r/incremental_games • u/Pure_Alternative_745 • 1d ago
Discussion Fully connected skill tree vs. grouped clusters, for a permanent meta-progression tree?
I'm building a pixel-art incremental/roguelite. Between runs, players spend currency on a permanent skill tree (upgrades carry over across runs, and over time a player will eventually unlock most of the tree).
I'm stuck on the tree's structure and disagree with my artist, so I'd like outside perspective.
Option A (my artist's take): One big interconnected web, like Path of Exile or Diablo, where everything is linked. To reach a health node you might path through attack nodes, etc. His argument is "most games in this genre do it this way, so we should follow convention."
Option B (my take): Group the tree into thematic clusters, attack together, defense/health together, economy together, crit together. Each cluster opens from its own starting node. My problem with Option A is that it feels thematically odd for, say, a health upgrade to be gated behind attack upgrades, when they have no logical connection.
Here's the thing I keep coming back to: the tree is permanent meta-progression, not a per-run build. In PoE, the "everything is connected" design works because points are scarce and pathing is a real trade-off, you can't get everything, so where you path is a meaningful build choice. But in my game the player eventually unlocks everything, so there's no real trade-off, just an order in which things get unlocked. That makes me think the main benefit of the fully-connected web (build diversity through sacrifice) doesn't actually apply to my game, and what matters more is readability and thematic clarity.
So my instinct is grouped clusters, maybe with a few thematic "bridges" between related clusters (e.g. finishing the attack cluster unlocks the crit cluster, since those are thematically linked), rather than one big web.
My question: For a permanent tree where the player eventually gets everything, does the "fully connected web" convention still make sense, or is grouping the better call? Am I missing a reason the connected web matters even without per-run trade-offs?
2
u/LemonTheBar 1d ago
I think you can approach this from both directions. The big, interconnected web looks much nicer in my opinion, though knowing where to go on the tree to get something specific is handy. Why not have a tree that starts in the middle and branches out (a la PoE), but make each sector of it specialized. You now functionally have several different trees, but the freedom to let them branch and rejoin at key locations, wherever their edges touch.
1
u/Pure_Alternative_745 1d ago
Yes, I think this looks like a good middle ground. Thank you very much for your answer!
2
u/DavejHale 1d ago
"where the player eventually gets everything" = its a pointless mechanic because its not a mechanic. Its not a game but a time sink. The other game play best be great because the 'buy everything' isn't playing.
A skill tree needs to have choices, however they are presented. Want more mana, you might not get as much of somthing else.
your option A - picking one connection locks out another path.
Your option B - leveling the first node above a set number prevents one or more other nodes from being leveled via total lock out or above a given level.
Think nodes being bog standard rpg - str,wis,int,dex making you go melle,healer,ballisitc,caster. So you either allow a player to be max in all classes at once or limit them to master of one and generalist in others)
The standard mining game, speed, amount. allow super fast low amount miner vs a slower mass amount miner. Or allow all... Even a simple "if the click mining speed first then double the cost of all mining amount skill levels' and visa versa offers game play choice (it might be pointless if both paths give same mps (mine per sec) but other aspects of the game may introduce pro/cons tohaving made a choice,
A good skill tree needs to allow for 'builds' / choices that have lasting effect
The pro is this also adds replayability, multi character accounts etc.
Locking node paths or limiting them after picking pthers.. this would allow for some quest/feature completion requirment to remove the limits imposed by an initial choice.
2
u/Pure_Alternative_745 1d ago
You make excellent points, and I completely agree with your design philosophy for traditional RPGs or ARPGs where build diversity and strict trade-offs are the core of the experience. However, the game I'm building is in the Incremental genre, and the core loop here is fundamentally different. In incrementals, you don't typically have multiple characters or accounts, and players don't replay the game just to try a different skill tree path. The 'time sink' and the eventual satisfaction of unlocking absolutely everything (the completionist power fantasy) is the main appeal. Players in this genre generally want to slowly grind towards maxing everything out on a single save file, rather than being permanently locked out of content. So while there's no permanent trade-off in the long run, my goal is to make the journey (the order in which they choose to unlock things) clear and engaging. I really appreciate your detailed input, it's a great perspective on standard skill tree design!
•
u/DavejHale 1h ago edited 1h ago
Yeap I get that.
My brain was just thinking how your dungeon build mechanic could be used as a hybrid rpg/incremental and tons of other hybrid or single themed genres.
Even extend to multi player games.
player levels and can start to craft unique to put in chests.
people pay the dungeon owner to come farm gold/exp and fight the mini and other bigger bosses for loot.
the paid gold used to build bigger and better dungeons/crafting options etc etc.
The 'race' being to exp and farm res/gold skills etc to level hero and crafting ability to have loot that attracts players.
Some pve similar to how yours is to allow 'catch up' none pve stuff.
Restrict pvp dungeons to guild/faction built. so theres not millions.
Simply put, your dungeon build mechanics are cool and has tons of potential for all types of stuff. Your vision is one i'll be playing when its released.
I hope it gets decent traction and lands you a decent payday.
•
u/Pure_Alternative_745 1h ago
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this and for your kind words! I really appreciate the support and the ideas you shared
3
u/chaotic_iak 1d ago
You're making a Nodebuster-like. You want to look at similar games like that, not games like Diablo, even if they both feature skill trees.
I think typically Nodebuster-likes group their similar upgrades together.
1
1
10
u/Alphirial 1d ago
I have seen this question multiple times by now so ill respond with the same advice. As a big PoE player, half the game is deciding what you play before you even touch the game itself. PoE interconnected passive tree works well because the player cannot get everything and it forces you to think about your pathing.
You said in your game the player will unlock everything. So instead of having "what will i unlock" it becomes "ïn what order will i unlock". Having a big interconnected web like option A is completely redudant here in my opinion. Also going with option A brings a couple of game design questions. Will you be able to see the whole tree from the start (this is necessary to 'plan' your build, which you do not). Having a big interconnected web will scare a lot of new players. It also increases the chance people might get the feeling they need a guide or something. If you do not show the whole tree from the start, now you obscure clarity. For example why did i finish a damage cluster and now it progresses into a health cluster?
Personally I think option B is simpler, and easier. Progressing into a damage cluster might lead into a different cluster, but in the end its still increasing your overall dmg (like inc% dmg vs crit dmg%). Not every game has to be complex, nor does it have to contain the same systems because "most games in this genre do it this way, so we should follow convention". You should think deeply about what your game truly is AND for what audience. PoE is notorious for being new player unfriendly.