Passive skill training or occupational skill increase?

[Tobruk]

What do you guys think?

[Logicsol]

A combination.

What I'd like to see is a relatively low passive cap, that is increased when jobs are mastered in addition to the stats that job mastery bring.

Ie a passive cap of ten, that increases by 1 for each mastered job. Core attributes like athletics show level slowly, so that it's not maxed early.

 

Perhaps a cap increase of 1 for each intermediate job(none for entry level) and 2 for high tier jobs. Max cap of 20.

[Saturnus]

I'd like to see a little more weight on the jobs side and considerably slower training than now but no matter what it is much better than the previous release.

[Mangrove]

Don't really care how skills are trained, as long as they aren't lost upon job switching. I agree skills should level up slower than they do now.

[PhailRaptor]

Should be very slow passive learning, with accelerated learning for stats relevant to the current Job and task.

[Oozinator]

9 hours ago, Saturnus said:

.. considerably slower training than now..

Sometimes i think, we play different games ^^
It takes so long to build up electrical engineers. I want to build a steamengine, since i started that map..
They are perhaps 150 cycles in "training"..
 

[Saturnus]

Just now, Oozinator said:

Sometimes i think, we play different games ^^
It takes so long to build up electrical engineers. I want to build a steamengine, since i started that map..
They are perhaps 150 cycles in "training"..
 

I meant passive skill training as the title of the subject suggests. We're not discussing job mastery training at all.

[PhailRaptor]

3 minutes ago, Oozinator said:

Sometimes i think, we play different games ^^
It takes so long to build up electrical engineers. I want to build a steamengine, since i started that map..
They are perhaps 150 cycles in "training"..

That may be true of the Electrical Engineer.  But the fact is that people are already reporting that Athletics can go from 0 to 20 through passive leveling by 40 cycles.  Clearly, number balance is required.  Up for some things, and down for others.  All stats growing at the same rate is just not gonna cut it.

[Oozinator]

Just now, Saturnus said:

I meant passive skill training as the title of the subject suggests. We're not discussing job mastery training at all.

The same for me. Depends how long you plan, to play a game. For endless games, could be slower. Klei should make all that stuff optional, or always some players are unhappy with it..

[Kasuha]

My idea:

Stats would not be improved directly, only through jobs.

Training (acquiring mastery of selected job) should come at full rate from job-related tasks and at half to third rate from job-unrelated tasks. The idea here is to be able to train a miner even if there's nothing to mine anymore.

Stat bonuses: the duplicant gets full bonus of the job he's currently on and full bonus of all its job prerequisities. He also retains half to third of other job bonuses he's mastered.

Every job should come with certain athletics buff. Then every mastery comes with permanent athletics buff as well.

[SkunkMaster]

I think there should be training gear to train up the dupes in the different areas. still have passive skill-up, but at a much reduced rate, compared to training. 

[dinosaur1831]

I kinda feel that skills should passively increase, but capped at a low level (I'm thinking 5, although I'm sure people might think this is too low). Then each job should provide some bonus skill points while also increasing the cap for passive training. For instance, athletics might cap normally at 5, but if a duplicant's job is gofer, then they would have +5 added to the cap for a maximum of 10 plus whatever bonus a gofer receives from the job itself. Then the next tier up, the courier, would have +10 to the cap (the cap then being 15) plus bonuses.

[Oozinator]

Mhh "slower"?
I have that since perhaps 150 cycles (minimum) and still waiting for the electrical engineers, to level up.
Only they do the operate job and it takes forever, it seems..

[Edjren]

I would prefer a system of very slow, soft capped, task-based passive skill increases coupled with increasingly larger job tier based skill bonuses that are lost when you change jobs - because those bonuses are equipment based.

I feel that if you made the job skills permanent, it would create an incentive to have dupes do jobs solely for the purpose of gaining stats - essentially recreating the old system, but using jobs.  Job hopping would become a tedious necessity.

I don't mind the restrictions caused by losing job skills when changing jobs.  ONI is a game based on restrictions.  In my opinion, versatile dupes that that can alternate between more than one role as needed are more fun than Swiss army knife dupes that can fill more than one role all by themselves.

[NanoD]

4 hours ago, Oozinator said:

I have that since perhaps 150 cycles (minimum) and still waiting for the electrical engineers, to level up.

It is because he only can get passive xp. So he can only gain 25 per cycle. I am hoping that they fix it soon. Same with chef. 

[Pirate_PL]

I strongly believe that the 'Jobs increase skills - lose if change occupation' option, while unpopular, is the best design-wise and balance-wise. Players are not game designers. They're not always right on what's good for the game in the long run. Just look at Darkest Dungeon and it's 'corpse debate'. Huge initial backlash that quickly became a non-issue. If you, the developers, are afraid of any backlash then explain in detail your thinking behind all the design that went into the update. People are more understanding when they know the reasons behind things. I trust YOUR judgement considerably more than my own. I just hope you aren't afraid to go against the flow.

Maybe I'd slightly alter it to be 'lose skill over time' instead of 'lose skill immediately'. Takes care of any misclicks and just makes more sense. Some of the other suggestions from this thread like 'passive learning cap', 'very slow passive learning with faster job training' and things along those lines are also good if the numbers are right. Pretty much anything will be better than what we have right now.

[Collic]

A combination preferably. However, the thing  I really want is reliable Job prioritisation according to roles. The update offered great promise for hands off, macro base management, allowing us to concentrate more on building and exploration, the real core of the game.

Job roles should be rewarding for individual dupe efficiency, but the really important thing should be assigning roles according to the needs of your colony, and being assured that dupes will perform their jobs reliably unless you specifically intervene, and well enough that you won't often want to intervene. I think that's the core goal Klei should fix first, everything else can be balanced as people spend more time using the system, and cannot be meaningfully looked at until we get to that point.

EDIT: I'd say though that none the options the OP provided really cover how I would do it. Games like Rimworld and DF handle this much better, and the main problem is the system is too complicated. Everything should be built around passive skill increases and decreases if a dupe stops performing a task. Dupes in a role should get increases to how quickly they train the core skill(s) of the profession and should lose experience when they stop performing that task. This training increase should be substantial, so a dupe who isn't a cook won't meaningfully level that skill if they use the station, non miners will be dog slow and improve at a glacial pace, etc. There should be exceptions for some skills like athletics to a degree, to make sure the game doesn't become frustrating to play. Instant skill increases just for switching a dupe to a job make no sense and should be scrapped.

 

 

 

[Tobruk]

35 minutes ago, Pirate_PL said:

I strongly believe that the 'Jobs increase skills - lose if change occupation' option, while unpopular, is the best design-wise and balance-wise. Players are not game designers. They're not always right on what's good for the game in the long run. Just look at Darkest Dungeon and it's 'corpse debate'. Huge initial backlash that quickly became a non-issue. If you, the developers, are afraid of any backlash then explain in detail your thinking behind all the design that went into the update. People are more understanding when they know the reasons behind things. I trust YOUR judgement considerably more than my own. I just hope you aren't afraid to go against the flow.

 Excellent point. It is the second time (first with the disease system) that devs didn't show any confidence in their creative choices and just listened blindly to the community.

[MasterShake2003]

I mentioned this on reddit.  Why not have the skills cap at 10 or 12 or even 20.  Job bonuses can push the skill past the cap as long as the dupe remains assigned to that job.  The dupe loses those bonuses and the skill reverts to whatever level the dupe has attained when they change jobs and the new jobs bonuses are applied.  Also, job skills should level up faster than other skills while the dupe is assigned that job.  

 

Imo, this would make taking a dupe with -3 athletics but 8 cooking or creativity more appealing knowing that I can increase athletics later if I want him as a gofer but he's an awesome cook right off the bat.  I just think it would make me consider dupes with neg stats more carefully than I currently do.

[Konzill]

Jobs should be the primary driver of training. I'd be happy with no passive learning,  but if we have to have some it should definitely be a lot slower than that provided by Jobs. 

[Traveller]

In my understanding - currently, mastering gofer permanently gives them the carry weight boost, right?

Based on that understanding, I've been putting every single dupe through gofer and courier immediately when they join the colony.  It feels really cheesy.  Like, I can understand that it is acceptable gameplay if that's the design - but it doesn't feel intentional.  I wonder what the intended way to use jobs is (since the mechanics should really say "what are the most fun ways to play? let's encourage playing that way, by making that more effective and likewise discouraging un-fun behavior").

[Logicsol]

1 hour ago, Traveller said:

In my understanding - currently, mastering gofer permanently gives them the carry weight boost, right?

Based on that understanding, I've been putting every single dupe through gofer and courier immediately when they join the colony.  It feels really cheesy.  Like, I can understand that it is acceptable gameplay if that's the design - but it doesn't feel intentional.  I wonder what the intended way to use jobs is (since the mechanics should really say "what are the most fun ways to play? let's encourage playing that way, by making that more effective and likewise discouraging un-fun behavior").

IMO, Mastery bonuses should be less than the occupation bonus.

Say a low tier jobs gives a +2 bonus, and mastering it gives +2. Then the mid tier gives +4 and mastery gives another +2, finally the high tier grants +6 and mastery of it grants another +2.

Staying in the fully mastered job would grant a total of +12, but only +6 of it would stay with you in another job. Last make sure that you only get one mastery bonus per attribute per job tier, whichever is the highest. Aka if two jobs grant a mastery bonus, mastering both would only grant you the best bonus, not both.

[Byste]

3 hours ago, Logicsol said:

IMO, Mastery bonuses should be less than the occupation bonus.

Say a low tier jobs gives a +2 bonus, and mastering it gives +2. Then the mid tier gives +4 and mastery gives another +2, finally the high tier grants +6 and mastery of it grants another +2.

Staying in the fully mastered job would grant a total of +12, but only +6 of it would stay with you in another job. Last make sure that you only get one mastery bonus per attribute per job tier, whichever is the highest. Aka if two jobs grant a mastery bonus, mastering both would only grant you the best bonus, not both.

I like all of this except for the ending. I think you should be able to accrue mastery bonuses.

[Logicsol]

Just now, Byste said:

I like all of this except for the ending. I think you should be able to accrue mastery bonuses.

It's a balance issue.

You could have every job mastery add, or you could have just the best add. Invariably, if it's the latter, the mastery bonuses will be lower. Worse, you'll feel pressured to train every dupe on every job.

However if it's the latter, you won't be penalized for picking a more narrow path, and won't feel like you need to run every dupe through all the hats.

[Byste]

3 minutes ago, Logicsol said:

You could have every job mastery add, or you could have just the best add. Invariably, if it's the latter, the mastery bonuses will be lower. Worse, you'll feel pressured to train every dupe on every job.

However if it's the latter, you won't be penalized for picking a more narrow path, and won't feel like you need to run every dupe through all the hats.

I think gameplay would sort it out naturally. Diversifying job training is an opportunity cost of specializing further. And if we're talking late game, you can cultivate any kind of collection of dupes with the training you want, so I don't see how it matters then either. Also, maybe I'm just underestimating people, but I don't think being able to master everything automatically makes you feel like you need to "run every dupe through all the hats". You only need so many cooks or artists, for example, and the obsessive compulsive completionists that would see it that way are probably used to wasting extreme amounts of time unnecessarily ;P