it's just a matter of having to invest more time and money to get it done. So once you've got colonies set up and income solved there's no reason to have those skills anymore that choice is gone, because the benefit to having those skills is gone. Then you respec into whatever skills actually benefit your chosen fleet composition, easy to do because the game enforces specializing so much, and that's it. Puzzle solved.

Of course having said that the previous skill system was no different in that regard. I mean you had to commit to whatever skill you picked since you couldn't respec at all, but was that a good thing? Being forced to commit between campaign QoL and combat boosts from level 1? I wouldn't say so. My suggestion, still, is to have some kind of logistics officers. I mean your fleet has a quartermaster and all kinds of officers that are mentioned during the story missions, right? Excise the campaign QoL stuff from the skill system entirely, let that be solely and exclusively about combat stuff (personal ship/officers/what have you), and just give us logistics officers that can pick up the campaign stuff instead. You can still have the choice between I1L and I1R, on a logistics officer, for what that choice is worth (and rebalancing can certainly make for some interesting possibilities/combinations, I'm sure), you can still have limited options, but you don't have to choose between it and something completely unrelated for as long as one is relevant. No more choices between apples or oranges until one of them rots and makes the decision for you.

(I'm sure this idea could be better phrased/presented/what have you, not an orator here, but hopefully people will at least get the general idea...)