Print

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

[FooF]

I would be totally OK with Support Doctrine being lowered a tier and an “alternative” to the other two Officer Skills. Your choices would then be: +2 Officers, +1 Level/Elite Skill for existing officers or , -2 Officers but all unofficered ships are essentially generic Level 4 and they cost -20% DP.

The only problem is that SD wouldn’t confer all the deployment calculations that come with number and level of officers so that you can deploy your max fleet. It seems counterintuitive to have a skill that enables a wider fleet but unable to deploy them because you’re at a disadvantage on officer count vs. the other fleet (which is a hidden stat to begin with).

You’d also be stuck with BotB as the sole Leadership Capstone. I suppose that isn’t an issue in and of itself and it would make comparing SD to BotB less direct.

[Mishrak]

Shower thought: what if Cyber Aug allowed you to change officer elites for free?  Not purchase, but just move them around.

[SCC]

I think SD is peculiar, because Leadership skill tree has three kinds of skills: a) skills that affect officered ships, b) skills that affect all ships, c) Support Doctrine.
One thing I thought of the other day was to uncap Support Doctrine's DP reduction* or to make it affect even officers. The latter would make it no longer affect only unofficered ships, but can SD make officer-light fleets compete? I feel SD is more often talked in the context of making it perform well, as opposed to simply being a powerful skill.
*SD's DP reduction is something I don't understand. Most expensive ships are also the ships you are already the most encouraged to put an officer on. Getting a 12 DP discount on a Paragon or 15 DP discount on the Ziggurat is nice, but you know what is most likely even better? Putting an officer in it.

Another way to develop Support Doctrine: make officers boost (i.e. transfer their skills partially to) allied ships that a near to them. That would turn officers into a kind of squadron leaders. And give more flexibility to the skill selection of Support Doctrine.

It could also be the foundation of an overall reduction of the amount of officers in the game, which in my opinion is inflationary high.

And it would be tactically interesting. Can you assassinate a squadron leader to significantly weaken the whole formation, or do you have to chip away at his support support craft?

I like this also.

[Brainwright]

I've always thought the ability to assign officers that have no skills but exist to add behavior settings to ships would be nice.  Add that to support doctrine or something.

[Twilight Sentinel]

I would be totally OK with Support Doctrine being lowered a tier and an “alternative” to the other two Officer Skills. Your choices would then be: +2 Officers, +1 Level/Elite Skill for existing officers or , -2 Officers but all unofficered ships are essentially generic Level 4 and they cost -20% DP.

The only problem is that SD wouldn’t confer all the deployment calculations that come with number and level of officers so that you can deploy your max fleet. It seems counterintuitive to have a skill that enables a wider fleet but unable to deploy them because you’re at a disadvantage on officer count vs. the other fleet (which is a hidden stat to begin with).

You’d also be stuck with BotB as the sole Leadership Capstone. I suppose that isn’t an issue in and of itself and it would make comparing SD to BotB less direct.

The two leadership capstones could also be the two different skills that dramatically increase the story point sinks you have for your fleet.  Choose either extra elite skill and level for officers, or extra S-mods for ships.  That way there's significantly less temptation to take both of them at the same time, making it that much harder to keep up with story point demand.

[Serenitis]

It would be nice if there was some optional means of hurrying crises along.
Waiting for this bar to fill up while you scrupulously avoid any kind of conflict around your base is absolutely tortuous.

I've always thought the ability to assign officers that have no skills but exist to add behavior settings to ships would be nice.  Add that to support doctrine or something.

That's been floated a couple of times previously independantly of skills, and never seemed to have any interest.
Which is a shame, as it solves a recurring problem with current mechanics/resources.

[Alex]

Yeah, I've got a note about adding an 100% bonus XP story point button to "escalate crisis" - someone suggested this a while back, and it seems like a really nice idea. This sort of "control your playthrough" mechanic is right up the alley of story points.

[BigBrainEnergy]

I think this is a good opportunity to make something worth more than 100% bonus xp. If you willingly choose to escalate a crises, maybe getting rewarded with 200% bonus xp is fair?

[Wyvern]

I think this is a good opportunity to make something worth more than 100% bonus xp. If you willingly choose to escalate a crises, maybe getting rewarded with 200% bonus xp is fair?

Nah. 100% is fine - and it wouldn't be ideal to have players going "But I have to escalate crises every time it's up! My bonus XP!" And then complaining that the crises come too fast again.

Because you know people will do that.

[Mishrak]

I think this is a good opportunity to make something worth more than 100% bonus xp. If you willingly choose to escalate a crises, maybe getting rewarded with 200% bonus xp is fair?

Nah. 100% is fine - and it wouldn't be ideal to have players going "But I have to escalate crises every time it's up! My bonus XP!" And then complaining that the crises come too fast again.

Because you know people will do that.

Agree.  100% is consistent with many of the other story choice uses and I'm pretty sure nothing else in the game grants more than 100% bonus exp.

[BigBrainEnergy]

Nah. 100% is fine - and it wouldn't be ideal to have players going "But I have to escalate crises every time it's up! My bonus XP!" And then complaining that the crises come too fast again.

Because you know people will do that.

True.

[Brainwright]

I think this is a good opportunity to make something worth more than 100% bonus xp. If you willingly choose to escalate a crises, maybe getting rewarded with 200% bonus xp is fair?

Nah. 100% is fine - and it wouldn't be ideal to have players going "But I have to escalate crises every time it's up! My bonus XP!" And then complaining that the crises come too fast again.

Because you know people will do that.

Nah, getting the crisis to come at a time of your choosing makes it much less annoying.

[Candypowers]

Yeah, I've got a note about adding an 100% bonus XP story point button to "escalate crisis" - someone suggested this a while back, and it seems like a really nice idea. This sort of "control your playthrough" mechanic is right up the alley of story points.

Can we get a variety of optional repeatable crises challenges this way once all the one-time crises are finished? Currently the colony crises interface loses its purpose once all the one-time crises are dealt with. (with the one exception of colonizing a remnant system.)

[Bungee_man]

Yeah, I've got a note about adding an 100% bonus XP story point button to "escalate crisis" - someone suggested this a while back, and it seems like a really nice idea. This sort of "control your playthrough" mechanic is right up the alley of story points.

Can we get a variety of optional repeatable crises challenges this way once all the one-time crises are finished? Currently the colony crises interface loses its purpose once all the one-time crises are dealt with. (with the one exception of colonizing a remnant system.)

Personally, I really like that it completes. Once you've faced the best challenges the major factions have to offer, they no longer harass you, and your endgame doesn't patronize you with a game of whack-a-mole. There's a good story arc of factions going after the player, getting dealt with one way or another, and the sector gradually realizing it has a new polity.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the new fights against big faction fleets with S-mods, and I'd like to see more like that, but it doesn't make sense for the factions to seek those fights out anymore. Would rather buff up the faction capitals, with a grand armada on Kazeron and Chicomoztoc. Maybe even let those armadas' S-modded ships be salvaged, so that there's an incentive to fight them - they still wouldn't be as good as manually modded ships, but it'd give players in midgame an incentive to try out ships they don't normally use. Also creates an alternative to Remnants in late game, as a source of EXP and trophies.

[Megas]

Personally, I really like that it completes. Once you've faced the best challenges the major factions have to offer, they no longer harass you, and your endgame doesn't patronize you with a game of whack-a-mole. There's a good story arc of factions going after the player, getting dealt with one way or another, and the sector gradually realizing it has a new polity.

Except Pathers.  They still force whack-a-mole unless you give in and give them the planetkiller.  Avoiding the whack-a-mole nightmare (from Pather cells) is the only reason why I do not use AI cores, although I guess I can still use cores to build size 3 colonies after I defeat Hegemony.  (Pathers do not care about size 3 worlds.)