Print

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

[Skittish]

I have genuine fear of something like this ever coming to pass. Starsector imo is a game that as is has problems with challenging the player, if i could have all the insane things you get out of the combat tree AND being able to pick all the fleet skills i want instead of having to sacrifice parts of one to get the other, i fear the game would simply not have any difficulty at all at that point.

I am 100% against splitting fleet and personal skills into different tracks/pools. It chops off the builds at both ends of the scale of pilot to admiral while adding nothing.

The fallacy that many new players fall into is that because personal skills only boost 1 ship while fleet skills boost all of them, the fleet skills are way better. This depends completely on the player's pilot skill and the ship they are using, so for them it may even be true! But as players get more experienced, they become better pilots and start using more powerful "playerships" for themselves. Those combat skills go up in value massively, to the point where only the very best fleet skills compete.

As things stand, players can win with pure combat builds, pure admiral builds, and everything in between, which is way way better than a system which forces an even split.

Beautifully said.

[StriderGunship]

I have genuine fear of something like this ever coming to pass. Starsector imo is a game that as is has problems with challenging the player, if i could have all the insane things you get out of the combat tree AND being able to pick all the fleet skills i want instead of having to sacrifice parts of one to get the other, i fear the game would simply not have any difficulty at all at that point.

I am 100% against splitting fleet and personal skills into different tracks/pools. It chops off the builds at both ends of the scale of pilot to admiral while adding nothing.

The fallacy that many new players fall into is that because personal skills only boost 1 ship while fleet skills boost all of them, the fleet skills are way better. This depends completely on the player's pilot skill and the ship they are using, so for them it may even be true! But as players get more experienced, they become better pilots and start using more powerful "playerships" for themselves. Those combat skills go up in value massively, to the point where only the very best fleet skills compete.

As things stand, players can win with pure combat builds, pure admiral builds, and everything in between, which is way way better than a system which forces an even split.

Beautifully said.

I... agree that the game isn't as challenging if you know what you're doing. I just wish it could be done in a blanced way... Maybe you would get your max combat DP decreased by 40 points or something.

My problem is that I don't always want to pilot personally.

[Princess of Evil]

Imo for most players Starsector is a little too fair and the couple "win against NPCs" buttons are both too obvious and a little hard to get. The outcome is that people tend to avoid combat, which is why a lot of people say the game is easy. The main problem is that in a symmetric game like Starsector, it's just really hard to hide that the game is helping the player.

[Phenir]

My problem is that I don't always want to pilot personally.

Then don't. Spend all your skill points in leadership/tech/industry and pilot an atlas or kite(S). More than a few people play like this.

[StriderGunship]

Nah, forget it. Tried piloting again, and while it might look like you're doing a lot, fleet-focused builds still perform better overall. Afflictor is the only truly worthwhile option that works with very little investment, and still I get bored eventually, and end up using a more streamlined option.

[happycrow]

Imo for most players Starsector is a little too fair and the couple "win against NPCs" buttons are both too obvious and a little hard to get. The outcome is that people tend to avoid combat, which is why a lot of people say the game is easy. The main problem is that in a symmetric game like Starsector, it's just really hard to hide that the game is helping the player.

I don't mind this at all, honestly. If this was a "git gud or get rekt" game, there's no way I'd play it -- I'm simply too spread out among other life options. It's very clear how you can make the game much easier or much harder on yourself, and I consider that a feature, not a bug.

[Princess of Evil]

I don't mind this at all, honestly. If this was a "git gud or get rekt" game, there's no way I'd play it -- I'm simply too spread out among other life options. It's very clear how you can make the game much easier or much harder on yourself, and I consider that a feature, not a bug.

The problem is that it's too fair for the AI by default. Players don't want battles they have a fair 50% chance to lose.

[Thaago]

Nah, forget it. Tried piloting again, and while it might look like you're doing a lot, fleet-focused builds still perform better overall. Afflictor is the only truly worthwhile option that works with very little investment, and still I get bored eventually, and end up using a more streamlined option.

You can download the Detailed Combat Results mod and see how you are really doing compared to the AI! Its one of the most useful mods imo.

A lot depends on player experience because combat has a steep and long learning curve, but a generic gunship under "medium" player control does about 3x the AI without any cheese. Early game I'll just grab the tutorial hammerhead and elite ballistic mastery + crew training (one for me, one for my fleet) and expect to do the majority of the damage for a long time. The value also depends on the player scaling their ship up. I really enjoy flying wolves/medusa (I find the phase skimmer very satisfying/fun), but at a certain point I've got to switch into something bigger or the player contribution/skills start getting wasted.

True "playerbait" ships are insane though. More like 10x what the AI can do or more.

[Lawrence Master-blaster]

I mean, even simply not firing explosives at shields and kinetics at armor is something that requires no skill whatsoever and will make the player 2x as effective compared to the AI in even the most mundane ship.

What was this thread about again?

[GrayingGamer]

A lot depends on player experience because combat has a steep and long learning curve, but a generic gunship under "medium" player control does about 3x the AI without any cheese. Early game I'll just grab the tutorial hammerhead and elite ballistic mastery + crew training (one for me, one for my fleet) and expect to do the majority of the damage for a long time. The value also depends on the player scaling their ship up. I really enjoy flying wolves/medusa (I find the phase skimmer very satisfying/fun), but at a certain point I've got to switch into something bigger or the player contribution/skills start getting wasted.

True "playerbait" ships are insane though. More like 10x what the AI can do or more.

The fact that this is true, along with the fact that you can do a whole run just as a commander, never actually piloting combat ships yourself, is one of the best things about this game.

Back to the original topic, I kinda feel like there should be separate skill trees for each of the major game layers, too:

1. Piloting
2. Leadership
3. Logistics and Engineering
4. Realspace and Hyperspace Navigation
5. Colony Administration

You'd get points specific to each tree, and you specialize in certain trees to get an extra point or two. Perhaps each tree could have different sub-categories (low-tech, midline, high tech?), and if you could get additional bonuses for having 5 midline skills, for example.

People have expressed balance concerns, but splitting them up would actually give you better granular control over balance - instead of allowing a player to dump a pool of points all into piloting (or w/e) and becoming this absolute game-wrecking beast, you'd be more limited.

The current system is good, I don't think its crying out for a rework; this would be a low priority for sure, assuming it didn't just end up being worse.

[SCC]

My problem is that I don't always want to pilot personally.

That's fine, but I don't think the game should be balanced around self-imposed challenges.

True "playerbait" ships are insane though. More like 10x what the AI can do or more.

I think this might be only true of phase ships, but I rarely use them and even more rarely I give them to AI, so I don't have anything to compare to. Regular warships can get to maybe 5x at best. This is the best I got out of Hyperion. For Medusa and Radiant it was closer to 4x. I could probably get better numbers if I sealclubbed with a Tempest or something, but that would be merely testing my endurance, not my skill.

What was this thread about again?

Opinions about mutually incompatible choices.

[happycrow]

Agreed. For me the campaign layer is by far the most important -- I get my twitch-fix fencing. That Starsector accomodates guys like me beautifully while also accomodating people who want to get in a ship and get so good at piloting that they can solo large enemy fleets is an amazing level of player-options that is rarely seen.

[Spyro]

People have expressed balance concerns, but splitting them up would actually give you better granular control over balance - instead of allowing a player to dump a pool of points all into piloting (or w/e) and becoming this absolute game-wrecking beast, you'd be more limited.

You killed your own proposition by realising it makes for a much more limited system. No matter how you spin it, it makes for an incredibly boring skill system, where you have no choice but to take things you don't necessarily care about.

[Thaago]

I mean, even simply not firing explosives at shields and kinetics at armor is something that requires no skill whatsoever and will make the player 2x as effective compared to the AI in even the most mundane ship.

What was this thread about again?

The AI does this a little. A long time ago alex confirmed that when it starts hopping around weapon groups and selecting one to fire in "manual" mode, if the groups are segregated by damage type it will select the type to match the enemy's defense. The AI can sometimes take a long time to swap between groups, and it can also get "stuck" if it has a strike weapon group, so I agree with you that a player can make way better weapon firing choices.

Though tbh I usually don't . In like 90% of my flying I just leave all the weapons on all the time and manage my positioning/shields/venting. [edit] I'm not claiming that leaving them all on all the time is the better way to fly, either. Its just laziness on my part.

[GrayingGamer]

You killed your own proposition by realising it makes for a much more limited system. No matter how you spin it, it makes for an incredibly boring skill system, where you have no choice but to take things you don't necessarily care about.

It can't be much more limited, or incredibly boring, until you actually see the finished product and the choices presented to the player. Your criticism doesn't even make sense. Anyway, I was just responding to another player who wrote,

if i could have all the insane things you get out of the combat tree AND being able to pick all the fleet skills i want instead of having to sacrifice parts of one to get the other, i fear the game would simply not have any difficulty at all at that point.

They made the strange assumption that if we changed how skill points were set up, we wouldn't also change how the skill choices were set up.

The current skill system is actually more limited (from a skill design standpoint) because Alex has to balance around people dumping all their points into particular 'OP' trees. If points were tied to each tree, then each tree could actually have more interesting and powerful choices, knowing that players will only be able to choose 1 at most, and 2 if they specialize (for example).