Print

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

[Linnis]

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.

A skill system's goal should be designed towards character builds and developments where each playthrough is different. The previous system was more tailored towards different builds that played vastly different than the current one. In the previous system one could be totally industry and leadership and not do any combat, tech was hybrid of everything and combat was combat. Now its like, you make choices, but they dont really lead to different playstyles, they are just slightly different variations of the same thing (combat) with a perk or two in teach tree that adds or buffs a cool novel mechanic.

Because of that the new system IS restricting player choice, not because of it makes players think or choose, because the end result are characters who does the same thing but with slightly different flavor. The new system is also more similar to modern RPG skill design choices rather than the old classic, a perfect example is Diablo 2 with and without synergies in skill trees.

Personally I don't really care, that's why MODS exists. And IMHO anything that just adds stats without adding new mechanics that are interactable are filler junk in player progression. You either go all out like Path of Exile or do the classic Diablo or old RPG style of skill points simply unlocks abilities and skills.

[Megas]

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?

No.  Last release, I bitterly regretted sinking points into Industry for colony skills before I learned about the Pather bug (and easy Hegemony bribes).  However, I was in no mood to restart the game and played it a bit longer before I stopped playing until release of 0.95a.

[kenwth81]

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.

Harder and higher cost as the direct effect on your choice. Brushing it off as something insignificant or unimportant is disingenuous. You can't tell people they are unaffected by the changes with a clear conscience.

[Orochi]

When Alex originally brought up "Meaningful Choice" in regards to the skill system, I was all for it. But looking back, I've realized that terminology is vague and honestly kind of useless. What makes a skill "meaningful" (ie, has a significant impact on the experience) or a "choice", isn't really up for debate, but sets such a low bar that it doesn't really have significance in of itself. Sure, limiting the number of points a player can have makes each one more significant, but so would making each level a struggle to reach, or making each skill exclusive from a set.

Skyrim has a system where you can be great at everything, and yet perks/skills are still significant there. You can only level a skill you are using, so you can't level two-handed and one-handed at the same time. Each takes investment, though you can switch at any time and level them both it takes twice as long and a concerted effort on you part. Plus, attempting to level literally everything at once would weaken you to the point that the game becomes impossible (as long as you're playing on higher difficulties at least). So you still have to focus on a core set of skills at least until you hit really high levels.

Saying that the current system is better because each of the choices is more "meaningful" is true only if we assume that the skill system's quality is solely judged based on a very technical and rather arbitrary definition of the word "meaningful". By this definition, why not make it so you only get one skill point, accessible exclusively by killing some ungodly powerful boss? That would make the skill system even more meaningful, and by that definition, categorically better.

In the end, it really doesn't matter if the new system is technically more "meaningful" if it just isn't as fun and that's subjective. While the new system is marginally more fun to some people that specifically like to test the confines of the system itself, it's significantly less fun to people who just want to play the damn game and have a sense of progression.

That's ultimately where I feel the new system fails by the way, in the sense of progression. Really, Starsector has this problem in general. The usual fantasy of an RPG is to start out small, then work your way up until you can kill god or something. While the skill-curve and early-to-mid game in Starsector do that fine, it drops off hard in the end game. At some point, you're facing fleets that no matter what you do will always be stronger than you. The [REDACTED] will always have better ships than you in terms of sheer stats and officer quantity. The only advantage you can have over them is by min-maxing your builds (your skills, officer skills, and ship fits) and just sheer player skill. That's it. And once you reach that point, you have to play as hard as you can every time unless you use some kind of exploit. You literally hit a progression wall, where no progress you make will ever be "Meaningful" again. Oh sure you can overcome the challenge, for whatever that's worth, but there's not a meaningful reward behind it, just... more of the same. It's why the most popular mods focus on endgame activities, and people are feeling the lack of HVBs and IVBs really, really hard right now.

All in all, perhaps I went off-topic a bit, but this is more of a "yes and" to the OP than anything else. I completely agree that the game is constricting player choice as it continues to funnel the player into more and more combat, and I agree that's a bad thing since the game refuses to actually reward you for it to any degree of significance. I also agree the new skill system is a part of that problem, thought I also argue it's a result of... well there's just no way I can put this nicely, but what I think is simply poor design choice. Sorry Alex. I love you, and I appreciate all the work you put into this game, but I also think that your decision for the direction of this game is wrong. Of course, I'm not a developer, this is not MY game, and I don't have any right to tell you what you should or should not do, but I also feel that I would regret it if I didn't express my opinion.

[Locklave]

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.

That isn't the system as presented. It's not the intent of the system that validates it's existence, it's what it actually does.

The choice for the large part are completely arbitrary. This is a skill build like a MMO. But it's like someone put the skill "choices" in a randomizer. And the skills aren't just locked behind a tree but investment in a tree where more of that is happening.

The skills weren't designed for a choice system like this. You can see trees like like industry that don't work worth a damn with this new system. Enjoy your skill investment into leftover garbage colony skill that became I5.
It's not even
"I don't want these bonuses."
it's
"I use AI cores so these point do literally nothing for me and I'm forced to take them because there is no way to repeat the tree without doing it which is what people are talking about when they say this restrictive system is terrible."

Then you got stuff like I4 bonuses cancelling themselves out. Because the entire tree was half assed and every tree has some kind of dumbness in it, like locking points in tech/leadership.

The point everyone is missing is that this new system doesn't do what you are all arguing it's intended to do. It's why so many threads are made about it, it's why so many object to it.

Know what I think? I think your playstyles didn't get completely gutted by the changes so you all are speaking from a place of ignorance at the loss of our playstyle. It's a, sure your playstyle got destroyed, but mine still works and I get the general idea of the new system. So defend the system then I guess? Say it works, say the people objecting want everything and in the same post acknowledge limitations without connecting it to the people objecting. edit: Also keep saying the people against it want things easier. Because we couldn't flip that on you and say combat bonuses are crutches for terrible players who should play on easier setting Alex should create. That feel good?

Tell me when it actually becomes a "meaningful choice" system. Because that's only it's goal atm.

[Schwartz]

As someone whose playstyle didn't get gutted, I nevertheless feel that something "was lost" in the changeover to this new skill system. And I don't mean player power. I was in support of a severe nerfbat to the skill system on several occasions. But I do feel that the system of 0.9.1 was the most pleasant and open to work with yet. I liked it a lot. I think it could have done with refinement and that would have been good enough.

The new frigate skills are also exciting and could be incorporated into an open system. I feel like the older system with some of the new skills would make a fine combo.

As right now choices are baked into the system, and there are definitely some "dud" choices and some "obvious" ones, it doesn't feel like a choice at all. It's basically "do you want phase ships?" "do you want frigates?" "do you want to dabble in fighters?". #3 is lacking a bit of oomph.

Fighters also belong to the options that have been limited a little too hard now, as a result of the flight deck skill limit. I don't see the benefit here except that the player is forced to adhere to a rough flight deck maximum now to get the most out of the skills, meaning he will gravitate more and more toward a fleet mix that is preferable. Since I did play and enjoy carrier fleets in 0.9.1 and even before fighters became builtin weapons, I feel this is double bad. I'll say it again even if it's likely irrelevant to mention now: Fighters were more fun and immersive when they were independent. They were also weaker then. But I'd gladly go back to that system. Another example of choices having been limited for an entire class of ships, as we can no longer order fighters around at all - the targeting hotkey is for ship weapons and having it pull double duty is not ideal.

Taking a long, hard look at the past and seeing which changes were good and which weren't cannot be a bad thing.

[Harmful Mechanic]

I think a lot of these issues are polish questions; if there are dud skills right now, the solution is to rearrange and redesign until the system works as intended, not to revert to an old system that was as creaky if not creakier. If nothing else, the new skill system makes it easier to spot problems, because each chain of skills has an obvious point where the player feels a pick is more obligatory than desirable. That neatly spotlights the skills that need some TLC.

Since I did play and enjoy carrier fleets in 0.9.1 and even before fighters became builtin weapons, I feel this is double bad. I'll say it again even if it's likely irrelevant to mention now: Fighters were more fun and immersive when they were independent. They were also weaker then. But I'd gladly go back to that system. Another example of choices having been limited for an entire class of ships, as we can no longer order fighters around at all - the targeting hotkey is for ship weapons and having it pull double duty is not ideal.

I also miss being able to use fighters to cap points, and feeling generally like I could deploy my fighters on the fleet level as a cohesively-designed air wing, as well as the design space it made for true fighter-bombers. What I don't miss was the crapshoot nature of fighter damage due to inability to focus on targets and the general bias against dedicated bombers, and if you asked me back then I would have said that was more important; I still think it is.

What I do know is that reverting to that system would create more problems than it solves. Instead I would loop back around to design intent, and ask Alex 'how can we make the intent of this design choice clearer?' Because a lot of the issue I see with the skill system right now is just that we're comparing it to the mature state of the old system and not some of the rawer balance points it's been at in the past, and where there are gaps, or the design intent is unclear or conveyed poorly, a hostile audience reads it as malicious design.

I just think it's unpolished and unclear design still. There was probably no way on a shoestring indie budget to polish it enough for a great reception on release; that's a constraint of the development model. But Alex is, I'm sure, furiously taking notes on how to bring it to a good place from here, because I've seen him do that in the past.

[lilFishy44]

New (forum) guy here, been playing this on and off for a couple of years and wanted to put my 2 cents here.

The concreat skills I have problems with and why are the following:
-Makeshift Equipment (good early to mid-game, becomes near useless when you are hauling capital sized fleets around for late-game bounties and contract missions)

-Containment procedures (same as above, might be an even faster drop of in usefulness)

-Flux regulation (This is a more viable choice until mid-late game where it drops of as well. GIves you a pretty good boost in any fleet composition and is basically mandatory if you want easier fights)

-Crew Training. (with all the bonuses and good things that come out of 100% CR, this is going to be picked almost always, the Carrier Group skill is, IMO, only good for carrier strike force roleplay)

-Automated ships (Realy!? You give us the option to potentially roleplay as REDACTED, but you cap the CR at 30 DP. IMO, this is too little. Also, doesn't help that this skill shares the same spot with Special Modifications, which is IMO, much superior)

-Weapond drills (Can kinda understand the need for a fall of on this one, but again, becomes a useless skill mid-late game)

Aditionaly, there is some rather huge imbalance, IMO when it comes to skills in the same tree of the same rank. For example:
Target Anallysis >>>> Point Defence
Electronic warfare >> Fighter Uplink
Crew training >>> Carrier group.

Second to last point. What is the reason behind a lot of skill either directly or indirectly buffing frigate and destroyer fleets when such thing are not viable late game (especially with the nerf to SO)
Last point, The officer skills. All of my officers look kind of similar. Differences are in Ranged specialization or Energy Weapon Mastery, for example, and such nonsense.
My current Scarab officer (because they are my fav ships and imo, one of 2 frigates that are good even late-game and in AI hands) is this:
EWM, Reliable Engineering, Target analysis, Helmsmanship and Shield modulation. And, IMO, the first 4 skills are mandatory for a viable build and only the last skill is up for grabs.

In short, not a lot of META choices, again, in my oppinion.

[RemnantAI]

Honestly I want all the skills.

My gripe with the new skill system is that there are so many no brainer picks, it's really hard to deviate from them. I have run nearly a dozen different games since the .95a release, and although I want to pick up different skills and utilize them, I still have 50% of them dedicated to the same picks because of the quality of life it gives my playthrough. I like that the skills are more meaningful, and it makes my levels feel much more potent, but ultimately I feel more railroaded.

[Morrokain]

Sigh. Just to clear things up really quickly.

A) I don't have a "playstyle" and haven't played vanilla in a bit and my playthrough this release is still early. So, no I am not saying what I am because "my playstyle is still viable and yours isn't so I don't care" and the baseless accusations of such bias are just silly.

B) My opinion stems from design as a concept not from meticulous scrutiny of the new skill system through a whole playthrough. So yeah I guess I am "ignorant" in that sense.

Some responses seem to not understand what my point was. I was saying that some stuff can be addressed outside of skills rather than allow the player to get all the skills each playthrough. I also clearly said that "its fine if you want everything but just say that clearly" so I have no idea where people are getting the idea that I was trivializing anyone's opinion. I was saying to be clear because that is what will get you what you want if you want changes. The main issue seemed to be "I want combat skills but hate the chore of fuel/supplies so those skills were mandatory to me." So then why not address the heart of the issue outside of skills? If the follow up question was "then why are those skills there?" then that is a perfectly valid question.

Similarly:

Harder and higher cost as the direct effect on your choice. Brushing it off as something insignificant or unimportant is disingenuous. You can't tell people they are unaffected by the changes with a clear conscience.

When did I ever say it was insignificant or unimportant or that people are unaffected? And no, harder and higher cost doesn't have a direct effect on choice... that's not what choice is. Choice is "can I or can't I?" not "do I want to now?" or "is it as convenient as before?" and that being said - something harder or costlier of course impacts the player and I'm not saying it doesn't. What is certainly does not do, however, is remove their choice. Actually removing the option to do something removes their choice. The semantics might seem insignificant but my whole point is that they aren't when it comes to feedback that will actually result in changes.

*Edit*

Also keep saying the people against it want things easier. Because we couldn't flip that on you and say combat bonuses are crutches for terrible players who should play on easier setting Alex should create. That feel good?

It wouldn't feel good or bad to be honest. Other than calling me terrible (which is harsh obviously) what you say is, in fact, pretty accurate. Combat skills are there to help the player in combat. And a setting to make combat easier actually already exists (easy mode). Something for supplies and fuel does not to my knowledge. If your pride is hurt because you would ideally want to play the game on an easier setting, that is very much a you problem. I don't care about such things. Having additional customization options is just good game design most of the time.

And, once again, to be crystal clear: if the real issue is that players want to be able to take most/all of the skills, I have no problem with that. Just say it as such and say it clearly. Preferably with explicit reasons and proposed changes.

All I was trying to do was point out that the new system has the potential for meaningful choice due to its design and that back and forth comments on things players miss indicate that choice is now in play. I didn't say it was perfect.

TLDR: I am trying to help people flesh out their opinions and be specific. I am not trivializing anyone's opinion so stop acting like I am.

[kenwth81]

And, once again, to be crystal clear: if the real issue is that players want to be able to take most/all of the skills, I have no problem with that. Just say it as such and say it clearly. Preferably with explicit reasons and proposed changes.

All I was trying to do was point out that the new system has the potential for meaningful choice due to its design and that back and forth comments on things players miss indicate that choice is now in play. I didn't say it was perfect.

You are just talking nonsense. Players could't get most/all of the skills with the old system. What they pick is what they think would be the most optimal set of skills for what they want to do with their limited skill points. What they have to do now is locking into a skill set of with both what they do want and possibly forcefully fed skills they do not want.  Choice emphasizes such as the freedom of choice. What you want to pick plus the when and the how. That is not semantics, You are just simply not concern about what other people care about. That is all. 

What I do know is that reverting to that system would create more problems than it solves.

Unsubstantiated claim.

[Locklave]

A) I don't have a "playstyle" and haven't played vanilla in a bit and my playthrough this release is still early. So, no I am not saying what I am because "my playstyle is still viable and yours isn't so I don't care" and the baseless accusations of such bias are just silly.

Did you or did you not suggest that the explorer type playstyle could be relegated to difficulty setting instead of supported properly via actual gameplay mechanics and skills?

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.

That screams I don't care about your playstyle pretty hard. But you didn't say that and I'm making a baseless accusation. Just to clear things up really quickly.

Your posts along with sector_terror are all the same thing. Accuse everyone not liking the changes of wanting it easier and not wanting to make hard choices. It's BS, flatly. As if we could take every single skill in the old system, we had to make tons of hard choices and there was no going back and respecing like in this system.

[Morrokain]

Did you or did you not suggest that the explorer type playstyle could be relegated to difficulty setting instead of supported properly via actual gameplay mechanics and skills?

I did not. I said that not wanting to deal with supplies/fuel because it is a chore (a perfectly understandable opinion/desire) could be relegated to a difficulty setting. That in no way encompasses the entire explorer playstyle. It was pretty specific.

What I am curious about is why you feel that the skill system/gameplay doesn't support that playstyle now - and what specifically makes you feel so strongly about that. (This isn't sarcasm.)

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.

That screams I don't care about your playstyle pretty hard. But you didn't do that and I'm making a baseless accusation. Just to clear things up really quickly.

Your posts along with sector_terror are all the same thing. Accuse everyone not liking the changes of wanting it easier and not wanting to make hard choices. It's BS, flatly. As if we could take every single skill in the old system, we had to make tons of hard choices and there was no going back and respecing like in this system.

I've already said I didn't invest in the old system much, so if there were hard choices there too then fine. I am not accusing anyone, I am making the observation that playstyle related issues can be handled outside of skills as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with that and I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I'm am sorry if you took it that way, but that certainly wasn't the intent. I don't think it was sector_terror's intent either. The intent was to point out that generalizing by saying something like "the explorer playstyle is dead!" isn't in any way helpful to Alex because it is not specific enough. Why is the playstyle dead? What component of 0.95's changes makes this a true statement? The details are important.

You are just talking nonsense. Players could't get most/all of the skills with the old system. What they pick is what they think would be the most optimal set of skills for what they want to do with their limited skill points. What they have to do now is locking into a skill set of with both what they do want and possibly forcefully fed skills they do not want.  Choice emphasizes such as the freedom of choice. What you want to pick plus the when and the how. That is not semantics, You are just simply not concern about what other people care about. That is all. 

I'm sorry you feel that way but as I said above that wasn't the intent. If I didn't care about what people care about I wouldn't bother to clarify and flesh out reasons/details.

Anyway this is more helpful. So your issue is that you get locked into a skill line when you want to branch out into other skill lines. Ok that is fair. That is choice being taken away. That is very different from saying that a playstyle is no longer viable - which is what I was getting from the feedback. Maybe I was misunderstanding but that's why I wanted more details in the first place!

My take would be that a system that allows you to branch into all aptitudes has a greater risk of having only a couple meta builds compared to the current system - which I argue has more potential builds strictly because it is more limiting - which to me is an important point. If some builds seem unattractive or obviously worse than others, that is something to address in a polish pass.

[Ad Astra]

I'm sorry you feel that way but as I said above that wasn't the intent. If I didn't care about what people care about I wouldn't bother to clarify and flesh out reasons/details.

You don't care about me! You don't care about the children! All you care about are your little S-modded spaceships! Everything is over between us! (throws your underwear out of the window)

You shouldn't worry much, people interpret questions as challenges waaay too often, so they are just overreacting a bit (a lot). 

But yeah, the main criticism about this system is those weird arbitrary (or at least seemingly so) "choices" to be made. Making you choose between things you might want should have a clear reason, this doesn't happen right now, you are made to choose between one skill and another without clear motives as to why the division is there.

[kenwth81]

Anyway this is more helpful. So your issue is that you get locked into a skill line when you want to branch out into other skill lines. Ok that is fair. That is choice being taken away. That is very different from saying that a playstyle is no longer viable - which is what I was getting from the feedback. Maybe I was misunderstanding but that's why I wanted more details in the first place!

Certain build and playstyle are no longer possible with fixed format. Similar builds are not the same build. You are misunderstanding much. To prevent further misunderstanding I would like to point out our views are probably opposing.