Skill Point System Pretty Underwhelming

[APE 1,982]

2 hours ago, Alexsius said:

I feel like they treat this system as something they promised to people so they can clearly say they are an mmo with permanent progression and not some kind off drawn out moba, this seemed really important to them in the past. However I agree that I can't see this system be fun or useful in any way at this point it almost feels like it is just there because it can be monetized easily. I agree that it should probably go because it is needlessly increasing the scope of the game while only affecting it negatively but I feel like at this point they are dead set on keeping it.

While I believe it's a big leap to say CF is a MOBA, including a lackluster "training" system just to have a form of permanent long term progression and more RPG elements has been a lot of work for little return on the players end. The best response I see from those defending or accepting it is "don't worry about it, click and forget." To me that is unfortunate.

With the addition of Tomes, which I wouldn't be surprised to see come to the store down the road and or being able to buy VIP and shop items to trade for them in-game, definitely see the whole system as a money maker for them. Not much different than buying convenience boosts in other game stores. They might not offering them directly, but they'll still be part of the economy.

2 hours ago, yianni said:

 Customization of your character doesn't come with skill training comes with your build I.e disciplines , armor and skills you use 

Anything that alters a character is part of customizing. Just because skill training isn't exciting or complex doesn't change this.

 

[Fefner 99]

7 hours ago, yianni said:

 Customization of your character doesn't come with skill training comes with your build I.e disciplines , armor and skills you use 

And eventually everyone will use the same build as everyone else! look at Myms for example, someone found out a really powerful build everyone copied it, there isn't really a good way of having unique builds, the best option would be to add somewhere in the skill tree specific lines for classes that ppl can spec into, ie: assassin has 5 trees, stealth, melee, range, poisons and defence, each player can then say to themselves what type of assassin do I want to become then add points in those fields. Adding points will make those skills/spells stronger and over time you can unlock new skills unique to players that spec in that field. Players who stream don't have to show their skill tree so what they have spent points on remains a mystery. Discipline buffs is such a give a way to players who stream and upload vids and that's the main reason unique builds don't exist.

The currant skill system is pretty boring, waiting all that time just for a 1 point add to dex or str is a bit bleh. Making ppl get 75% in a field to move on is pretty poor also as everyones 75% will basically look the same and your also forced to add points in fields that have no effect on your class under the racial tree ( yes I know its just in case you decide to try another class but what if I don't, its a waste of points!). I personally think they need a complete rethink over the skills tree and disciplines, otherwise fighting one player will be like fighting any other player on that same class.    

 

 

[Alexsius 0]

On 7/7/2018 at 6:57 PM, APE said:

While I believe it's a big leap to say CF is a MOBA, including a lackluster "training" system just to have a form of permanent long term progression and more RPG elements has been a lot of work for little return on the players end. The best response I see from those defending or accepting it is "don't worry about it, click and forget." To me that is unfortunate.

Yes, but I remember back in the day before race class split this seemed like a concern people had.

 

Personally I would prefer as little permanent progression as possible as I feel like it will subtract from the fairness of new campaigns and a catch up mechanic will always feel like a band aid, in the end you will either piss someone if catching up is really easy veterans that feel like they are not rewarded for their time spent or even worse they feel like they wasted their time experimenting before a meta was established and now the new guys can optimize perfectly, or it's to hard/expensive and the game will be labeled as unfriendly towards new players. Even if you find the right balance the odds that new people misinterpret the system and still consider themselves at a huge disadvantage seems huge, I don't think it will serve as good marketing.

[APE 1,982]

43 minutes ago, Alexsius said:

Yes, but I remember back in the day before race class split this seemed like a concern people had.

Personally I would prefer as little permanent progression as possible as I feel like it will subtract from the fairness of new campaigns and a catch up mechanic will always feel like a band aid, in the end you will either piss someone if catching up is really easy veterans that feel like they are not rewarded for their time spent or even worse they feel like they wasted their time experimenting before a meta was established and now the new guys can optimize perfectly, or it's to hard/expensive and the game will be labeled as unfriendly towards new players. Even if you find the right balance the odds that new people misinterpret the system and still consider themselves at a huge disadvantage seems huge, I don't think it will serve as good marketing.

I agree. The current model isn't new player friendly. Almost every system is built with a power gap between new and old players, although players coming in with established friends won't be as far behind. The Tome system doesn't seem like a help to catch up new players and I'd guess that we'll see something similar sold in the store. 

Seems like they added training as a form of permanent progression just for the sake of it. Doesn't really add anything to the overall game design. Worlds, resources, vessels, gear, etc all come an go. It all makes sense and comes with some amount of risk/reward built in.

Passive training has no risk/reward, is done outside of the active game, and for the most part only increases the gap between new and old players. Maybe at the start it fit more as a way for everyone to have somewhat equal chance at training, but now they even added in active leveling of vessels. Passive doesn't make sense to me. If it is leveling in a different package, why do we need levels? Cause RPG? Sigh...

As with any game, vets will always have more knowledge and experience from trying things beforehand. Along with resources/gear/rewards from actually playing. New players might hop in and google "what's the best build for crowfall," but they'll still have to obtain everything necessary and actually learn how to play. To me this is much less of an issue vs new players hopping in and seeing they are months/years behind in training they have little to no control over (no grinding catch up).

As someone that likes competition and challenge, I'd rather we all be as evenly equipped as possible in whatever area with player/team skill being a larger factor. I don't need to be rewarded for logging in more and clicking training buttons or installing the game before someone else.

[Alexsius 0]

I know this has come up in the past but to me the best thing they can do with the current system would be to tie it to campaigns instead of the overall account. I think the reason the system exists is to push people into a niche so they are forced to work together, but I think this can work on a per campaign level and that would remove a lot of the issues while allowing for more interesting nodes in the skill tree and a faster evolving meta that moves along with the starts and ends of campaigns, this would make balancing these a lot easier as well because you could implement balance changes at the start of campaigns (this kind of stuff might be hard to technically do though) because honestly balancing broken stuff in the skill tree (that everyone will have picked since it's broken) might be hard to manage.

[PopeUrban 2,038]

On 7/7/2018 at 5:54 PM, Fefner said:

I personally think they need a complete rethink over the skills tree and disciplines, otherwise fighting one player will be like fighting any other player on that same class.   

This is the inevitable endpoint of any sort of mechanical customization system.

No matter what the trees look like, you're going to end up fighting the same build for the same classes the majority of the time because player metas and tier lists exist and the first thing smart new players do is google "what is a good build for <class>" and they'll get the same information because the older players (i.e. us) already tested and threw out the weakest performers.

Making the choices compelling helps, but in the end the crowfall system is similar to the EVE system in that it assumes that players will work out the most efficient use of trees for their spec groups and overall gameplay style, and players who didn't get there first will chase that path if they plan on similar activities and playstyle.

Uncapped progression allows players to do this while prioritizing short term specialization without sacrificing long term potential.

It doesn't matter what's on the trees really. +5 STR or 5 ranks in a new hotbar skill or +20 range or whatever. Efficiency is equally valued among all players for a given task, and inevitably this leads to a consensus on the optimum build for a specific task.

The way shadowbane mitigated this (some) was the option of "lore" servers that placed class/race constraints on guild charters. Basically think of these like factions that players had to create themselves. For instance you couldn't be an elf or a wizard and be in a barbarian charter, thus the meta caster build wasn't avaliable, and similarly, the wizard charter didn't have the option of the meta meatshield build.

Many players liked these servers (I loved them) and a much larger number of players HATED them because they just wanted to play the apex meta and be "evenly matched" against the same.

Todd has hinted that this is something they want to play with at the campaign level in Crowfall as well. The idea of campaigns with specific race and class limitations that force players to change things up or make "off meta" specs suddenly really good in that space had you happened to train the skills you would need.

Really, that system of limitations is stronger than adding more options or strictures to skill trees. An entire new lexicon of ship builds came in to being in EVE with the introduction of mass limits when wormhole space came to the game, and when faction warfare created ship class limits, and this happenned without doing anything at all drastic in the skill tree or creating any really game changing new ships or gear.

[armyguyclaude 7]

TBH I would really like it if they did something akin to Path of Exile, Skyforge, or FFX.  

FFX brought in the idea that each character has a node system in which they can branch out over time.

Path of Exile took it one step further and said, "Hey let's make each classes node system touch every other classes node system", making it one giant node tree.

Skyforge went even further stating, "Hey let's make every classes node tree touch, but let's make a giant neutral passive tree that players have to navigate through to get to the other classes." 

 

Feel like this would solve a lot of players troubles.  Could easily just have the players account accrue training points over time (General training points) then when the player logs in, you branch out as you need/want.  This would ensure people would continue to want to log in and play.  No one would be wasting training resouces feeling let down they've lost out on some potential.  People weren't punished for going afk for a long time.  And the devs would be able to make the tree as expansive as they wanted to.  Offering hardcore gamers a huge neutral passive tree and a smaller passive class tree for casual gamers.  This way everyone got what they wanted.

 

[mandalore 2,664]

1 hour ago, armyguyclaude said:

  This way everyone got what they wanted.

 

No, just you.  The system itself is good.  Some of the specific training nodes are underwhelming but thats a balance issue, not a design issue. 

[armyguyclaude 7]

44 minutes ago, mandalore said:

No, just you.  The system itself is good.  Some of the specific training nodes are underwhelming but thats a balance issue, not a design issue. 

You're saying you wouldn't enjoy an expansive node system as a passive account growth passive skill tree instead of the one we got currently? Seriously confused by your vague answer.  Not sure if you're talking about the current system we have or the one I am referring to, or if you even know what I was talking about initially.  English is apparently difficult.

[mandalore 2,664]

Just now, armyguyclaude said:

You're saying you wouldn't enjoy an expansive node system as a passive account growth passive skill tree instead of the one we got currently? Seriously confused by your vague answer.  Not sure if you're talking about the current system we have or the one I am referring to, or if you even know what I was talking about initially.  English is apparently difficult.

I prefer the mechanics of the current training system to whatever amalgamated dog poorly made socks system you are dreaming of.  I want classes defined, and thus limited, instead of everybody can do everything so that choice matters.  I want decisions based off how you build your character to matter so specialization matters.  I want a passive training system based off the accumulation of points via time and the eventually catch up mechanic that will help newer players a year or two after launch not be chattel. 

My reference to balance is the fact that some of the nodes are simple min/max stat configurations at the most basic level and instead would like some further customization deeper in the trees to give my decisions more weight.  Instead of another 25 support node in the cleric tree I'd like the tree to split with multiple healing options that define what my character specializes in such as a node that maybe boosts aoe or single target specifically instead of a small gain to all heals.  That however isn't a mechanics issue, it's a balance issue but since this is still pre-alpha I am willing to ride it out and see what they come up with. 

Many people across the world speak multiple languages, lets try not to be callous about our personal limitations. 

[Arkade 3,481]

I noticed this a few weeks back, but haven't seen anyone talking about it. We might be getting more customization options in the class trees in the future.

[mandalore 2,664]

We aren't going to be in those trees for the first months of launch so it wouldn't even matter to me if we don't see them for a while.  Take some time, build them right imo. 

[Mayhem_ 215]

2 hours ago, mandalore said:

 Take some time, build them right imo. 

I agree - Scratch it and start over

 

Well..... maybe not scratch it entirely ..... I have read some good posts about easy ways to make the trees more "custom" -  Pretty Sure By Gradishar or Anthrage.  I will try to find them later when I get home and get on an actual PC.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Mayhem_

[PopeUrban 2,038]

6 hours ago, Mayhem_ said:

I agree - Scratch it and start over

 

Well..... maybe not scratch it entirely ..... I have read some good posts about easy ways to make the trees more "custom" -  Pretty Sure By Gradishar or Anthrage.  I will try to find them later when I get home and get on an actual PC.

TBH I prefer the "skill trees just give you multipliers to stuff class/race/gear defines" approach because it places the most impactful build decisions in the hands of players on day one, not day 371.

That was a major problem with EVE. Most players have a pretty good idea of what they want to do (or at least want to try to do) within two months of starting the game. Within those two months most players can actually afford the equipment required to do this thing as well. However what most players can't do is actually do the thing to decide if they want to invest three more months in to it to unlock the required piloting skills, fitting skills, etc. to make the build work.

The crowfall approach, as current is "you can try the thing, it will play roughly the same as it will when fully minmaxed in training, but will not be as effective" which spoils players for choice and encourages players to log in and collect the various bits required to make the build work from day one. In a system where we need to train mastry trees passively just to get a specific hotbar ability or whatever, we lose that and end up in the EVE situation.

There are solid balance reasons to do this in terms of crafting, as if every player could craft everything there would be no market for low tier crafted goods. However in terms of combat builds I'm not so sure its a good idea. Right now we are encouraged to try things and skill them once we know we like them. In the system proposed, where skills literally unlock new functionality, we are encouraged to make decisions with no practical experience, and we are essentially stuck with that investment in time even if we discover upon reaching the unlocks that they aren't really as befitting our playstyles or comp requirements as we thought they would be.

I would be in favor of adding this kind of customization to vessels or other "gear" means but I feel we already have a great system for that in the form of disciplines and their planned acquisition methods. I just don't see a lot of benefit in using skills for more lock outs and specialization. It seems to me it would add tedium and frustration for no practical purpose. It would lock people out of the 'try' without giving anything compelling in return. The only reason to do so would be to artificially limit the number of a given combat template, which wouldn't work in a practical sense because alt accounts exist and players naturally gravitate to the most performant templates for a task anyway.

The system works in a game like Path of Exile because the entire point of the game is building unique characters based upon avaliable resources.  That isn't the goal of Crowfall. The goal of crowfall is to allow players to compete with each other over limited resources from a mostly equal starting point and with mostly uniform opportunities for build customization.

The crowfall skill tree system may be boring, but I LIKE that its boring because it places all of the interesting stuff where its more interesting to acquire, in the actual gameplay of killing, crafting, and trading rather than in the passive skill tree. It encourages specialization by default (because more stats is better and you can't train more stats to everything all at one time) but doesn't prevent players from experimenting with the entire toolbox.

[APE 1,982]

2 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

The crowfall skill tree system may be boring, but I LIKE that its boring because it places all of the interesting stuff where its more interesting to acquire, in the actual gameplay of killing, crafting, and trading rather than in the passive skill tree. It encourages specialization by default (because more stats is better and you can't train more stats to everything all at one time) but doesn't prevent players from experimenting with the entire toolbox.

Do you believe we need the current passive system for combat/race/class considering what else is available and hopefully grows over time?

Would you rather see an active, in-game, cost/benefit, risk/reward, economy boosting system that put stat augmentation and choices in the hands of players directly? Something that allowed for more stat experimenting, meta flow, easier dev balancing, and actually had choices that didn't result in everyone being the same due to a linear dev created system?

I've yet to really see anyone defend the current system as something they want, but rather accept because it is what it is. Or those that believe they should be rewarded because they made an account before another or some how managed to overcome the crazy challenge of logging in and clicking on a button once in a while...

[PopeUrban 2,038]

21 minutes ago, APE said:

Do you believe we need the current passive system for combat/race/class considering what else is available and hopefully grows over time?

Would you rather see an active, in-game, cost/benefit, risk/reward, economy boosting system that put stat augmentation and choices in the hands of players directly? Something that allowed for more stat experimenting, meta flow, easier dev balancing, and actually had choices that didn't result in everyone being the same due to a linear dev created system?

I've yet to really see anyone defend the current system as something they want, but rather accept because it is what it is. Or those that believe they should be rewarded because they made an account before another or some how managed to overcome the crazy challenge of logging in and clicking on a button once in a while...

I think class/race as is has value in specialization. Although players can (and will) have more vessels than specialization lines, the training specifically pushes players toward a very natural "I am BEST at this thing" and prevents players from relying too heavily on alt hopping, while still allowing them to alt-hop or use the economy to circumvent a leack of training for combat spec alts.

I think that's a good thing, encouraging players to have a "main" (or two in this case) that is roughly equivalent in power to other "mains" rather than the shadowbane phenominon in which everyone had things they LIKED to play but the most performant option in all situations was rolling more and more characters. The specialization structure encourages players to define themselves as primarily race x class y so that player to player its a bit less homogenous and allows individuals or organizations to really top out specific builds/playstyles over others.

Basically I like it as a mechanic because it encourages diversity, and that kind of diversity was one of the things that DID work well in the EVE system. Everyone could fly combat frigates, but not everyone was a dedicated frig pilot. A mass of unspecialized frigate pilots could do the job, but in a smaller engagement the specialized pilot had a very clear edge, and the whole corp full of specialized frig pilots was en masse just plain more efficient at that one specialized task. This forced players to form long term combat doctrines in EVE, which was a bit harsh, but I like this approach where it doesn't force, but highly encourages it. Especially since each account is equally efficient in two roles.

Basically I like it for the same reason I like the hard locks on crafting. The difference is that hard locks on crafting are beneficial to the underlying design of crafting and its economy. Soft buffs are beneficial to the underlying design of putting together groups of players by rewarding and encouraging diversity in the same way, but without the punitive game-stopping effects that putting hard locks on combat tends to have. E.G. needing a counter-build when faced with a new enemy that moved in to your back yard and literally being unable to field it. In stead, I think its good you and your enemy have natural long term advantages and disadvantages in this state, but training or lack therof doesn't necessarily create a no-win situation, just a "work harder, do diplomacy, and spend more" approach to bridge the gap that doesn't eliminate the gap.

More simply, if I join a campaign, and I'm opposed by Obsidian, who are highly specialized in stealth, and I have inadequate antistealth, I CAN emergency roll up antistealth to counter, but will do so at significant cost in production lines, new gear, etc. However it may be more beneficial for me to seek outside help from an organization that already has those tools baked in to its day to day logistics and is already more efficient via training plan and overall doctrine.

Without the skill training element, I wouldn't have much incentive to see outside help mechanically, because it would always be a better option to just roll the counterspec on my own guys since the only blocking factor would be wealth. That's bad for diplomacy and erodes the ability of individuals and organizations to establish a clear identity and MO that makes them valuable or liability in the grand scheme of things IMO.

Edited July 11, 2018 by PopeUrban

[Mayhem_ 215]

15 hours ago, APE said:

and actually had choices that didn't result in everyone being the same due to a linear dev created system?

 

This more than anything is the part that just annoys the snot out of me.

"Personally" I would like to see some unique powers added that would have to be heavily invested towards to be able to get to but I totally understand why others wouldn't 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Mayhem_
Edited out some potential drama :)

[Jah 6,738]

1 minute ago, Mayhem_ said:

"Personally" I would like to see some unique powers added that would have to be heavily invested towards to be able to get to but I totally understand why others wouldn't

That exists in the form of Discipline runes.

[Mayhem_ 215]

7 hours ago, Jah said:

That exists in the form of Discipline runes.

Uhhhhhhhhh duh?

Joking....... Mostly

I still don't imagine disciplines ever as something that are heavily invested but I guess they could be.  

More precisely....... I guess I would like to see some "tough choices" in the skill trees 

Also still hoping scouting/tracking gets ....... Well basically its own subclass tree

 

[Arkade 3,481]

7 hours ago, Mayhem_ said:

Uhhhhhhhhh duh?

Joking....... Mostly

I still don't imagine disciplines ever as something that are heavily invested but I guess they could be.  

More precisely....... I guess I would like to see some "tough choices" in the skill trees 

Also still hoping scouting/tracking gets ....... Well basically its own subclass tree

 

I guess it depends on your definition of heavily invested. From what we know, weapon disciplines will be pretty easy to obtain, as they will require an advanced weapon of the appropriate type to create. Minor disciplines will be more difficult to obtain, as they will only drop from mobs. Some might be on easy to solo mobs, but some will require groups and those spawns may be contested. Majors will require a thrall, and very likely a specific thrall depending on the major you want to make. Needless to say, people won't be swapping them out they way they do now.