XDAvenger93 wrote:

tulip wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. It would be more adaptive to have more dependencies? It's more scripted to have more free form options? These statements seem internally contradictory.

they are not if you accept the fact that sometimes a player may simply not want to have to take ... let's say 1-2 diplomacy/growth techs in era 1 in order to finaly be given the keys to era 2. And in era 2 spend even more turns grabing some more tech in the diploacy/growth tree in order to get to era 3 and finaly be able to research the tech he wanted, turns and turns later than a path dependacy system would allow (because in that system, despite what you perceive as "scripted restrictions to research" in the form of dependacies, you actualy more freedom of choice to focus and specialize, because there is no way in hell you would be forced to spend precious turns researching arbitrary useless tech in order to finaly get the one you want. You could rush it). The free form nature of the Era system is a lie, it's only free form for the short term but it takes away long term planning and the ability to properly define and focus your empire in one or two aspects if you so choose. Instead of the game forcing you to research tech you do not want or need because otherwise you are not allowed to get acces to the next tier of techs.

I was wondering a bit about this. You wrote something similar in your other thread about the game playing it self. I do agree that the era system with its get x techs in era to unlock next era mechanic, might and often does, force you to pick tech you don't want. And the even greater issue in terms of flexibility is the exponential cost that makes it harder to go back and make meaningful corrections in previous eras. 

But I do question one thing. In a tech tree, you will encounter the issue of being forced to pick things you do not want too. Namely tech you actually don't want but need to pick because its on a node that leads to a tech you want. It is of coarse easier to make it look, as if it is logical for you to have to pick this unwanted tech lore wise in a tech tree. The elsewhere named example of having to pick optics before you can pick lasers for instance. In this case optics could be a technology you actually do not want but have to take because you want lasers.

The benefit of tiers is that within each tier you have 4-5 options per tech category (16-20 total). This is in contrast to the 2-3 options you'd have with a tree (8-12 total). The downside is that instead of opening up at least one new option with every tech you research, you're stuck with all of those exact same options until the next tech tier. In that sense your options become more and more limited until suddenly opening up again, as opposed to staying constant at 2-3 per category. Tech tiers also prevent you from just beelining towards some mid/late game tech, by forcing you to diversify, even if you may not want to. That is strictly a loss of flexibility.

The tech tier system is also associated with increasing costs with each tech researched. While that's definitely an elegant way to handle the fact that the order is less determined, it also heavily punishes researching 11/10 or 12/10 from a tech tier, in a way that it's not clear should be punished. Especially in a game like ES where 4/10 of those techs will just be "colonize another kind of planet".

tulip wrote:

Romeo wrote:

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but legitimately curious: What about the new system feels more adaptive to you?

For me personally, it feels the exact opposite. With the old tech tree, if I wanted to do something specific, say, rush to Barren Colonization, I could do that while making sacrifices elsewhere. With the new system though, it doesn't matter what I want, I'm still going to have to go through Era I techs first, then Era II, then finally pick it in Era III. The adaptation and decision-making feels a lot more coerced to me.

For what it's worth, dependencies would solve some of my issues with the current tech system (Such as certain techs being a complete and total waste to pick, and a lack of focus) but would still leave some of my other issues unresolved (Impossible to chase specific goals, coercion to take unwanted techs).

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. It would be more adaptive to have more dependencies? It's more scripted to have more free form options? These statements seem internally contradictory.

they are not if you accept the fact that sometimes a player may simply not want to have to take ... let's say 1-2 diplomacy/growth techs in era 1 in order to finaly be given the keys to era 2. And in era 2 spend even more turns grabing some more tech in the diploacy/growth tree in order to get to era 3 and finaly be able to research the tech he wanted, turns and turns later than a path dependacy system would allow (because in that system, despite what you perceive as "scripted restrictions to research" in the form of dependacies, you actualy more freedom of choice to focus and specialize, because there is no way in hell you would be forced to spend precious turns researching arbitrary useless tech in order to finaly get the one you want. You could rush it). The free form nature of the Era system is a lie, it's only free form for the short term but it takes away long term planning and the ability to properly define and focus your empire in one or two aspects if you so choose. Instead of the game forcing you to research tech you do not want or need because otherwise you are not allowed to get acces to the next tier of techs.

To go a bit furthe on the system: an elegant solution would be to make each branch a sepparate advancement. So getting through all the science/exploration techs in era 1 lets me get the era 2 ones for example, while still beeing locked to era 1 for the rest of the branches. Of course, at that point why bother having the era system but oh well ...

It was a neat ideea for the narative of endless legend, but it was and is the reason I don't own the game. Played over the family share account of a friend once and I could not really stomach it's restrictive nature, though ironicaly EL is actualy less restrictive than ES simply due to how many techs are in each branch. It still permits some specialzation, but even then you will have to get techs you do not want to waste time on to get to the next era. But again, it made sense for an era system due to how the game narative was structure towards the last few days of a dying planet, and end to the final eras of struggle. It enforced that looming time limit. However, there is no narative reason this time to justify an era system. What is ending, the universe? I thought the story was about upstart new civilizations competing for dominance in the ruins of the left-over space of the endless empire.

The next aspect of the era system I detest is the exponential growth of tech costs in eras I have allready completed. Why? Why am I beeing punished for mastering an era of tech with even harder research? Should it not be actualy easier at that point to get the techs specific to an era of scientific development I have alrleady mastered, instead of it beeing easier to research totaly new unproven concepts during my new era? It makes no logical sense and it simply feels like an arbitrary punishment for daring to choose against what the game has decreed should be the way I play. Maybe down the line I discover one of the older era techs is something I have ended up needing in my curent scenario, well tough luck for me, that tech will probably cost me just as much or more than a new tech does. For no reason. A system where researching more advanced era reduces the dificulty of older era research would be a much better system.

Oh and one final thing I wanted to add that compounds the mounting research costs problem: the fact that each era has strictly vital "research this now techs". The colonization techs for one. The goverment ones as well. The diplomatic techs unless you decided from word 1 to be a pure militarist allways at war (and even then those will be needed). The system improvement techs. In era 2 that means 4 (colony)+2 (goverment)+ 1(system leveling) techs that you absolutely MUST get. Add to that faction ships techs and let's say you only pick one of them, and you are left in a scenrio where your "chocies" are between 2 more techs before you have to jump to the next era in order to not be punished by the arbitrary exponential growth of tech costs for eras you mastered. Except wrong again, you only have 1 tech you can actualy choose. Because it would be suicidal not to get increased fleet sizes in order to have a ghost of a chance at staying relevant should you be forced into a war and not just get curbstomped. That is so much flexibility right there. Ironicaly, the cravers, the less tech adept race in the game right now has the most flexibility in terms of tech simply because they can safely ignore all diplomatic and goverment techs.

XDAvenger93 wrote:

tulip wrote:

Romeo wrote:

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but legitimately curious: What about the new system feels more adaptive to you?

For me personally, it feels the exact opposite. With the old tech tree, if I wanted to do something specific, say, rush to Barren Colonization, I could do that while making sacrifices elsewhere. With the new system though, it doesn't matter what I want, I'm still going to have to go through Era I techs first, then Era II, then finally pick it in Era III. The adaptation and decision-making feels a lot more coerced to me.

For what it's worth, dependencies would solve some of my issues with the current tech system (Such as certain techs being a complete and total waste to pick, and a lack of focus) but would still leave some of my other issues unresolved (Impossible to chase specific goals, coercion to take unwanted techs).

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. It would be more adaptive to have more dependencies? It's more scripted to have more free form options? These statements seem internally contradictory.

they are not if you accept the fact that sometimes a player may simply not want to have to take ... let's say 1-2 diplomacy/growth techs in era 1 in order to finaly be given the keys to era 2. And in era 2 spend even more turns grabing some more tech in the diploacy/growth tree in order to get to era 3 and finaly be able to research the tech he wanted, turns and turns later than a path dependacy system would allow (because in that system, despite what you perceive as "scripted restrictions to research" in the form of dependacies, you actualy more freedom of choice to focus and specialize, because there is no way in hell you would be forced to spend precious turns researching arbitrary useless tech in order to finaly get the one you want. You could rush it). The free form nature of the Era system is a lie, it's only free form for the short term but it takes away long term planning and the ability to properly define and focus your empire in one or two aspects if you so choose. Instead of the game forcing you to research tech you do not want or need because otherwise you are not allowed to get acces to the next tier of techs.

I'd have to agree with XDAvenger93 here and I especially like this statement in the first paragraph: "The free form nature of the Era system is a lie,..." 

This is a point where logic will sometimes point in the wrong direction and forget about how we interpret things as humans.

Although it sounds contradictory, it are known phenomena in psychology, information overload and analysis paralysis.

Sadly I'm not a qualified psychologist but it is something I remember from following a consumer science course. 

The point is that more choices do not necessarily make you more happy as a consumer, it could lead to anxiety and 'choice stress' instead.

I don't have enough time to find a proper reference now, but here is something taken from a Wikipedia page: 

The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less is a 2004 book by American psychologist Barry Schwartz. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers.

Nice in-depth analysis and discussion about the prime subject 'Research systematics'. I am very pleased with all the reactions so far. Thank you all - 

NB: apart from the objective discussion (to better the game) your reactions makes me rethink my personal 'selective perception' (though I still tend to prefer one of the poll options).

NB: Analysis paralysis, Choice stress, Information overload: great stuff

Jihem wrote:

That is precisely why I was aiming toward earlier access to superior eras. 10 techs is a bit too much right now and I agree that you often takes a few unwanted techs. Lowering the unlock of next era and having adaptative costs in each subsequent era depending on techs already researched would mean (in my opinion anyway) much more impact of your choices, and could give a clear path into rushing specific techs of advanced eras. 

I totaly get the "free nature of Era system is a lie" point but I couldn't stand either that, after 50 turns invested in research, you could find yourself totaly screwed because of an invasion/event/name your headache and without adaptative possibilities. The Era system solves some of that, but fails to entice you in a specific logic. The option i proposed a few posts above is just one of the many paths amplitude could take to rework the current system in one who borrows the good of tree and era systems and leaves the bad behind.

On the other side, I like it that you could be punished for 'greedy' builds. 

As in, when you go pure science or pure economics (pacifist) and forget about keeping your military up to date. 

If you get invaded I think you deserve it, for being greedy.

Right now everybody is taking pretty much the same techs, so you can assume that that so called pacifist neighbor still has relevant military tech.. :(

And his economy doesn't necessarily have to be better than yours, except if it is the Lumeris..

That would mean that the races are the only reason to pick a different play-style. Which would be very predictable in multi-player.