Hot posts in thread: Random tech ladder or fixed tech tree?

I think this area may cause ulcers for Adam and his crew. Yeah, I get it, everyone wants something interesting and new that will enhance gameplay and increase replay value but at what point do you stop?
I still feel that by keeping the bulk of technologies available to all races and sprinkling in some unique discoverable research fields (random) as well as some specific racial techs (not random) the goal can be achieved without causing the wtf? factor to emerge.

 

Distant Worlds Universe does something similar. It divides research into three categories: Weapons, Energy & Construction, and High Tech & Industrial (these could, conceivably, be split into five research areas). Research points are split into the three distinct categories, and the amount of research points gained in each category is independent of the others.

If I wanted to increase my research potential in Weapons, I could build a weapons research station, and it would have no effect on the other research categories. If my big High Tech scientist was killed/captured, it would only hurt my progress in High Tech.

I realize that splitting research points like this adds complexity to the game, but I found that I really like how DWU works in this regard. It made sense to me that scientists working to develop social and economic advancements would not be in the same research pool as those developing plasma weaponry.

 

OK, sure, I do agree it makes you think dynamically. But, a game with NO armor, no possible upgraded engine, and only the very basic, bottom of the line weapons???? I've seen that 2 or 3 times in SotS. I do like having to think about the game, but not that much. If we've got to have random techs, I'd like to have a little more choice or a little better odds of getting some good stuff. That's just my personal preferences.

 

Actually, the SOTS example is something I disagree with entirely, because it allows you to end up not only without significant technologies, but also makes the system feel fabricated and breaks immersion.

One prime example was the ridiculous situation where you could end up with no PD. I mean.. come on: what is the first thing you do when somebody starts throwing rocks at you? You develop some kind of shield to defend yourself. I am okay with the tech option not being there until I face such a threat, but SOTS was not smart enough for that, it simply culled technologies at random based on a flat percentage score and while sometimes it gave you great results, it had the potential to have you end up with barely any techs, if you happened to be unlucky enough to roll low on the low tier techs, efficiently blocking off large chunks of the tech tree for you.

This is not challenge you can adapt to, its getting gimped from the start and worst thing is that you sink hours into the game by the time you realize that you are really, honestly and totally screwed by the RNG. It was so frustrating, that I usually edited the tech tree files by hand to make it so that only top tier and some flavor techs had a less than 100% chance of spawning.

I believe, that any great random tech tree is adhering to the 4Rs:
Random to keep you on your toes,
Rational to make you believe it,
Riveting to give you great stories,
Repeatable so you can experiment with different strategies

One example of such a system is the one I described in my post above.

 

Randomisation in the tech trees forces you to think dynamically, since your strategies need to be adaptive. For me, this is a good thing, as it increases both the challenge and variation of gameplay.

Now in multiplayer, a symmetrical and predictable game is probably better, since the challenge and variation comes from human opponents. In singleplayer, on the other hand, the game can easily become stale once you have figured out how to beat the AI.

 

I believe in random technology trees. As in: RANDOM, not randomly culled.

At the start of the game, I should get the choice to either use an already played tech tree or tell the game to generate a new one. If I choose the latter, the game should draw up a whole tech tree from scratch. It would need to adhere to certain rules of course, some cornerstone technologies are simply needed for each game to work as planned, but even the placement and parameters of those can vary.

Also in this tree, there should be counter branches, which are not open, until you research or encounter the technology triggering them. Why develop point defense, unless you know missiles or fighters present a danger?

Plus there should be secret branches triggered by the discovery of certain strategic resources or in-game events.

Biological warfare should be keyed to species type and again, to develop any sort of sensible and useful biological agent, you need to have knowledge of the enemy, otherwise you might as well develop the elixir of infinite youth for their species instead of a deadly bio-toxin. I would also dare say, that any sort of bio weapon research should involve experimentation either on captured test subjects, willing (but mislead) test subjects or unwilling test subjects, depending on the circumstances. This effectively means either military or clandestine actions against the species in question.

Suffice to say, that I would do the randomization for the each player (human or AI) separately, so they would end up with different technology trees, different progression and you would really get a sense of wonder what the enemy will field, not knowing how their research tree might have looked like at the start.

 

Nope, I have to (politely and with respect) disagree on that one. Many times I've started a SoTS game only to find I was missing very critical techs that I considered essential to playing. I hated that! Just my opinion.

 

Just posted this on the technology thread but it applies here as well, Feedback is very welcome.



Scalable research is a given, consider also allowing the option for a player to set game research speed.

Start by separating the technology into two, about 70% of the technology (base technology), goes into the tech tree.

Structure the tech tree similar to Moo2 (6-8 research fields). All races will have access to the entire tree.

Each race should then have one or two fields where they receive a research bonus (20%) and possibly an area where they receive a penalty, for each race the bonuses and penalties would be different.

A creative race would suffer no penalties and have a bonus research rate applied to all fields but at a reduced rate (say 10%)

The remainder of the technologies (Unique techs) should then be spread into artifacts discovered throughout the game as well as the random leaders appearing. In these cases it might be better if discovering these technologies does not mean that you instantly get them but rather that you are now allowed to research them.

Some lower level leaders appearing in the game may also contribute some “blueprints” to base technology as a bonus. (50%)

This approach would allow for a more diverse approach to research while staying true to the Moo franchise and as a bonus would be an instant enhancement to exploration as well. It would also add one more factor to consider when deciding on which leader to recruit.

I also believe that this would be more feasible from a coding standpoint as well.

 

Great ideas, this type of application would create gameplay across the board, even spying could be tied in by giving a high level spy the trained ability to kidnap scientists and or diplomats and thus opening up the way to bypass the penalties you put forth.

 

I think the tech part should be divided in two: Pure Science and Engineering(or Tech). Pure Science allows the discovery of new technology, like for instance:

• Energy generation/dissipation/containment
• Social sciences
• Terraforming of hostile environment
• Psychic powers
• Anything that leads to new abilities in the game

Engineering provides the optimization or practical uses of those scientific discoveries such as:

• A weapon that neutralizes shields or computers
• Shielding to protect from armor piercing weapons
• Virtual reality dome to improve morale
• Miniaturization
• Weapons specialization (MIRV, shield piercing, faster whatever, etc...)
• Cost reduction and production optimization
• etc...

To make it even more interesting, certain type of science should be available only to certain races and certain type of tech only works with certain type of strategic resources. When it come to stealing tech, if you steal a tech from an alien race without having the base science behind, you could use it, but at a much higher production cost if not at all.

For example, you have plain lasers as weapon. Your neighbor has Photonic cannons which required the Optical Physics discipline to develop. You could steal the blueprint for that and reproduce it on your ship, but they would cost a lot to produce and you could never specialize them or make them smaller, since you don't get the science behind.

That could open up interesting diplomatic and strategic options, you could steal tech, but not the science behind. In order to get the science behind, you would need to have some sort of diplomatic agreement or capture the scientific center or minds or planets behind this.

You could even make some sciences impossible to comprehend or implement among different species. For instance, if you develop some sort of super-soldier serum, it would be possible to adapt to other biological races, but impossible to give to mineral based lifeforms or robotic ones.

 

+1

 

I think the word "Options" is key here, so many think you have to have it one way or the other only.
I would like to SEE options of not just two extreme choices, but some degree of choice between
the two. I personally like a Tech Tree that allows you to not only progress in a linear fashion,
but also with a High an Low selection from any other Tech that may have a Relationship to the
same Science. Think Hyper Drive and Mass Driver as an example.

 

As I expected, everyone like something different, and the tech tree is a good example of the many choices SS will probably have to make.

But I wonder and this is where I think the true future of 4x gaming lies, its really the only thing left to try.

Barring the practice of ...least work for most money, why aren't areas such as tech trees coded into the game so that payers could choose the option or type of tech tree applicatiion they wanted for that game play and then choose another for the next?

 

If it is supported by other mechanics then yes. MoO 1 had RP interest system which encouraged spreading points over multiple fields and that "post light bulb" period where you had a chance to get the technology so you could let dice rolls work in one field and raw RPs in another.

 

Great discussion.

What about being able to pursue multiple areas at once (MoO1) vs a single area at a time (MoO2) ?

Again, my preference is the (superior, IMO) MoO1 system. Being able to tweak %contributions across k fields with bonuses for a slow and steady approach but also able to deep-dive to grab a quick tech is/was a remarkable system.

 

I like the tech tree in Moo2 with two exceptions. The game was always less interesting to me with the creative option. There should be some bonus for this trait but not "you get all techs"
The second drawback I found was in how the progression of technology integrated with the game. It seemed at times that research was too fast and that by the time you actually fielded the new technology it was already obsolete.

 

for me it worked perfectly.. and imho its vastly superior to Moo system. simply the fact that depending who you encounter at beginning makes you invest in different things its a win..

 

SE 5 tech tree was boring because most techs had 100 levels which linearly increased effectiveness. Early levels where you really feel that +10% are fine but as you keep leveling items up that 10% on top of accumulated +400% makes only 2% relative difference. You stop caring about individual levels and keep going until you get 10+ levels or when you get to the final level.

 

keep in mind that its not only the way that research goes but usefulness of the technologies. thats why i liked space empires tech tree.. yeah for some is boring coz gaining a level in particular tech is getting a little bit better but still it gave you the moment of choosing in a sea of techs depending of situation so there was a lot of adaptation

 

I guess everyone is different, as I loved this about MOO2. Being forced to make difficult decisions which have a long term impact is one of the keys to deep and challenging gameplay. Do I have better armour or longer range on my ships? How can I compensate for the choice I don't pick? This led to interesting gameplay, in my opinion.

They raised the cost of creative in the patch. No one picks it in multiplayer. It is not as powerful as you think. It's good against the AI, but a poor pick against human opponents.