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.