Print

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

More and clearer explanations of each skill (in-depth explanation of what the thing really do)

21 (8.3%)

Less multiple bonus skill nodes and a greater number of them ("Let's do this bit by bit" said Jack the Ripper)

18 (7.1%)

A clearer ascending progression of skill power (from poopy to spoopy) (sorry)

13 (5.2%)

More synergy within the same branches (going all in for a tree to give better results than now)

32 (12.7%)

Less linearity (Modifying the tree to a more branching shape)

42 (16.7%)

More emphasis on top tier skills (having them consolidate a build more clearly)

22 (8.7%)

Simply more skill points (everything the same I just wanna get all of them stuffs)

33 (13.1%)

Skills locked behind special missions (could be high tier ones that feel cheap or not immersive to learn without doing something first)

17 (6.7%)

Less DP limits in skills (diminishing returns make me too sad)

46 (18.3%)

Everything is perfect as it is, and if you criticize my skill tree waifu any longer I'll stab you

8 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Thaago]

Re: constructive feedback
I don’t think it ever has been a thing in this community.

I’ll just give my hot take example: energy weapon mastery nerf
There was no research conducted afaik that backs the nerf at all. People just look at digits and rant about 50% being too much just to nerf it to a never pick. Thaaggoo even kindly pointed out that the skill only contributed about 10% of the DPS. Now people are suggesting to nerf tempest because EWM nerf didn’t actually change anything. How ironic.

Saying constructive feedback has never been a part of this community is extremely insulting to all of us who do it. Your post is also a prime example of non-constructive criticism, as it manages to combine being insulting and off topic at the same time.


The EWM nerf is an example of successful feedback and testing driven balance making skills better.

Speaking as someone who advocated for a change: I did run the numbers on it, and playtested it. In battle the effect averaged at twice the bonus of other skills for AI use: when watching the AI pilot, it would hover around the mid 30's in % damage boost for most of its time, at least with the tempests and wolves I watched. For a skilled player, it could reliably be used for a 45% damage boost. As a single skill it was disproportionally strong.

When analyzing skill balance, its always the marginal strength of skills that needs to be considered. If one skill boosts much more than others, it is a no brainer pick. Imagine there are 8 skills that add +10 to a stat, and one skill that adds +20. That one skill is unbalanced: its clearly better than the other skills. But reducing it down to +10 brings the total bonus from 100 to 90. Thats only a 10% change to the total, which is fine, because its not about the total. Its about reigning in the balance between the skills. If the skill were a capstone at the end of a tree, maybe it would be ok to be a larger effect, but its not: its a tier 2 skill.

The change to EWM is exactly the above: Its not about reigning in energy frigates and never was. It was about reigning in a single skill that was disproportionally effective compared to other skills.

The immediate response to the change declared that because of the nerf energy frigates overall were ruined (the argument was since deleted by the author and replaced, so I can't quote it). Since they didn't run the number at all, I did, and showed that the overall nerf in damage was only ~7%: energy frigates remained powerful and fine. The change didn't do what was claimed.

Examining the skill now: watching the AI pilot in my current run, its hovering around 20% damage boost most of the time and in emergency situations my PD is boosted to +30%. Overall damage boost thats similar to other damage boosts, maybe a bit higher but not double: its a good skill with its own unique mechanics and unique elite benefit, but not so much better than the other skills that it is mandatory if the player wants to focus skillpoints on another tree.

[Sutopia]

The funny thing is I often advocate for things I don’t use.

I don’t use tempest anymore because terminator drones were nerfed to the ground already and I don’t even see them viable. The lack of shield coverage has made my fleet suffering too much casualties.

I don’t have any officer with EWM back in RC 12 because I know how timid AIs are at high flux. For current frigate meta, it also was suffering from lower total flux pool of smaller ships disabling its maximum potential for high DPH weapons that were necessary to chew through armor.



Can you give me a reason why EWM was nerfed if noone was calling it out?
The release cycle is so long that I don’t even know if any feedback was taken by the developer to actually fix things. However I do know DC is known to be broken since the date of the release, was easy to calculate the impact with sheer math without a on-the-fly variable, but was still not nerfed. This made me believe all the discussions on forums were either useless no matter how solid the reasonings are or there is a shadow council dictating development direction that is very biased.
tl;dr I was not saying there aren’t good suggestions on forum but that I’ve lost trust in the forum’s functionality at all.

[Thaago]

I mean I just gave you the reason, and people were calling it out. Just not as vocally as other changes. DC has been acknowledged to be broken, but the changes needed to fix it is more like a total replacement and its coming along with other larger changes to the skill system. Thats been posted multiple times. There are also numerous threads where people suggest things and Alex essentially responds with a thumbs up and adds it to the list of things to do. Usually not the exact same numbers as suggested or the exact same thing, but there's along history of feedback making it straight into the game. Thats also happened even with the hotfixes so far, not even counting past major features.

Regarding advocating for things you don't use and thinking the tempest isn't viable... I suggest you try it rather than just theorycraft then. Its very strong both in AI and player hands. I even have one without an officer with a crap loadout because I ran out of guns (Ir pulse + mining blaster, its awful) and it pulls its weight against officered remnants.

[intrinsic_parity]

Alex has said he is going to rework DC Multiple times. The fact that it didn't happen on the most recent hot fix is not evidence that it will not happen or that he is not listening to feedback.

He said the last patch was just fixing things he felt could be easily changed without tons of work to quick fix some major issues (AI ECM frigate spam type stuff), and a full rework of a skill wasn't something he wanted to push out with minimal development/testing. That seems reasonable to me.

I personally felt like EWM was ok before because of the range limitations, but I think 40% would have been a better number to nerf it to. It definitely was the biggest damage boost available on any skill, so if ships were dealing too much damage, that is the place to start.

[SCC]

However I do know DC is known to be broken since the date of the release, was easy to calculate the impact with sheer math without a on-the-fly variable, but was still not nerfed

Alex has said that he wants to rework Derelict Contingent, so he didn't touch it a little now, because he's going to touch it a lot later (iirc he's going to bring back maintenance and penalty reductions from d-mods, like Special Procedures and old Field Repairs), whereas EWM and IM were simple number adjustments. He similarly didn't touch phase skills, though there I'm guessing he doesn't know yet what to do.

It definitely was the biggest damage boost available on any skill, so if ships were dealing too much damage, that is the place to start.

High-tech ships, to be precise. I feel it's still in a stronger position than low-tech, though not just because of EWM.

[Sutopia]

Is EWM providing extraordinary bonus to shrike and/or paragon? Specialized skills are ought to be stronger, otherwise you can just pick the generic skill to play safe. (Similar to how most people would pick +flux over phase corp)
As I stated in the sunken post, the ones benefit most from EWM are mostly heavy frigates, and you used exactly those (tempest and wolf) as examples. Have you conducted test to compare the frigate in question between with and without EWM?

And yes I did try both tempest and EWM after the nerf. EWM officers all got fired at the end of the day and all tempests are left with bunch of D mods I consider not worth the repair and sold. I stated “I don’t use” not “I never use”.



I don’t see correlation between needing a revamp and not nerfing a known broken skill.
It’s going to stay there broken until next release and it’s totally fine?

Edit:
TLDR
I’m simply upset by DC being significantly broken but got no nerf. When I was about to try a full EWM fleet with actual campaign save, RC14 pushed and I updated without knowing EWM actually got nerfed: I thought it’s a joke when people talked about it on unofficial discord. It turned out to be pretty meh as I expected.

[Mordodrukow]

Is EWM providing extraordinary bonus to shrike and/or paragon?

I m using it on Paragon, and i m pretty fine with it. -10% to energy weapon flux generation is hot stuff. Extra 30% dmg (well, actually it is around 15, since you dont always have full flux bar filled) is just a nice bonus.

[michail]

The thing is I feel current balance is solely based on a fraction of entire player base and heavily favored very specific play styles.
Part of the reason I believe is due to legacy popular mods setting certain expectations that were not in vanilla game, driving development direction into the abyss.
Developer also specifically stated that the balance changes were based on “feedbacks” which is another common pitfall. If 90% of the customers were satisfied and didn’t say a thing then you’re going to balance the game by feedback of 10% whiners, you’re going to screw up big times. I think this survivorship bias just happened in .95 development.

It feels to me like a lot of complaints of a loss of support for certain play styles are more a consequence of the removal of certain effects that were available in the old system. That can easily be resolved in any system by simply adding those effects back in. If all of the effects of old industry skills were available in the new industry tree, wouldn't that support all of the same play styles? I'm 100% in support of adding those effects back in, either by tacking them on to existing skills that need help, or adding more skills.

Well you've just sniped me into writing up a matrix of "good to meh" ratings for 5-ish playstyles to compare the old and the new system). I can post it into a file somewhere if anybody wants to see it in full glory (why would you though?). Disclaimer: is completely subjective and based on my biases. Also I used an imaginary L1R with saner numbers, which may or may not happen in a later patch (I hope it will). The ratings are: N(eed) - directly beneficial for the playstyle, prioritized; S(ituational) - directly beneficial, not as good or not always in effect, prioritized; Q(uality of life) - removes distractions and annoyances, helps a little; M(eh) - yeah. I'll focus on my favourite playstyle, scavenger/explorer. The goal is to see new places, haul massive amounts of loot and maybe ships from them and blast any pirate who thinks I'm gonna share.

New system.
Combat: blanket Q or M. Helps with automated defences, redacteds and pirates. Can live without.
Leadership: 1: Q/Q. 2: Q/Q. 3: Q/Q. 4: QM/QM. 5: M/M. Overall: same as combat, maybe a bit more useful because getting something of a fleet isn't particularly difficult. 4 is a bit dubious (can you get enough good wrecks so extra/better officers are worth? in the long run, probably yes). 5 is worthless.
Tech: 1: N/N. 2: MQ/MQ. 3: Q/QM. 4: Q/MQ. 5: S/N. Overall: bites. 1 is incredible for speed buffs alone, but the gap between spoils it for quite a long while.
Industry: 1: N/N. 2: MQ/MQ. 3: N/N. 4: Q/Q. 5: M/M. Overall: bites, but less. Again, 1 is incredible for an obsessive looter. 3 is incredible for logistics and long travels. 2 is dubious to ok (depending on how much I want to get personal with pirates), 4 is decent.

Overall: the skills themselves are incredible, and there's a lot of nice side things to pick. But the incredible ones are spread around in a fairly annoying manner, especially in Tech.

Old system. I'm going to just put the totals per aptitude, since order doesn't matter.
Combat: 9Q.
Leadership: 1N, 7Q, 1M. Fleet Logistics 2 gives reduced maintentance, N. 3 is Q. Colony skill is worthless. Rest - nice combat bonuses.
Tech: 2N, 4Q.
Industry: 4N, 2M.

Looking at this, I think it wouldn't be fair to say that explorer playstyle is less supported by skills than before. It also doesn't help that all there's just 7 N skills in the old system, meaning I can get them all easily. It's a shame, some agonizing choices within the playstyle would've been nice. However, I will quite confidently say that the new progression is a lot less smooth: I can no longer spend a third of my leveling time getting the cool stuff in industry with basically no interruptions, I need to plow though inconsequential (if helpful) stuff. I'm also not sure if adding new effects to the existing skills would help close the meh gaps for all playstyles without producing mutated horrors of skills. New skills within each choice group? Might work, but probably not with 5 groups in total. With 3 or 4 - maybe.

[Ad Astra]

He didn't touch it a little now, because he's going to touch it a lot later.

You made that sound arousing on purpose now didn't you? 
Btw, I hadn't read that, had assumed he would change it but hadn't read anything concrete. I'd love the maintenance reduction costs to be back, no more immortal Ramparts! (they are still pushovers but dang am I tight on CR when on a wolfpack early frigate only game)

[IonDragonX]

I just want a miniature Onslaught, IS THAT SO HARD TO GET! (ugly drooling and snots all over)

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=19023.0

Spoiler

[close]

[Ad Astra]

https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=19023.0

Spoiler

[close]

Oh my god that's adorable! Hahahaha absolutely hilarious! I meant it figuratively but this is even more funny, its like those chibi cutesy versions of anime but with starsector, what a wild idea.
Many thanks, my lad, that was truly unexpected.

[Lucky33]

Speaking as someone who advocated for a change: I did run the numbers on it, and playtested it.

Considering that you was also behind IM nerf, this explains a lot. We are literally playing the "Thaago cut" of the game. Community has nothing to do with it apart being frustrated.

Can I get the original version of the game back? Or get the refund?

[kenwth81]

You can't just get a louder amplifier without it being heavier. That's reality dictated by physics. You might want it, but you understand that you have to accept what is actually possible.

I explicitly don't want to be able to choose any option. I prefer constraints because they make the choices more interesting. I've been trying to explain how IMO constraints are the things that are creating the interesting choices and completely free choice is the thing creating the balance issues. You can't remove the (perceived) negative effects of having constraints without getting rid of the benefits.

If you really think you can make a perfect skill system, then go make a mod and prove me wrong. No ones stopping you.

And you were telling me balancing is not part of the intention? Not part of the design? Do you know how ridiculous that sound? You obviously trying to play semantics.

I think bad balance is bad game design in any genre. Saying 'it's not pvp so it's ok if the game is unbalanced' doesn't work for me. I guess it's the optimization mindset, but if there is a best strategy, then I either pick it, or feel bad because I know I could be doing better even if it's less fun to play that way. That's my opinion anyway.

Your Opinion. There is such a thing called too much "balance" or too much nerf as they call it. UNFUN game is a bad design. UNFUN game is a much more serious problem than unbalance game.

[Lucky33]

The situation is pretty simple. The game is being considered "competitive platform" now, AI fleetbuilding tournaments and such. Hence all those recent mind blowing balancing nerfs.

[Ad Astra]

Your Opinion. There is such a thing called too much "balance" or too much nerf as they call it. UNFUN game is a bad design. UNFUN game is a much more serious problem than unbalance game.

Yeah, I have to agree, while a way too poorly balanced game also loses its fun, there are ample margins to stay between the lines, and people who like extreme challenges for example, will never have something meant and balanced for them (not saying this is the case for the ones commenting here).

Imagine Dark Souls 2 was balanced around the guy that beat it while blindfolded and with the shittiest weapon in the game. (Btw if anyone wants to see that check ZeroLenny's channel, what a madlad)

Balancing is there so that aspects of the game aren't trivialized, and they need to be kept that way without maiming playstyles or other aspects of the game.