Print

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

[SpoonWasAlreadyTaken]

This thread is an absolute dumpster fire. ALL ARE VIABLE. Don't forget, Starsector is a space exploration game.

Do what you want. Want to become a fabled bounty hunter across the galaxy? Small things like extra manoeuvrability, speed, etc or double missile storage can completely change the way you see combat, exploration and even Starsector as a whole.

It's is based off of your playstyle. If you prefer a more laid back game style invest in leadership or technology. Want to make exploration easier? Use the Industry line to make things less harsh or make extra cash off of colonies.

If you want to make a critique or complaint about skills then you can't roast the dev's design choice because you believe a skill tree is better, not based off of statistics but purely because your gameplay is not well adjusted to the gamestyle.

Sure, some skills provide a better advantage or outcome but to say other skills/skill trees are bad/useless/irrelevant, is extremely biased. I remember during my first time playing, I only ever invested in combat because I thought it'd be vital. Sure it's nice but I got punished, I would find myself being crippled because I hadn't accounted for how I would play Starsector.

Combat skills aren't bad. In order to criticise the combat skill you need to at least know what your game plan is. Sure a lot of the work is done by the rest of your fleet, but still a single ship can create a huge impact on the field even if it's vanilla if built and wielded correctly. It's a worthy investment to have officers and skills, allowing more interesting and a wider strategies. Again it's based off of your gameplay. The double missile storage turns my Gryphon in long battles from a danger to a nightmare. The 50% extra manoeuvrability making my slow capital into a helicopter. Also how are you surprised that playing a solo phase ship, designed to have max potential by essentially slowing how time works around you and then complaining that combat is boring/bad because YOU decided to play with a single super-ship. Just because you can't become an absolute unit that can curb stomp anything or anyone really isn't the basis for an argument or even conclude that combat skills are bad. Sure Paragon is good, but there are many other capitals that can provide a better advantage. You shouldn't even be fighting with remnant at early levels in particular.



You seriously think QOL/Industry is bad? Nope. As I said I invested a lot into combat but I found myself being crippled by fuel and supply usage going into the hundreds. I tried Industry and it's really helpful, being able to cut up to 50% of my supplies and fuel usage, or that extra 2 burn speed for civ ships is really helpful. I am baffled to be in a world where someone says money is 'not a limiting factor', like NO?? Money is one of the biggest limiting factors, supplies and fuel can chunk a massive amount of money when playing. You don't need to automatically invest in combat related skills to make fights possible. Even without skills, a player and their fleet can still be just as deadly with the right gameplay. Plus most of your time will be spent exploring, early game to the point that combat should be avoided. You should. Sure, I'd win fights but at what cost? 100+ supplies per second for repairs, hundreds of fuel being used just for a small trip?, almost no salvage to make up for the deficit. Industry isn't meant to make you a power house in battle.


Thaago, has a good point.

Another thing that ticks me off is how people argue and bicker about level caps. Like THERES LITERALLY A MOD CALLED 'Skilledup'. Just choose what your level cap will be out of the selections from the forum. Just pop that on instead of dropping such rants on the mods/devs.

I am no modder or reviewer myself, but even some basic understanding of what Starsector is truly meant to be can really give some insight.

I agree with what this says, in fact quite a lot (though you didn't have to do the ziggy like that).

Play Starsector > Find a style that suits you > Try another style > Get surprised when said style is underwhelming because you aren't used to it > Instead of getting good at it, immediately correlate bad results as a bad skill tree > Talk about it on the forums > Someone argues the opposite > Repeat from step 2

Oh Ziggy is an absolute unit  capable of wiping a whole remnant fleet, and I think I even say that. I just said it became boring and that's a personal thing. I don't even know why I said that, Oh well, guess I'm just a person that does things. There like a hundred videos on youtube that just show Ziggy wrecking things. SIDE NOTE: Combat never became bat with Ziggy, I (Yes I the person) became bored, combat in the game is hella fun.

I know the game has mods and you can even just edit the Settings file. Its one of the very best parts of the game, it can be nearly whatever you want it to be. But I love that you have 15 skills, it makes it a hard choice, or well at least for others it does, I just have my good o'l favorites.

I even my self play out a game or two every once in a while where I focus on combat skills, but 95% of the time I don't.

I my self got a little off topic, I rambled too much. What I truly wanted to say isn't that combat skills are bad, its just they aren't as good as other skills are. That is when you compare the value of each skill point in a white room scenario. But everyone has their own playstyles and what not, each their own favorites, this is why people use and play sub-optimal things, only because its fun for them and that is perfectly fine. Now you can very easily argue that a person with X amount of experience and sheer skill gains a hundred times more from combat skills than any other skills, but not everyone is, most will probably be an average or just above average.

I said Paragon in my post but what I meant to say was the Radiant (Got them mixed up.). Getting a Radiant has more value than most other single ships in the game, and getting one early on is even better.

[Acro]

This thread is an absolute dumpster fire. ALL ARE VIABLE. Don't forget, Starsector is a space exploration game.

Do what you want. Want to become a fabled bounty hunter across the galaxy? Small things like extra manoeuvrability, speed, etc or double missile storage can completely change the way you see combat, exploration and even Starsector as a whole.

It's is based off of your playstyle. If you prefer a more laid back game style invest in leadership or technology. Want to make exploration easier? Use the Industry line to make things less harsh or make extra cash off of colonies.

If you want to make a critique or complaint about skills then you can't roast the dev's design choice because you believe a skill tree is better, not based off of statistics but purely because your gameplay is not well adjusted to the gamestyle.

Sure, some skills provide a better advantage or outcome but to say other skills/skill trees are bad/useless/irrelevant, is extremely biased. I remember during my first time playing, I only ever invested in combat because I thought it'd be vital. Sure it's nice but I got punished, I would find myself being crippled because I hadn't accounted for how I would play Starsector.

Combat skills aren't bad. In order to criticise the combat skill you need to at least know what your game plan is. Sure a lot of the work is done by the rest of your fleet, but still a single ship can create a huge impact on the field even if it's vanilla if built and wielded correctly. It's a worthy investment to have officers and skills, allowing more interesting and a wider strategies. Again it's based off of your gameplay. The double missile storage turns my Gryphon in long battles from a danger to a nightmare. The 50% extra manoeuvrability making my slow capital into a helicopter. Also how are you surprised that playing a solo phase ship, designed to have max potential by essentially slowing how time works around you and then complaining that combat is boring/bad because YOU decided to play with a single super-ship. Just because you can't become an absolute unit that can curb stomp anything or anyone really isn't the basis for an argument or even conclude that combat skills are bad. Sure Paragon is good, but there are many other capitals that can provide a better advantage. You shouldn't even be fighting with remnant at early levels in particular.



You seriously think QOL/Industry is bad? Nope. As I said I invested a lot into combat but I found myself being crippled by fuel and supply usage going into the hundreds. I tried Industry and it's really helpful, being able to cut up to 50% of my supplies and fuel usage, or that extra 2 burn speed for civ ships is really helpful. I am baffled to be in a world where someone says money is 'not a limiting factor', like NO?? Money is one of the biggest limiting factors, supplies and fuel can chunk a massive amount of money when playing. You don't need to automatically invest in combat related skills to make fights possible. Even without skills, a player and their fleet can still be just as deadly with the right gameplay. Plus most of your time will be spent exploring, early game to the point that combat should be avoided. You should. Sure, I'd win fights but at what cost? 100+ supplies per second for repairs, hundreds of fuel being used just for a small trip?, almost no salvage to make up for the deficit. Industry isn't meant to make you a power house in battle.


Thaago, has a good point.

Another thing that ticks me off is how people argue and bicker about level caps. Like THERES LITERALLY A MOD CALLED 'Skilledup'. Just choose what your level cap will be out of the selections from the forum. Just pop that on instead of dropping such rants on the mods/devs.

I am no modder or reviewer myself, but even some basic understanding of what Starsector is truly meant to be can really give some insight.

I agree with what this says, in fact quite a lot (though you didn't have to do the ziggy like that).

Play Starsector > Find a style that suits you > Try another style > Get surprised when said style is underwhelming because you aren't used to it > Instead of getting good at it, immediately correlate bad results as a bad skill tree > Talk about it on the forums > Someone argues the opposite > Repeat from step 2

Oh Ziggy is an absolute unit  capable of wiping a whole remnant fleet, and I think I even say that. I just said it became boring and that's a personal thing. I don't even know why I said that, Oh well, guess I'm just a person that does things. There like a hundred videos on youtube that just show Ziggy wrecking things. SIDE NOTE: Combat never became bat with Ziggy, I (Yes I the person) became bored, combat in the game is hella fun.

I know the game has mods and you can even just edit the Settings file. Its one of the very best parts of the game, it can be nearly whatever you want it to be. But I love that you have 15 skills, it makes it a hard choice, or well at least for others it does, I just have my good o'l favorites.

I even my self play out a game or two every once in a while where I focus on combat skills, but 95% of the time I don't.

I my self got a little off topic, I rambled too much. What I truly wanted to say isn't that combat skills are bad, its just they aren't as good as other skills are. That is when you compare the value of each skill point in a white room scenario. But everyone has their own playstyles and what not, each their own favorites, this is why people use and play sub-optimal things, only because its fun for them and that is perfectly fine. Now you can very easily argue that a person with X amount of experience and sheer skill gains a hundred times more from combat skills than any other skills, but not everyone is, most will probably be an average or just above average.

I said Paragon in my post but what I meant to say was the Radiant (Got them mixed up.). Getting a Radiant has more value than most other single ships in the game, and getting one early on is even better.

True, true. I ended up misunderstanding and found the way you said it was boring a bit biased. Sorry for my own rant. I don't want to look like I'm here to trash on other spacers. It's just frustrating to see people talk about the game's mechanics because they had a bad experience and/or first time. It's fine to have your own opinion as long as it doesn't seem antagonising. Thank you for clarifying.

As for the skills, I do love the skill cap, it adds a bit more challenge. I love it, because it forces the player to make riskier/wiser decisions for how they want to play. It encourages people to really experiment with the game instead of realising that they'll unlock everything later on. I 100% agree with your analysis, some people play for the adventure or thrill, others for the satisfaction, adrenaline of combat or result and Starsector really nails it.

No wonder why I felt a little confused when you talked about Paragon. The [REDACTED] are absolutely terrifying. I remember when I first found a high danger system and I thought 'Surely it won't be too bad right? I've got a solid Aurora build and some other ships' before having the Radiant teleport behind my lines before thoroughly turning my fleet's frontline into space dust I totally beat it and thought 'Wow, that was easy' - .

[BCS]

This thread is an absolute dumpster fire. ALL ARE VIABLE. Don't forget, Starsector is a space exploration game.

"One of the design goals for the campaign layer of the game is that it should present the player with opportunities for combat. This doesn’t mean that everything you do in the campaign has to lead to it, but it’s a good thing to always keep in mind, regardless – how does a feature of a mechanic give context (and meaning) to combat, or lead into it directly?"

 - Alex(first paragraph of the Hostile Activity blogpost)

Starsector is a space combat game. This is why almost everything you do leads to combat. Even if you just want to "trade in peace" you will be harassed by pirates and why accepting trading missions sometimes causes hostile fleet hunting you to spawn. Exploration? Like half of it is fighting Derelicts and Remnants. Colonies? Hostile expeditions, AI Inspections, pirate activity, Pather activity. Main storyline? Plenty of opportunities for combat against just about everyone.

You could, of course, deliberately roleplay a pacifist or something but that would greatly limit the amount of content available to you(never do exploration, never have colonies, never fight remnant or omega, never get omega weapons beyond what you find in the Alpha Site, etc.) because the game simply wasn't designed to support such a playstyle.

I am baffled to be in a world where someone says money is 'not a limiting factor', like NO?? Money is one of the biggest limiting factors, supplies and fuel can chunk a massive amount of money when playing.

Sounds like a skill issue.

[Mordodrukow]

For me skills in current state look like the healthiest version of them all.

The only thing i d change: low-tier leadership skills. The last one (which gives ability to build-in 3 mods) is nuts, but i cant force myself to pick any prereqs for it.

Other specs are pretty balanced, imo.

[Acro]

This thread is an absolute dumpster fire. ALL ARE VIABLE. Don't forget, Starsector is a space exploration game.

"One of the design goals for the campaign layer of the game is that it should present the player with opportunities for combat. This doesn%u2019t mean that everything you do in the campaign has to lead to it, but it%u2019s a good thing to always keep in mind, regardless %u2013 how does a feature of a mechanic give context (and meaning) to combat, or lead into it directly?"

 - Alex(first paragraph of the Hostile Activity blogpost)

Starsector is a space combat game. This is why almost everything you do leads to combat. Even if you just want to "trade in peace" you will be harassed by pirates and why accepting trading missions sometimes causes hostile fleet hunting you to spawn. Exploration? Like half of it is fighting Derelicts and Remnants. Colonies? Hostile expeditions, AI Inspections, pirate activity, Pather activity. Main storyline? Plenty of opportunities for combat against just about everyone.

You could, of course, deliberately roleplay a pacifist or something but that would greatly limit the amount of content available to you(never do exploration, never have colonies, never fight remnant or omega, never get omega weapons beyond what you find in the Alpha Site, etc.) because the game simply wasn't designed to support such a playstyle.

I am baffled to be in a world where someone says money is 'not a limiting factor', like NO?? Money is one of the biggest limiting factors, supplies and fuel can chunk a massive amount of money when playing.

Sounds like a skill issue.

Firstly, I mean early game of course, money is difficult if you don't know what you're doing. I myself don't have any troubles with it, a couple of missions, bar missions here and there, bounties and maybe some good colonies with alpha ai spam. Secondly, I never stated I was a pacifist, in fact I like the combat and the fights. It's one of my favourite parts. I was simply addressing the fact that you were talking about the combat skills being good and instead of just saying it you had to push and say that the QOL and Industry skill tree was a noob-trap/practically useless.

I mainly mean as in a majority of the game is space exploration game. There is a lot of combat, of course, but that is to be expected. I mean, there's a reason the pirates or any other faction and their relations exist so it's natural. The NPCs even talk about it quite a bit. But when it boils down to the gameplay, a large majority isn't actually combat (unless you play something where combat is often like a pirate or bounty hunter).

But assuming this is a new player's first time, then you could say that combat most likely isn't advised. To reply to my comment with a quote and then about the game and it's mechanics implies that it isn't a space exploration game. So which is it?

I'm not here to argue with you, just saying that:

1. If you're going to make colonies at least be prepared for the raids.
2. Hostile expeditions can usually be stopped by investing into defence and preparing your own fleet, pirate activity can be stopped via destroying said base, which is combat, but since you made a base then I'm sure a base will be no biggie. (Particularly with Nex)
3. Ai inspection, money. Money and more money. Plus that's assuming you use AI core and not administrators. By the time you maxxed out the amount of admins you have you should have more than enough money to pay off the expedition 10 times over.
4. Pather's have a similar concept, destroy the base. They are much more difficult, but again, this is assuming you are using AI cores which you most likely won't have.
5. The Galatian Academy is the closest thing to a story quest. Judgements can't be made just yet. The devs still plan on expanding on the stories.
6. Yes, but that's assuming you are willing to go to war with said faction. I could understand Pirates and the Luddic Path or the [REDACTED]. Plus with your statement, I might as well go to war with the entire sector, is it vital. Nooooope.

Hell with a lot of the colonies you should be fully prepared to take out Pathers, considering you're using AI cores in the first place.

You can definitely explore, have colonies. Who said I had to fight the [REDACTED] early to mid-game? That's when I need AI cores. Do I NEED omega weapons, sure they're strong but not vital. Hell, you don't necessarily have to follow the story quests. The game was definitely supported for said styles.

Also you only replied to the few arguable statements, I made an entire TED talk about it and that's what you cover??? Why do I have to play a game to other people's standards. Sure the devs have made a ton of combat related content, but that doesn't nullify or completely disregard every other playstyle. I replied because two people were unable to come to an agreement. Like can I not have a single thread that doesn't devolve into fighting?

I just wanna play the game, look at the mods, help and there are these threads, pal. The game encourages experimentation. Sure combat skills are good, but no skill really matters when you're watching a Luddic path IED ready to unleash destruction. I try and try to find a middle ground, but if theres one thing I learned. You can rarely ever convince both sides to come to an agreement.

[Thaago]

For me skills in current state look like the healthiest version of them all.

The only thing i d change: low-tier leadership skills. The last one (which gives ability to build-in 3 mods) is nuts, but i cant force myself to pick any prereqs for it.

Other specs are pretty balanced, imo.

Hmm, which one's don't you like? Weapon drills is a bit underpowered without the marine benefit (which does actually help a ton with raiding early) but the rest are all either solid or better (and crew training is the most powerful tier 1 skill - heck its practically end tier strong it just doesn't have any special effects to it).

[Megas]

Re: Leadership.

If I want BotB, I probably want... Wolfpack Tactics, Crew Training, and if I have carriers, Carrier Group, else probably Gunnery Drills (I raid a lot, especially for blueprints) for low-tier, then Officer Training for six skill officers and +1 elite (five skills seems one skill short for what I want to get) for the tier 3 officer skill below the capstones.

I would complain if I want Support Doctrine.  There are only four lesser Leadership skills that do not rely on officers, and two of them are carrier specific.  (I would like Wolfpack Tactics, but that only works with officers, but I probably do not want officers if I want Support Doctrine.)

[Thaago]

Errr you still want officers alongside support doctrine. At least 3 and possibly 6 if they are in destroyers for the nav bonus - depends on wanted composition. The nav bonus is extremely good for support doctrine fleets, as it brings the speed of unofficered ships to +40% over baseline.

Support Doctrine just greatly powers up the non-officer ships, letting it be better to put officers on smaller ships or to use the +skills officer skill instead of the +numbers. If anything, I'd say Wolfpack goes with Support Doctrine much more than it does Best of the Best, because I can put officers on a whole pile of high performance frigates (and make them absolute murder machines) and use the "wasted" DP for line ships, carriers, etc.

[Megas]

Support Doctrine just greatly powers up the non-officer ships

The reason for me to want Support Doctrine is freedom from officers (i.e., fire them all or not hire any in the first place).  I do not like officers, but they are a necessary evil unless my fleet has too few ships (like solo Ziggurat or Neural Link duo "fleet").  I do not know if no-officer Support Doctrine fleet is good enough against Ordos, but if it is, that is a plus for Support Doctrine.

Otherwise, I probably want BotB if I can get it because 160 DP does not seem like enough to start with against Ordos (if I do not use cheese), not to mention 3rd s-mod (which I do not want to rely on because losing several skill points after a casual respec hurts.)

[Mordodrukow]

Hmm, which one's don't you like?

All of them. I mean: sure, if i want to play a pack of frigates i ll pick Wolfpack tactics. The problem is: all leadership skills are either too specialized or have too small impact.

Drills? 5% damage for me, i ll rather pick 15% CR
Coord maneuvers? Nice! I ll get like +3-4% to maximum speed. In most cases 1%.
Wolfpack? For wolves only.
Crew training? I guess, the only good skill here. Well, ok, i can take both this and Drills to get damage bonus twice. But it will work better in large fleets, and i dont play with such setups.
Carrier group, fighter uplink? Nice! For carriers...
Officer skills? Well, those are kinda ok. Never regret having none of them though...

Tier 3? Both are cool, no doubt.

You see, i have to make really tough decisions choosing between red, blue and yellow, and when the turn comes to green i always be like: "Nah, i ll pick red/blue/yellow"

Some green skills are really cool, but you just know which to pick when you choose what specialization you want. Carriers? Carrier skills. Frigates? WT. Etc.

[Thaago]

For coordinated maneuvers its pretty trivial to get 20% and keep it there. Wolfpack is amazing for the phase frigates, hyperions, scarabs, omens, tempests, remnant frigates, various SO frigates, etc - plus honestly not bad for destroyers either even if its a lesser bonus (and the bigger deal is that while there are several great 8DP value frigates and even a 15DP one, there are no 16+ DP destroyers). Whether or not to use fast frigates endgame could go either way (and whether or not to use officers on them), but if not using any frigates than interceptor carriers become far more important.

Not taking carrier group if you have 0 carriers is a good call because its a carrier skill; likewise if you are using any carriers at all it's an amazing pick. Its arguably most powerful when not going for a mono-carrier fleet, but instead using them in support of other ships.

For crew training, it is the best low level skill in the game - nothing else even comes close to +15% CR to every ship!

For officers... are you saying you don't use officers at all? I'm confused by your statement tbh.

[FooF]

Weapon Drills is the only Leadership skill I actively avoid (I just don't raid enough and the +5% damage isn't that big of a deal to me). I generally pick Carrier Group over Fighter Uplink but maybe someone can convince be otherwise. I don't think Fighter Uplink is bad, just not as good as Carrier Group (and rarely choose both). I also forget that Point Defense bonuses apply to Fighters, which makes Interceptors a lot better.

Combat Drills is #1, though. Full stop.

[bob888w]

Hate to derail, but I'd honestly find a bigger issue with the tech tree as of right now is that even after the.95A
Passthrough, tech skills still feel like the most important tree which in turn leads to the leadership VS industry VS combat fight we see right now. Higher burn speed, more range, smaller sensor profile, more flexible loadouts, DP efficient robot ships, a skill that's super close to  ballistic mastery and many of these without needing to spend a single SP to elite anything.

[smithney]

Hate to derail, but I'd honestly find a bigger issue with the tech tree as of right now is that even after the.95A
Passthrough, tech skills still feel like the most important tree which in turn leads to the leadership VS industry VS combat fight we see right now. Higher burn speed, more range, smaller sensor profile, more flexible loadouts, DP efficient robot ships, a skill that's super close to  ballistic mastery and many of these without needing to spend a single SP to elite anything.

No no, you've got a point. It's not really off-topic anyway. I support the opinion that the Tech tree is the most iffy one. It's the most polarized tree with both general (Navigation, Flux Regulation) and niche (Sensors, Phase Coil Tuning) must-haves on one hand, and underwhelming picks (Energy Weapon Mastery, Electronic Warfare) on the other. And since most players are going deep for the must-haves, they inevitably end up considering tier 4 picks, which are honestly pretty niche by themselves.

I'm not sure about the solution, though. I'm inclined to say that both Tech tier 1 abilities should be awarded to everyone as a part of the main storyline, just like we get the Janus device. EWP should definitely be made on par with its tier companion, nerfing one or buffing the other. Flux regulation is another skill so generally useful that it warrants being awarded to everyone, perhaps within a [REDACTED]-related event progression. Finally, Automated Ships deserve a less gimmicky companion; perhaps a skill allowing AI commanders in non-AI hulls, with some drawbacks for a good balance?

[BCS]

For officers... are you saying you don't use officers at all? I'm confused by your statement tbh.

Well, the way the bonus XP is calulated you're better off not using any officers at all(which sucks but that's how the game works) So if you go Support Doctrine, obviously you don't want to "ruin" your XP bonus by getting officers on top of that.

On the other hand if you DO get officers then you generally want them to sit in biggest ships you have instead of making frigates slightly better unless said frigates are actually light cruisers(Hyperion)

I guess I'm the only one here who likes Tactical Drills? I generally don't raid unless a mission demands it but the +5% damage is worth it given how few sources of bonus damage there are in the game.

I support the opinion that the Tech tree is the most iffy one.

Heh, I'd say that the Tech tree is the BEST tree in the game because of how its structured - opens with a QoL, proceeds into flagship bonus, then into fleet-wide bonuses and ends up with capstones that change the way you play the game. If every skill tree worked like this then we wouldn't be having this thread.