Skill Trees Passive Skills

It would be nice to be able to spend points on skills we want and to not be locked into a system where we can only spend a limited amount on active skills and a limited amount on passive skills.

 

Hear hear!

I am greatly enamored of systems that allow customization of one's character, but being told "80% is predetermined and set at factory standard, but we will allow you to customize the paint color, the type of upholstery, and the rear-view dangle" really takes the wind out of my sails. I was hoping that SotA would encourage diversity and wildly different approaches to gaming, rather than trying to lock us all in to 'the one right path' play style.

 

Well.. that's your opinion. I don't see them trying to lock us into anything. Pretty sure my character build is a lot different than yours.

The lock on passive skills forces more diversity rather than everyone taking the same passive skills. Though personally I think they're going about it all wrong.. the passives are over powering and were too easy to get which is why everyone's taking them. What they need to do is redesign and rebalance them.

 

I still think innate skills should be gained through usage of a skill itself or total number of points applied to a skill rather than the application of points independently. Innate means something that just comes naturally without being learned...and there's no reason experience gained using swords, for instance should grant me the benefits of earth magic mastery.

 

I could be very much in favor of that solution.

 

Dude, if they "force" diversity (your words), then it is locking us into a particular path. Maybe I don't want to have diverse skills and dump all my points into one or two passives. That should be a choice I make.

 

Compared to what? If you compare this tree skill system to UO, locking us is exactly what they are doing......
No matter they reduced 50% skill points into innates I bet most of us are using the same innates.
The rest of points are wasted as you can only use a max number of active skills due to the Deck mechanics.
Where is the point having 30 active skills if you can only effectively use 10?

 

You guys are missing the whole point.. skills aren't balanced and passives by comparison are over powered. SOMETHING needs changing. That fact that you guys are complaining about not being able to pump points into passives is evidence enough of that. Is "forcing" you to diversify worst than forcing you into a cookie cutter set of passives in order to be competitive? Don't make me defend decisions I don't like.

UO is not the standard on which SotA is built or you might have an argument for a comparison.

 

I'll bet you a shiny dollar that I've experimented with your build, and you with mine. There's only so many ways a fish can swim in a tank roughly the size of the fish.

 

I'd take that bet.. if you've used magic at all.. then you lose. Or a shield.. I haven't used shields yet.

 

Then you've limited yourself needlessly, but my bet is still alive and well, you should have read the fine print before you signed.

I said experimented with, not ended up on, not avoided everything but, not only experimented with... just experimented with. You are in grave danger of losing a shiny dollar, sir.

 

You can't scam me sir. Your bet included me experimenting with YOUR builds. In order for you to win, you would have "limited yourself needlessly" yourself.

I said if you've USED magic at all.. or shields.. not if you ended up on. I've my own reasons for my own limits and I don't consider them needless.. or maybe I just haven't gotten around to trying things yet. R17 is my first time going full heavy with a halberd for example. I know it's not going to be the build I play with.. I just wanted to know what it was like because I expect others around me will be using it. I wanted to know what they could do.

That you consider I've needlessly limited myself is a matter of supreme indifference to me. What do you care? Why should I play the way you do? If I don't want to use magic why should I experiment with it? One might argue having to do so in itself would be limiting. Yet I do not feel constrained at all.. if I want to try something else I can. Your choices are on your head.

 

OwlRaven and Malak are on to something. I too see how one can feel 'locked' into a certain skill progression. It may not appear so at first because many skill trees give a perception of choice. However, once a tree is chosen for specialization, the path to specialize really is somewhat locked in by the tree's gates, hurdles, and paths. Gates are required investments in singular skills that must be selected to get to another, whether we want that skill or not. Hurdles are required skill point investment levels at each gate, whether we want that or not, until we get to move on to the next skill. Proscribed paths lead us to the next skill that we must repeat a gate and hurdle process at. SOTA clearly has these in the skill trees today. Choices on how to specialize are limited, or locked, by the requirements at each gate and hurdle. One does not pass without meeting those requirements. This system tends to lead every player to make the exact same skill choices, at a certain level, as the game dictates which skill must be invested in in order to advance. Indeed, a system like this almost could be automated. One could just select blades or fire magic, for example, as a specialty at the onset and let the game automatically assign the skill points to unlock the gates over time with each experience level. What the skill trees mostly do now is make that a much more manual - but not significantly more choice-diverse - process for those who intend to specialize. We have seen successful games like the Diablo franchise try but then depart from systems like this, perhaps for similar reasons. The OP's point is interesting and deserves more discussion.

 

Yes, but if one of my builds parallels yours, then you HAVE experimented with my builds.

I AM disappointed at the narrow scope of your experimentation (even as I recognize that you have the freedom to do as you like with your game, and even support it), but it is more than made up for by the breadth of my experimentation.

 

Im sure its all going to change soon.

 

I disagree with this topic being shot down, Bowen. I think the first two posts point to a valid game design question. We just need to back out of the deep dive on passives a bit and see the larger point being made.

 

In a system that is not properly balanced, this process takes yet another step, making few, or even one of the possible routes of advancement superior. At which point the choice the player faces is to progress in the BEST way, or in an inferior path.

The more pronounced that imbalance is, the more profound this process is, and like water flowing over packed dirt, it may START as a wide pool, but once grooves start eroding into the dirt they will deepen and become channels, which will then channel the water, and the rest is inevitable.

 

And I disagree that anyone is shooting it down. Since when is disagreeing with something shooting it down? People post their opinions.. others post a counter opinion it's how providing feedback works. Secondly.. at what point has anyone here said that limiting points on passives was a good idea? I've said multiple times now that I don't like either.

 

Paralleling builds wasn't the bet.. you don't get to add flexibility after the fact. Besides.. rather than banter about the specifics of your bet I'll just end it here with one important detail you've over looked. I said "I'd" take the bet.. not "I'll".. I'd as in I would.. but did not in fact actually do. Though the way I read it I'd win hands down by virtue of you trying something I haven't. Not that it's important. Moving on.

You can be disappointed all you like. Neither of us is obligated to play by the other's standards.

 

Aye, the classic dilemma seen in other games, I agree. As others observed, there will be changes. The question is change to what? If the game values delivering great freedom in player housing and craftables, then let's aim for similar flexibility for skill selection as well. The many trees we have now are a great start in that direction, but the gating, hurdles and channels in each tree quite firmly dictate progression. My view is that when someone can pick a tree to specialize in, and then be able to describe the real character development choice that they can make in that tree, without being frustrated by simple mechanics of the system, then we are successful.