Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 16

Author Topic: Skill Changes, Part 1  (Read 14167 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20037
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #90 on: July 03, 2021, 02:50:44 PM »

Oh no :'( why does every nerf feels so bad, I mean I would rather have harder enemies to fight rather than nerfing skills but well, im not a specialist in game balancing

Consider it a buff to Flux Regulation, perhaps :)

But why not apply the discount after summin up individual ship's deployment costs?

That doesn't work well with how the deployment process works - you selecting which ships to deploy, knowing how many points each of them is.


And going back to the topic of fighters - maybe a good idea to counter the mass drover-spark thing would be to introduce an aoe point defence weapon against fighters but with a really big but relatively weak aoe? Basically an equivalent of a weak flamethrower agains bees - useless against few fighters, but good against chipping down hp of dozens of fighters at a time? And im talking about aoe much bigger than the aoe of devastator. Or just to remake the large point defence weapons, as currently they underperform when compared to double/single flak.

Hmm - that feels like the AoE would have to be absolutely enormous, and that'd feel weird. And it'd have to be ubiquitous for it to really make a difference.


One last point - the storm needler is odd. It doesnt really combine with anything well because of its odd range, and even with that ballistic rangefinder it only combines with the small assault cannon. The gauss is simply superior - even with the worse flux stats, especially if you take right hullmods and skills.

It and the Gauss have different roles, I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to compare them. The range is low, though, so to make use of it you kind of have to "waste" some of the range on your HE weapons. But it's a strong enough weapon that I think that's situationally warranted.


I don't think that's a good solution. That basically makes it so that a Reaper (1× 4K damage, reduced to 1900) will end up doing less damage than two Hammers fired back to back (first hit gets reduced to 900, second hit gets the full 1500, total 2400 damage). Not to mention that any weapon that has high per-shot damage balanced by low rate of fire (either directly or indirectly by means of high flux cost) will be severely reduced in usefulness.

The numbers are a bit off - since "-25% hull damage" from the base skill applies first. But "more small hits do more damage than fewer large hits" is an intrinsic property of the effect. For example, without the "every 2 seconds" rule, a Reaper deals 1500 out of its 4000 potential damage, while 6 shots dealing 500 damage each deal 3000 out of their potential 3000 damage.


The problem there is that even an amazing flagship can only be as good as the player is a pilot, and my piloting skills are...questionable at best. I don't want to recall the amount of times I've gotten a 1400+ range beam Sunder killed through getting flanked, or caught by Broadswords, or focussing on one enemy I couldn't take down myself and suddenly realizing my entire fleet has wandered off elsewhere, or getting exploded by a dying enemy ship, or getting my rear blown out by flying ahead of my own bombers, etc.

...Come to think of it, maybe the issue is the ship. Eh, part of the issue :-[. My typical flagship is a beam Sunder, which is very much build and used as a support ship (mainly popping the early frigates so my fleet doesn't scatter to every corner of creation chasing every individual Kite). Maybe I need to try a different ship next patch and give the combat build a try...if I can let go of enough campaign QoL and fleet logistics skills, at least.

Sounds like you might be onto something, yeah :) The Sunder really is a glass cannon, and the situational awareness required is high. I imagine I'd get wrecked a lot in much the same ways if I flew one - what you've described sounds painfully familiar, hah. Plus, I mean, it's still a destroyer, so it's just going to drop off in the impact it can bring to bear as battles get larger.

If I may make a suggestion - I think the Aurora is probably a solid choice just to get a feel for how much impact you can make. It's durable enough that it's more forgiving, it has great firepower, and its system gives it tons of mobility so you can choose where to apply it more freely.

(I've been using the new Eradicator, myself - it's slower than an Aurora, so requires more "look at the map and consider where you'll be most needed in the next minute or two" - but it's pretty durable, and that helps make up for pilot error on my part.)

Non-cruisers can be viable, too, but just as a point of reference, I think cruisers are right around where the sweet spot is for player control - the combination of enough firepower to make a difference, and enough mobility to get that firepower where it needs to be.

(The Doom is great too, of course, but I wouldn't use it to make the "combat skills are good" argument because it's definitely an outlier.)


https://twitter.com/amosolov/status/1392522197353308161/photo/1

In response to this... will there be an indicator or a tag to ensure dummy skills don't get picked up during those read-outs...

Yeah, skills have tags (like "ballistic_weapons" etc) and ship hulls - though not specific loadouts - are looked at so that, say, an Onslaught doesn't get an officer with Energy Weapon Mastery.
Logged

Undead

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #91 on: July 03, 2021, 02:57:24 PM »

...
Fair points, I suppose.

But what about the carrier skills argument? not sure if your eyes skimmed through it or not, but anyways here it is dublicated:
Spoiler
I am somewhat dissapointed by strike commander removal, now there are practically no fighter skills, whereas ballistics/energy/missiles have lots of skills. Even with the strike commander skill, there was still too much room for skills of carrier officers - especially lvl6. Perhaps getting back the strike commander and adding some industry skill for fighter replacement rate would make carrier officers viable again? Something like "figher nanoforge expert" - "this officer knows just what buttons to push on the 3d printer nanoforge to make it churn out fighters, much like the bakers churned out cinnamon bons out of the oven, as descripted in the antique books of older times"

as for the neural transfer - I was hoping it would be a skill for a whole fleet, not just 2 ships, that would keep the officer skills of the ship you transferred yourself to. And to prevent the "jump to every ship to vent them" there could be a increasable delay after each transfer - so if you want to make 2 consequtive jumps youre fine, but a 3rd immediate jump will require +x seconds, 4th immediate jump will require +2*x seconds, (and this delay will disipate, at some arbitrary rate)

also, no auxiliary support? so no kites with 6k flux capacity and antimatter missiles? sigh

In any case, untill we see the complete tree there is not much point in theory-crafting - like those 4th and 5th industry are still unknown
[close]

« Last Edit: July 03, 2021, 03:01:34 PM by Undead »
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20037
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #92 on: July 03, 2021, 03:07:49 PM »

I saw it, yeah! Didn't have much to say other than I'm generally very "meh" on carrier-specific skills.
Logged

Undead

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #93 on: July 03, 2021, 03:32:32 PM »

I saw it, yeah! Didn't have much to say other than I'm generally very "meh" on carrier-specific skills.

Well, I suppose carrier officer skills will be just for maximum protection. Still a shame that strike commander went the way of the dodo

Also, how will elite damage control interact with beam weapons and [redacted]flamer?

Edit: with regards to fighters, I was talking from the persective of a interceptor/support fighter user, not the bomber user, and that +100 target leading elite bonus was soooo good
« Last Edit: July 03, 2021, 03:45:31 PM by Undead »
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #94 on: July 03, 2021, 04:04:08 PM »

One last point - the storm needler is odd. It doesnt really combine with anything well because of its odd range, and even with that ballistic rangefinder it only combines with the small assault cannon. The gauss is simply superior - even with the worse flux stats, especially if you take right hullmods and skills.
'Simply superior' is a clearly inaccurate take, you identify the main advantage in your own analysis. Storm needler has ~40% more DPS for ~40% less flux cost. That's a massive advantage. I rarely use the gauss cannon because the DPS is just too low for the flux cost IMO. Everyone evaluates DPS, range and flux cost differently though. The fact that we are having this discussion means that the balance is probably fine.
Logged

Undead

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #95 on: July 03, 2021, 04:27:27 PM »

One last point - the storm needler is odd. It doesnt really combine with anything well because of its odd range, and even with that ballistic rangefinder it only combines with the small assault cannon. The gauss is simply superior - even with the worse flux stats, especially if you take right hullmods and skills.
'Simply superior' is a clearly inaccurate take, you identify the main advantage in your own analysis. Storm needler has ~40% more DPS for ~40% less flux cost. That's a massive advantage. I rarely use the gauss cannon because the DPS is just too low for the flux cost IMO. Everyone evaluates DPS, range and flux cost differently though. The fact that we are having this discussion means that the balance is probably fine.

I should have formulated my thought better

My point is that 700 range is odd because it doesnt synergise well with other weapons, only with heavy mortar perhaps, and the assault chaingun is too short even with the future ballistic rangefinder hullmod. And my reasoning for gauss cannon being good is that it has a beastly range of 1200 that becomes even bigger with hullmods and skills, which makes it an excellent artillery weapon. If you were to provide some builds featuring storm needler I would appreciate that. My gauss cannon build is explained in the https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=22178.0 "Noob help. Is this a good Onslaught build?" topic in general, if youre curious.
Logged

WeiTuLo

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #96 on: July 03, 2021, 04:31:15 PM »

Quote
Yeah, it's a tough spot. It'll just point shields at mines a bit later in that case. So: better, but unlikely to change the outcome.
There's really no ideal solution, since you're looking at heavy HE damage on either side. I guess if you're going to die either way the best thing you could do is try and deal as much damage before inevitably going down, meaning you don't risk an overload by taking the Anti-Matter Blaster shots on the shield and instead use that flux to fire weapons? A Doom isn't the most survivable boat IIRC (dear word the amount of Atlus MK. IIs that straight killed me with their death explosion...).

Shields up, ramming speed!
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20037
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #97 on: July 03, 2021, 05:33:55 PM »

Also, how will elite damage control interact with beam weapons and [redacted]flamer?

Their per-shot (or in the case of beams, per-tick) damage is low, so it generally speaking won't. I mean, you could come up with a beam that deals enough DPS for it to kick in, in which case it'd reduce the damage of one tick every two seconds.

Edit: with regards to fighters, I was talking from the persective of a interceptor/support fighter user, not the bomber user, and that +100 target leading elite bonus was soooo good

Ah! 50% of that bonus went to Fighter Uplink.
Logged

Amazigh

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #98 on: July 03, 2021, 05:48:58 PM »

I saw it, yeah! Didn't have much to say other than I'm generally very "meh" on carrier-specific skills.
Some things for you to consider:

You have the following three skills: Energy Weapons Mastery, Ballistic Mastery, Missile Specialisation.
Each of these only buff one of the three main weapon types, and are useless if you don't have that particular type of weapon on your ship.
But Fighters, arguably a "fourth weapon type" do not have a dedicated skill. Yes they get something out of Point Defense (unless they are bombers) but they lack any sort of actual dedicated skill for captains to take.

Also with all carrier skills being fleetwide buffs that the player has to spend skillpoints on, it means that you will feel pushed to go all or nothing on carriers.
As an example: Personally i'd feel that either i'd want to grab all the carrier skills and make a significant portion of my fleet carriers to get the most out of the skills, or to not get the carrier skills and then ignore carriers more or less completely because without any carrier skills they will likely underperform.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 20037
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #99 on: July 03, 2021, 06:09:53 PM »

It's worth noting that the carrier skills stop providing additional fleetwide benefit once you're at 8 flight decks, and the total bonus just gets spread around more at that point, so the "all" in "all or nothing" is fairly small. I'm also preeeetty sure they're still useful without the skills; fighters can fill a lot of gaps and are in general good to have around. Kind of like frigates are fine without Wolfpack Tactics and just particularly great with it.

You have the following three skills: Energy Weapons Mastery, Ballistic Mastery, Missile Specialisation.
Each of these only buff one of the three main weapon types, and are useless if you don't have that particular type of weapon on your ship.

That's a fair point, but there's a bunch of ships that benefit from each of these, and there's a variety of playstyles that you can have within each range of ships. "Dedicated carriers" is a less compelling group of ships to fly personally. Perhaps more importantly, these three skills are well-supported by the other combat skills, whereas a personal-ship carrier skill mostly isn't. So these can be part of a good combat build that fits a range of ships, while a carrier skill is still the odd one out in any skill set and putting an officer on a carrier is still a waste of much of that officers potential. Unless we have 5+ carrier skills.

SCCs suggestion from a bit back - of sprinkling in more fighter effects in other skills, like Point Defense does currently - I think has promise, since it gets around this problem. But then the question/problem is whether it'd be a good thing to even *have* carriers that can be buffed by a full officer's potential; I'm not so sure about that. And in particular, battlecarriers would get  an outsized benefit because they'd double-dip. So, hmm, maybe never mind that.
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #100 on: July 03, 2021, 07:37:59 PM »

you know whats funny is I was halfway through typing a post comparing the current skill system to heroes of the storm's talent system & discussing its pros & cons and what lessons can be learned from it, took a short break from typing it then saw the blog post lmfao

Ha, I'm guessing it's similar? Never played it :)

HOTS has a system, (starting at level 1) every 3rd level you have to pick a talent out of a predefined set of talents for that level for that hero -- the ones you don't pick at a tier are gone for good. Each talent tier gets at least 3 talents to choose from, which allows players the space to decide that one of the talents is not for them (If I'm running a lowtech campaign where I never use phase ships, I will never take the phase skill) without that deciding which specific talent you must then take -- you're still given a choice of 2 talents if you hate 1 of them. It's far easier to balance 3 weaker talents without forcing players down a road they don't want to go or make them feel like they've been forced to waste a talent tier with bad picks, and if you design a hero's talent tier to be intentionally underwhelming or extremely niche you can just pad the tier out with an "out" talent that just gives a bonus to some stat, that isn't anything impressive but will always do more than nothing unlike, like, 2 other talents that both upgrade the same spell that you don't want to be focusing.
The funny thing being that, Alex worked his way around to this line of thinking too, apparently.
The exception to this 3 or more rule is that level 10 is an ult tier, where instead you get to choose between two super over-powered talents that give you an ultimate ability. Because the ults don't modify an already-existing ability but add a new one (thus not impacting any build you've been making with the abilities you started the game with aside from natural synergy) and because of how much more powerful they are than a normal talent the issue of being forced into taking a sub-optimal talent bc u refuse to take 1 of them is much less of an issue -- if you hate 1 of the ults the other is probably going to be useful to you no matter what just bc of how strong the ults are.
Which again circles back around to Alex adding in "pinched in" skill tiers that narrow down to 2, although that one is not just for super-powered tiers but also for under-powered tiers where Alex wants the player to be inconvenienced(?)
Additionally, the ult talent tier is not the last one -- it's halfway up. The other exception to the two kinds of talent tiers previously described is the final talent tier at level 20, where instead of getting talents that change the functionality of your base abilities, you get 2 talents that change the functionality of the ult talent you picked at level 10 (1 of them being greyed out based on which talent you took) that upgrades your ult to be game-breakingly strong (for context; one hero gets a talent at 20 that allows him to kill every enemy hero on the map from anywhere, under the correct circumstances), and then an additional 2(?) talents that function like a normal talent by just adjusting your base hero's functionality in a way that can add to a spell you've already spent all game upgrading, but bc they're on the same tier as ult talents it lets the devs go hog-wild with how strong they can be (kaelthas gets a talent at 20 that increases the range on his already long-ranged flamestrike spell by 100%, which combined with 5 other flamestrike talents turns the enemy you hit with it into a bomb that will damage everyone around him both of which reduces the cooldown on your flamestrike, makes the ability to cast it on people from outside their sight range so they can't even predict it's coming extremely powerful). And, when in doubt the HOTS devs just throw a "survive death once every x seconds" on some heroes in case you don't like how niche/weird the 20's they put on them are
« Last Edit: July 03, 2021, 07:46:44 PM by Deshara »
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

SonnaBanana

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #101 on: July 03, 2021, 07:43:31 PM »

So might there be more skills in the future?
And what's the mystery new Industry and Technology skills?
Will we still have a skill which boosts marines?
Logged
I'm not going to check but you should feel bad :( - Alex

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3446
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #102 on: July 04, 2021, 01:03:00 AM »

Carriers not having any combat skills is kinda heartless and the game in general encourages focusing on your strengths instead of making up for weaknesses. On the other hand, it does discourage fighter spam fleets, since you want at least 8 warships or phase ships for your officers to benefit from their skills, and no carrier specific skills also means no double dip for battlecruisers. I don't like how it looks, but I don't know what would be a better way to tackle it.

...Come to think of it, maybe the issue is the ship. Eh, part of the issue :-[. My typical flagship is a beam Sunder, which is very much build and used as a support ship (mainly popping the early frigates so my fleet doesn't scatter to every corner of creation chasing every individual Kite). Maybe I need to try a different ship next patch and give the combat build a try...if I can let go of enough campaign QoL and fleet logistics skills, at least.
Try a Hammerhead, a Falcon or a Fury.

Rain

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Burn bright!
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #103 on: July 04, 2021, 01:19:53 AM »

Bold of you to assume the Fury will still be 15 DP :) But, right, yeah, this makes sense.

Oh no. The scythe is coming for me, too. :( I mean hey, look at those phase ships some more, nothing going on here, just a slightly bigger Shrike for twice the DP cost, don't worry about it officer!

I guess that'd be fair, overall. As much as I'm kind of in love with the Fury and everything about it just *clicks* with me, I feel like I've gotten some pretty disgusting effect flying that ship. Even though I still don't really trust the AI with plasma burn.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2615
    • View Profile
Re: Skill Changes, Part 1
« Reply #104 on: July 04, 2021, 02:33:06 AM »

It's worth noting that the carrier skills stop providing additional fleetwide benefit once you're at 8 flight decks, and the total bonus just gets But then the question/problem is whether it'd be a good thing to even *have* carriers that can be buffed by a full officer's potential; I'm not so sure about that. And in particular, battlecarriers would get  an outsized benefit because they'd double-dip. So, hmm, maybe never mind that.

Imo, battlecarriers *need* to double-dip to be worth putting officer on. For example:
- a full carrier has abstract fighter power of 1 and direct combat power of 0, and battle carrier has 0.5 + 0.5
- assuming that full relevant skill set doubles the power of fighters/direct
-> Both will have 2.0 buffed power IF skills double-dip, but battle-carrier would be capped at 1.5 otherwise.

This is of course an extremely oversimplified picture, but also roughly how battle-carriers ended up less good than specialized ships in 0.91, when full carrier skills were an option.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2021, 02:34:40 AM by TaLaR »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 16