Tigregalis wrote:
The only issue, then, becomes, that the growth term becomes insignificant relative to the era term in the final era.

I'm not sure why that's an issue. I don't see the need to make scientific victory significantly more expensive just because you picked up a couple more techs than strictly necessary before going for it. In fact, if you wanted to remove the cost scaling entirely for the era 6 techs and just give them a really big fixed cost, I doubt that would cause any noticeable balance issues.



And yes, if you were actually going to do this, you'd mess with a bunch of other constants and coefficients in the formula to get the overall costs into a range you're comfortable with; I was just trying to illustrate the principle.

That's an elegant solution. Easily modded too if anyone wants to test it.



Just finding the right values for EraFlatCosts will be difficult.



Since EraFlatCost is a constant, you could simplify the formula a bit too:

TechCost = ( ( ( UnlockedTechCount + 1 )^2 - UnlockedTechCount ) * 2 + EraFlatCost) * SpeedMulti

the +5*2 would be included in EraFlatCost

It is now basically of the form 2(x+1)^2 - 2x + c = 2x^2 + 2x + C

Putting it in that form would make it easier to actually see and balance the flat cost, or base cost:

TechCost = ( ( UnlockedTechCount^2 + UnlockedTechCount ) * 2 + EraFlatCost) * SpeedMulti

At 0 techs, an era 1 tech will cost EraFlatCost1 + 0

At 9 techs, an era 2 tech will cost EraFlatCost2 + 180, and an era 1 tech will cost EraFlatCost1 + 180

At 18 techs, an era 3 tech will cost EraFlatCost3 + 684, and an era 2 tech will cost EraFlatCost2 + 684, and an era 1 tech will cost EraFlatCost1 + 684

And so on.

In effect, the tech cost is a sum of two terms, the era term (a flat cost) and the growth term (increasing cost with Unlocked Techs).

The only issue, then, becomes, that the growth term becomes insignificant relative to the era term in the final era.

I see. Using the modified formula would definitely be better.

I'm not sure I've communicated my objection clearly.



I've got no problem with every tech you research increasing the cost of every other tech. I don't see anything wrong with saying that my twenty-second technology is going to be more expensive than my twenty-first, no matter which eras they come from. For example, if I research Seed Store as my first tech, then researching Mill Foundry afterward is going to be more expensive, and vice versa, if I research Mill Foundry first, that's going to make Seed Store more expensive.



But the total cost to get both Seed Store and Mill Foundry is going to be the same no matter which order I research them in. The order I research them in changes when their benefits will be unlocked, but once I get both, someone else who got the same two techs but in the opposite order is going to be in the same position as me--we'll both have paid the same total number of science points to unlock the same benefits. (This is all true under the current system.)



What bothers me is that if you do the same experiment with two techs from different eras--say, Seed Store and Imperial Roads--then two players who research the same two techs but in a different order are going to be charged different combined amounts of science points to get both together. I think that's seriously weird, and I don't see any gameplay advantage to it.



If you wanted to make it so that the combined costs were the same regardless of the order, you'd change the cost formula from:

TechCost = ( ( ( UnlockedTechCount + 1 )^2 - UnlockedTechCount ) + 5 )*2 * EraMulti * SpeedMulti

to something like:

TechCost = ( ( ( ( UnlockedTechCount + 1 )^2 - UnlockedTechCount ) + 5 )*2 + EraFlatCost) * SpeedMulti



In other words, techs from later eras start out more expensive, but the extra expense based on the number of techs you've already searched wouldn't depend on the era, only the number of techs. So when you first unlock era 2, maybe an era 1 tech costs 1000 science and an era 2 tech costs 1500 science; then, after you've researched another dozen techs, an era 1 tech now costs 5000 science and an era 2 tech now costs 5500 science, but the difference between them is still 500.



That's how I assumed the math would work before reading this thread.

Antistone wrote:
Could you elaborate? It seems natural to me that if you're getting the same benefits, you should pay the same costs, unless there's a specific reason to the contrary.

Because it is inherent to a free form technology tree.



Civ can do flat values because there is a intricate set of dependencies that stops you from jumping around, and not just tech dependencies, cost increase by number of cities and other factors. In EL there is almost total freedom in research, except the era mechanic which is fairly permissive. For this reason each tech you research increases the cost. For the same techs to cost the same no matter the order you research them in, we'd have to go back to a flat cost per research, and it would not work in this game without further modifications.



Second minor reason, is that it adds depth. When the costs increase, you have to think and decide what you want NOW knowing that each tech you don't get will be more expensive later. This adds depth to the game and force strategic decisions and tradeoffs.



I will add also that "more expensive" is a relative term. Seeing as your research amount increases all the time, even if the cost of the following research is bigger, you will probably get it in the same amount of turns. Not increasing the cost would actually make techs increasingly cheaper if you measure their cost in time instead of beakers.

Let's look at an alternative where a constant gets added on each time.



In other words, change the formula to:

TechCost = (12 + UnlockedTechCount*12) * EraMulti * SpeedMulti



Normal speed,

At 36 unlocked techs, era 5 costs:

TechCost = (12 + 36*12)*2.5 = 1110

At 37 unlocked techs, era 1 costs:

TechCost = (12 + 37*12)*1.16 = 528.96

Total cost = 1638.96



At 36 unlocked techs, era 1 costs:

TechCost = (12 + 36*12)*1.16 = 515.04

At 37 unlocked techs, era 5 costs:

TechCost = (12 + 37*12)*2.5 = 1140

Total cost = 1655.04



Still different.



It makes more sense to me to give each era a different counter.

UnlockedEra1

through

UnlockedEra6



If we keep the same formula:

TechCost = ( ( ( UnlockedEraX + 1 )^2 - UnlockedEraX ) + 5 )*2 * EraMultiX * SpeedMulti

The costs will be like so:



Far too cheap - you have to adjust science production significantly, or adjust the era multipliers, but even then...

Currently, researching an era 6 tech early (at 45 unlocked) costs 93k, and very late (at 71 unlocked) costs 230k, that's a factor of roughly 2.5. That seems fairly acceptable.

Compare this with the situation where

The era 6 tech, to begin with, starts too cheap (270), but that's not the main issue, the fifth era 6 tech (4 unlocked) costs 1170, that's a factor of 4.3. The change is huge.

Now, let's say we bump up the Era6Multi to 8000; that makes the first era 6 tech cost 96000 which is pretty good, but the fifth era 6 tech costs 416000. That's seriously expensive!



The other issue is that with this formula, by necessity, each first era N+1 tech must be much cheaper than each tenth era N tech, otherwise the costs of later eras spiral out of control:





Perhaps the best (and simplest) approach is taking the linear one and using separate counters for each era. Something like:

TechCost = (12 + UnlockedEraX*6) * EraMultiX * SpeedMulti



That would give us some nice predictable lines and some decent numbers (though era 2 arrives too quickly), while keeping the freeform tech web with increasing cost concept, but also ensure that the same combination of technologies built in a different order costs the same:





I would test it, but I don't know how it does the unlocked tech count, so I wouldn't know how to mod in unlocked tech by era count.

DrakenKin wrote:
Are you sure? I think it's actually the other way around since tech 5 is more expensive thus doing a reasearch before applies the modifier to a larger value.

You are correct; I said that backwards.

DrakenKin wrote:
It makes sens to me for it to be this way.

Could you elaborate? It seems natural to me that if you're getting the same benefits, you should pay the same costs, unless there's a specific reason to the contrary.

Antistone wrote:
According to this, researching an era 1 tech followed by an era 5 teach is cheaper than researching an era 5 tech followed by an era 1 tech.

Are you sure? I think it's actually the other way around since tech 5 is more expensive thus doing a reasearch before applies the modifier to a larger value.

The exact same set of technologies cost a different amount of science depending on the order you research them.

It makes sens to me for it to be this way.

According to this, researching an era 1 tech followed by an era 5 teach is cheaper than researching an era 5 tech followed by an era 1 tech. The exact same set of technologies cost a different amount of science depending on the order you research them.



That's disappointing.

You're welcome.



Correct.

Thanks for posting this.



It seems number of cities doesn't affect science cost at all then?