Print

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

0.91

109 (52.2%)

0.95

100 (47.8%)

Total Members Voted: 209

Voting closed: June 02, 2021, 10:12:39 PM

[Morrokain]

Brainstorming:

Regarding the complaints about wrap-around limitations I've seen come up a couple of times, I wonder what it would feel like if the player could spend a story point (or maybe more than one?) to take a skill without needing to wrap around the tree.

Maybe the amount of SP would scale based upon how high up the skill is in the tree - and perhaps T5 would still require a wrap around or it would break the overall system.

Respeccing would require investing the story point cost again.

[Rudette]

More is relative. Not satisfied with either really.

I like the direction the 95 version is heading towards or trying to be, but some flaws and inconsistencies hold it back. I think a more refined 95 version could lead to some fun build diversity.

[kenwth81]

I think the poll is fine. While only a fraction of people will post here, that's only a fraction of those who voted, and those are only a fraction of who use the forum, and those are finally only a fraction of people who play the game. And it's the best we've got.
I'm surprised the results seem to be tending into a 50/50 split. How neat.

The poll doesn't matter. It is more a question what is Alex gonna do. Isn't it?

[Hessu]

I like the old system, but that is probably because i like big fleets and battles. This new skill system is not suited for big stuff with its buffs getting smaller as fleets get bigga. Also those skills that give fleetwide buffs from officers doesn't work when you use big battles because the AI essentially cheats with its 20 officers while you only get a handfull.

But i dunno, maybe for small guys it works perfect. I personally would prefer if this game would go for huge battles and not these tiny skirmishes.

[Locklave]

I may safely assume some of these just never read or simply not willing to hear out. It's literally on the same page.
I call this arrogance.
It's also funny that these "wow your poll is so biased" argument start pouring in after page 6.
I'm wondering when they'll call in dominion voting system. Any time now.

This issue is insanely complex and some people just don't wanna have to take that deep dive. I was arguing with people in past threads about it but this thread really showed me how split we are on this change, it's a mix of really good/bad ideas/concepts. It makes doing a perfect poll with the questions having the flex required to pick for caveats impossible. Any poll like that would be a giant wall of options giving no clear outcome.

I know Alex reads a lot of this even if he doesn't post in these threads specifically, which I think is wise of him, I feel badly about that because I've made some angry posts. That said we gotta do this and confront the problems and address the issues, help Alex see our concerns/likes. I believe in his ability to take this in and produce a solution, he's done it before.

We need to resist anyone trying to dismiss everything as biased/invalid.

The poll doesn't matter. It is more a question what is Alex gonna do. Isn't it?

No and yes. The poll is just there to present that there is a clear problem, the posts are here to explain those thought/feelings in detail. What Alex does matters the most but this is what we have to work with. So we keep walking forward, debating/arguing and hopefully creating something useful for him work with mixed in this mess.

[DatonKallandor]

I do not accept your premise or suggestion of underlying data. The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is.

So clearly you do accept the premise that there is a majority that doesn't speak up, since otherwise no-one could spoke *for them*, then?

[Locklave]

I do not accept your premise or suggestion of underlying data. The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is.

So clearly you do accept the premise that there is a majority that doesn't speak up, since otherwise no-one could spoke *for them*, then?

I answered that in the quote already. The majority not speaking up here doesn't invalidate anything.

You are using this to try and dismiss the only actual data we have to work with. Are you saying guessing at what people think is better? It's clearly not, so come back with better data or stop talking about it.

Data we have is better then Data that doesn't exist. The community is conflicted on the changes and the poll and posts in here alone support this conclusion, not even getting into the countless other threads directly or indirectly addressing the same problem(s).

edit: Again since you missed it in the quote.

The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is. If they don't want that then they can speak, no one is stopping them. Just like people who don't vote in elections, they are allowing others to chose for them.

[Gothars]

I'm pretty sure if we had the .95 skill system first and now the .91 system, people would be way more upset. Losing the reskill ability and the elite skill option would be considered a major step backwards. That's why I can't take the nostalgia for the old system very serious.


I quite like the new system, although I don't think it is a enormous improvement - besides the reskill option - yet. The overall principle of always having a specialized and a general option to choose from is pretty cool. Just some details of how the individual skills work have to be iterated on.

My gripes are
a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.
b) skills where the general option is still so specialized that it might be useless for you, like coordinated maneuvers/wolfpack tactics.


I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.

[kenwth81]

I answered that in the quote already. The majority not speaking up here doesn't invalidate anything.

You are using this to try and dismiss the only actual data we have to work with. Are you saying guessing at what people think is better? It's clearly not, so come back with better data or stop talking about it.

Data we have is better then Data that doesn't exist. The community is conflicted on the changes and the poll and posts in here alone support this conclusion, not even getting into the countless other threads directly or indirectly addressing the same problem(s).

Bad inaccurate data can be worse than no data. It is often lead to poor or wrong decision. Take it with a pinch of salt.

The people who don't speak up get spoken for by those who do and that's what this is. If they don't want that then they can speak, no one is stopping them. Just like people who don't vote in elections, they are allowing others to chose for them.

Depend on where you are talking about. That is how some system of government works. Some places have rules specifically in place to stop a minority from making decision for the majority. Like requiring at least 50% of the population to vote for the vote to be legitimate or the need to reach a certain threshold of voters to count.  People who don't vote aren't designating allowing others to chose for them, not really.

[SonnaBanana]

a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.

All three unlearnable skills are made so to prevent technical complications.
Still, unlearnable skills should provide a non-bonus XP gain boost.

[SCC]

I quite like the new system

I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.

But that's just 0.9.1 with extra steps!

All three unlearnable skills are made so to prevent technical complications.
Still, unlearnable skills should provide a non-bonus XP gain boost.

I hope Alex will make at least Officer Management respeccable, just force de-assign all officers (or two random officers) and have the extras go over the cap. It's somewhat annoying since you can't stash those over the cap officers anywhere, though.

[Sutopia]

I'm pretty sure if we had the .95 skill system first and now the .91 system, people would be way more upset. Losing the reskill ability and the elite skill option would be considered a major step backwards. That's why I can't take the nostalgia for the old system very serious.


I quite like the new system, although I don't think it is a enormous improvement - besides the reskill option - yet. The overall principle of always having a specialized and a general option to choose from is pretty cool. Just some details of how the individual skills work have to be iterated on.

My gripes are
a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.
b) skills where the general option is still so specialized that it might be useless for you, like coordinated maneuvers/wolfpack tactics.


I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.

I think the ability to respec count toward story point system, not necessarily skill system itself. Respec adding to .91 system is probably not gonna break things at all, except for a few skills may be left “permanent” and not un-learn-able just like the big 3 in .95.

However I for one disagree with elite skill options. Story point barring some functionality from obtaining at all is not what I expected. Most story point usages are providing an alternative instead of straight addition that is otherwise unobtainable. Skill system being one of the core system shouldn’t just tax elite effect with SP. It doesn’t feel right, at least for me.

[chandl34]

I didn't play 0.91, so I can't comment on that.  However, he should fix all the permanent skills, so that they are no longer permanent.  It should be possible to make all their bonuses inert, if the skills are re-spec'ed.  He could do something like the following:

Officer Training
If removed, the max level and elite skill limit will be readjusted.  New variables can be added to track the 6th level skill and the 2nd elite skill, so that they can be removed when the skill is re-spec'ed.  Another new variable can be added to track the initial level of each officer, so that officers found in the wild with levels over 5 will not be affected by the re-spec.

Officer Management
If removed, the officer limit will be readjusted.  Officers over the limit should be removed from their ships.

Special Modifications
If removed, the vent and cap limits will be readjusted.  Vents/caps over the limit should be set to the new max.  A new variable can be added to track the 3rd s-mod, so that it can be removed when the skill is re-spec'ed.

[Locklave]

I'm pretty sure if we had the .95 skill system first and now the .91 system, people would be way more upset. Losing the reskill ability and the elite skill option would be considered a major step backwards. That's why I can't take the nostalgia for the old system very serious.


I quite like the new system, although I don't think it is a enormous improvement - besides the reskill option - yet. The overall principle of always having a specialized and a general option to choose from is pretty cool. Just some details of how the individual skills work have to be iterated on.

My gripes are
a) that not al skills can be unlearned, which makes me very hesitant to choose them.
b) skills where the general option is still so specialized that it might be useless for you, like coordinated maneuvers/wolfpack tactics.


I think it would also be worth a thought to let the player freely pick from all available skills, but make the better ones more expensive.

To be fair Relearn/Elite skills (elite skills being SP/Skills System combined) and the version aren't mutually exclusive.

Both of those are just ways to interact with the system and not the system itself, thus could stay in another form. I don't think anyone is suggesting to throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak.

a) The skill locks are counter intuitive to the general intent of system. So completely agree with you there.
b) I feel like there need to be more/branching trees if Alex intends us to not feel forced into specializations we might not want to get deeper skills. Perfect example btw.

Bad inaccurate data can be worse than no data. It is often lead to poor or wrong decision. Take it with a pinch of salt.

That is certainly correct, but I don't believe that applies here. I strongly disagree with him suggesting/implying that is the case completely unsupported. There does not appear to be a bad faith effort by anyone on either side or even the middle of this issue.

[SpadeDraco]

Old system was significantly better.
Don't get me wrong I like the new SKILLS.
I just prefer the old SYSTEM.
The new system completely kills any sort of player agency, build diversity or interesting synergy.
There's like 2-3 optimal builds now and only like 5-6 ways to build a character period.
It's lame.