Alliance Skill Tree

[TombCreep]

I've been playing a lot of Windward, which is a similar game without the crew, and you guys should consider implementing a skill tree with Alliance. I feel like this would give the game a little more depth and could provide a gold sink (for retraining) for players who have an excess amount of gold to commit to the war. Also, it could be implemented with little effort...3 trees, offense/defense/support with % multipliers towards those stats. Just a thought, I hope you consider it...Thanks!

[Kestril]

Woah there, partner. You've nearly gone and rustled my jimmies on this one. Take a load off while I hollar about this ol' dog in this ol' game. Easy.

One of the staples of GOIO (as mentioned way back in the kickstarter) is that everything is already unlocked that matters so the only thing keeping players from claiming victory is skill, teamwork and coordination. This has always been a hard-and-fast rule when they developed the game from the "no boarding" policy to the "all weapons and ships can be available at level one.

Long answer:
A grind-system has to be done right to retain players. Right meaning that it serves a gameplay purpose and not simply be an arbitrary time-gate. Popular games with tech trees often have much variation in playstyle within the tree. I can assure you.

All class Tools are not merely "variation" in play. They are necessary and vital components every crew member needs to have in order for a ship to function as the captain and team needs it to. Throwing in a tech tree wouldn't just affect the individual player, but also throw whole ships out of alignment and make entire maps broken until a certain amount of grind has been achieved. For example, imagine trying to solo the fire boss without chemspray, or chase down a retrieve objective without kerosene or moonshine! Guns of icarus wasn't made with grindy tech trees in mind, and it introduce them on such short notice would require a massive overhaul. It certainly wouldn't be implemented with "little effort."

Furthermore, GOIO is not a Free-to-Play game. So there is no real monitization merit with a gold sink like there would be in other free to play games aside from really pissing off the playerbase.

Short answer:  Nope. Now afore you go put up some barbed wire, feel free to stick around and find a good ol' clan. That's where the replay value in this little town is.

[Solidusbucket]

To be fair, they did experiment with a leveling system for the tools. Also, I think this idea is more centered around allowing players some reason to grind - not so much to unlock necessary equipment / abilities.

If you look at the windward skill tree, which I doubt you did, it is merely buffs to certain stats. Not huge buffs, btw, minor things. I don't think Alliance would suffer from implementing a skill tree which only increases certain stats by X percent (i.e, cooldown time, reload time, acceleration). It could be something like this: "player A focuses on defense stats - this gives the entire ship a buff to their armor by 10%. Player B focuses on offense stats - this gives reduced reload time by 5%". Something along those lines.

Great idea +1

[Solidusbucket]

Also, go away you negative nancy

[Solidusbucket]

Also, also, I never played Whirlwind. I just don't bash someone's ideas without merit.

Edit: Edits in chronological order because I can.

[Kestril]

I'm not bashing. I'm offering critique.

Even if it's +5%, +10%, ect, then that opens up another pandora's box, as the most optimal ship will be the one with the crew that has grinded the most. :S  I wouldn't want to see any crewperson turned away because they went with the +15% defence "bonus" when really the ship needs the +15% offence "bonus." I put bonus in quotes because bonuses are in essence penalties for not grinding long enough.

Point is, you can't have a stat-based system that effects three other players without those three player's input. With raw numbers, the most optimal strategy will be figured out. That's fine when your stats only effect a ship that you control alone, but GOIO is a teamwork game and having stats in essence effect three other players isn't a good idea. After people figure out the best way to do the maps and challenges,  any players that don't have the stats required to do that map will be looked as a discouragement by their fellow players to play. That's not players being negative or jerks,  that's what the system will encourage.

[Richard LeMoon]

The ships, guns, and skills specific to Alliance will all be earned through faction progression. For example, you will have to play as Baron for an undisclosed time to earn the Crusader and Gas Mortar. I am not sure how the special abilities play into that.

[Kestril]

That's odd. I hope muse sets aside time to test a progression system, as that can kill otherwise promising games. (See: Dreadnought. A promising spaceship MOBA that killed off its low playerbase before launch after implementing a tech tree like world of tanks, without understanding what made the world of tanks tech tree good.)

[Naoura]

See, a tech tree works where it works. If a tech tree wre implemented, with how Guns is built, there is absolutely, positively no freaking way a tech tree would work. As Kestril put it, no chance, no way, We don't need it no, no.

Now, as for ALLIANCE, they've tried putting that together, something I am going to desperately dislike, only because there are so few weapons and ships for each faction. IF a faction is going to have it's weapons and ships locked behind a 'loyalty' programme, there needs to be much, much more to earn. More weapons, more ships, and not just costume cosmetics. Skills I'm hoping to have as unlocks, though those I think might become more universalized.

I like the idea of the unlocks... when there's more to unlock. I'm going to hate having to leave the Merchant's Guild to grind for my Crusader, but alas, C'est la Vie.

[Richard LeMoon]

Honestly, I think changing factions to grind for unlocks might be a bad idea. Maybe you could earn all ships and guns in one faction, but would have to do so in a certain order. Faction stuff first, then others can be bought with coins earned. I could see that working.

Or, there could be special challenge modes where you go in and *ehem* liberate the ship of choice. Same for a weapons cache. That would be the most fun. I have a thread back somewhere where I suggested earning all ships this way as part of an extended tutorial.

[Naoura]

I dunno, I kind of like having to prove your worth with a faction to earn their stuff. With the amount of stuff they, hopefully, will include for each faction, it'll be a lot more worthwhile to earn their ships and weaponry.

[Unarmed Civilian]

I dunno, I kind of like having to prove your worth with a faction to earn their stuff. With the amount of stuff they, hopefully, will include for each faction, it'll be a lot more worthwhile to earn their ships and weaponry.

Then nobody would ever join Mercantile. The Mercantile ship and light gun are both absolutely terrible. The ship is so bad that it could be put into Skirmish as-is and still be extremely underwhelming.



As for tech tree nonsense, any buffs should be minor or merely convenience. For example: Fail safe lasts 2 more seconds, Chemical spray removes 1 more stack and lasts 3 more seconds, buff hammer buffs last 10% longer, stamina regenerates 10% faster, engines can take 10% damage without losing effectiveness, guns can never fall below 20% efficiency from damage, and general things that smooth out the experience. They should generally avoid doing things that disrupt repair cycles or make existing optimal repair cycles non-optimal.

They should not directly affect damage output, repair capabilities, or ship maneuverability so that newer players are not discouraged because they perceive that even if they play perfectly, their work will be sub-optimal. For someone who is already playing perfectly, the buffs should make little difference from not having them and merely alleviate annoyances (like maintaining chem sprays on larger Alliance ships) and make the play experience smoother.

[BlackenedPies]

A buff based skill tree wouldn't necessarily hurt the game. Even a 20% difference between players (repair, dmg etc.) could work with a balanced difficulty, and of course the upgrades would need to be interesting

In Killing Floor for example, most upgrades are straight buffs, with some perks mixed in. A new player, no matter their skill, can't win on the harder difficulties. Occasionally you'll see low levels in hard difficulties, but it's not a problem, and players like to win so they tend to stay in their difficulty range

I don't know how the difficulty is now, but the last time I played Alliance (months ago), I beat all game modes on the highest difficulty in a gat mortar squid with all AI, often without an ally. I doubt it would work with any other ship, and that's the point of PvE. Sure you can beat hard with X, but can you do it with Y and Z?

[Richard LeMoon]

IF there was a tech tree, and IF it buffed tools, those buffs would ONLY be able to be used in the appropriate difficulty. No buffs in Novice, Stage 1 buff in Normal, Stage 2 in Hard, Stage 3 in Hell. Otherwise, you end up with people nuking novice for points (which they do now as it is).

But then you have the issue of novices not being able to join higher difficulties, which, frankly, they must do based on the math of match times and open lobbies. By the way, it is NOT Match Maker's fault it does a terrible job of making matches, nor is it lower player count. It is our fault. More on that another day.

[BlackenedPies]

I assumed Hell difficulty awards points/XP multiple that of novice, and that the point system is arbitrary. If the ideal way to play is at low difficulty, on the best ship, then the game is pointless in my view