Separates trees, I like the idea. Win by science would be acheiving 2 or 3 trees ?

About costs, I'm not sure that the super expensive techs today have to do or not with the alpha version balancing of the game.

There's 3 eras, in my turn 210 Sophon game, I still have a lot to unlock.

So I guess those costs comes with the idea of being lengthy enough (because if that goal were there, I can't imagine winning by Science today under turn... say 300 ?).

I disagree about spliting techs in two techs. I sort of like it this way.

Nice productive post, I really wonder where this game is going Tech-wise.
Here are some pitfalls I noticed when reading your post. Some are obviously a matter of taste, so I understand if you'd disagree.

1. Split Eras by Field. Continue to use the era system.  HOWEVER ... each "tech field" (i.e. the quadrants within each era for discovery, military, economic, social tech) progresses through the eras independently.   The next era of a field would be unlocked by researching a certain number of the tech's within that field only.  A further restriction might be considered that you need at least two fields in a given era to be unlocked before you can unlock the next era in one of those fields.  So you can't go to era 5 military without building up at least one other field along the way.

In your first point you are not hesitant on starting to think about how to implement constrictions, I don't think you need that.

What is the point of your tier 5 military ''planet imploder'' if you don't have a factory that can produce it?

My point being; if you overspecialize, the game will probably tend to constrict itself, so don't worry about it ;)

Constriction in research paths is part of why I like tech-tree/web systems better. The less rules, the better.

The only constraint there is logical order, for example; you can't make a laser, without understanding optics.

Other artificial constraints, usually ruin my immersion :)

5. Era Bonus Techs.  Certain critical or required technologies could be given to the player as a free bonus for unlocking the next era of a particular field.  For example, progressing into Era 2 on social would automatically unlock additional diplomatic options.  Era 2 economic would automatically unlock the trade system techs.  Military or Exploration could automatically unlock a certain hull type.  Other technologies could replace these that would provide more passive bonuses to their respective fields.  E.g. an optional tech that would further boost your diplomatic effectiveness.

Presents when you go ''Era-up'', sounds a bit too random for my taste. 

But I think this is going to be another EL thing that will sneak its way into the game anyway..

To me it all sounds an awful lot like a tech-tree/web, so why go through all the trouble, just connect the dots ^^

So basically, you took the spirit of that thread.

Let me just tell WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT :)

A mini devblog (maybe with just what you posted ?) would be very very welcomed I think because I think was the main discussed one since friday :)

On the target shape, it seems to be not 3 circle like that but 5 for the 5 Eras.

Nevertheless, with only 3 circles, did you considered :

- in the inner circle a button with "go to lower era"

- in the outer circle a button with "go to higher era"

When you press those buttons, it changes what is displayed in the middle circle.

In the middle circle all of an Era inventions & discoveries (with a display of which era it is, like "Era I, II or III...").

So you could have a lot more screen space to describe invention & discoveries in the middle circle, and outer and inner "navigation circles" could be smaller ? (inner circle could also be filled with an Era gauge ? and outer circle be filled by next invention costs ?).

I don't know if I'm very clear, but I think this would remove the need of zooming in that screen.

I'm sooooo happy and enthousiastic. I would love to try that :)

I was proposing a formula to calculate invention cost in the "Era by field", with 6 invention per field and 4 discoveries / 6 to pass a field Era.

2 ^ (Era - 1) * 100 * (1 + number of discoveries) * 1.61.

Gave all the numbers, this was scaling so perfectly (first invention in the field cost 161, and the Era 5 4th/6 costed 41216).

You could focus on war / economics / politics / science earlier with this and could come back quicker (but not really better) in case of emergency.

mezmorki wrote:

@ Trentius

I personally despise incremental tech in games.  One of my big gripes with ES1 tech progression was that it felt very incremental.  Constantly going back and upgrading ship designs with the latest and greatest gear.  So I'm much happier seeing the shift in EL and ES2 particularly towards technology reflecting more significant advancements.  I do they went a little to far in locking core gameplay mechanics behind tech - so a pulling back a little from that would be preferred IMHO.

Another way of handling the progression is something like this:  All technologies have a fixed base that increases at each era.  However, the costs of a given technology are reduced for each earlier era technology you have in the same field.  This means, for example, I could start researching era 3 weapons without researching any era 1 or era 2 weapons... but it will be pretty expensive.  If I've invested "incrementally" in military tech along the way in each era, then that era 3 weapon technology is going to be relatively cheaper.

The above could be a way to allow for both incremental progression AND making bigger leaps in different directions depending on what you need.  But there is a cost associated with making big jumps.  

It could also have something where a certain era tech receives a special buff/boost for researching earlier versions of a similar tech.  So, maybe I can skip to era 3 weapons and pay a higher cost, but if I go era 1 to era 2 to era 3, not only will the era 3 cost more, but maybe my era 3 weapons get a slight damage boost since I researched era 1 and 2 along the way.

EDIT ...

Also - the game design is not designed around being an "endless game" ... all indications point towards the design making for shorter and more focused game's.

Regarding the 'discount' for researching in previous Eras, I believe this to be a great idea. However, the discount needs to be very significant, 50% or higher of the earlier tech's cost. I like to think of it the other way around, even if it's just a cosmetic change : the cost for the latest technology of a given type increases for every precursor tech not researched. But in the end, it would basically amount to the same thing as tech tree. You have to pay extra science for that research, be it in the form of a cost penalty or in precursor techs. 

So really, there's this dichotomy between rewarding specialists for their dedication and not making catching-up either too punishing or too complex. When it comes to systems improvements, for example, there is no problem achieving both objectives because early improvements are still useful later on, but later ones are more powerful. Giving a flat +5 and a +5% are two very different bonuses, both of which have a purpose. A player that specializes will want both, a player catching up can get 80% of the way with just the later one, but the specialist still has a little extra edge. Here, the other player will probably be fine with that 80% of maximum bonuses because he has other things going for him that the specialist doesn't. On the specialist side, he can still win if he can make the struggle revolve around his specialty, as it should be. Overall, any conflict between two such players will boil down to who makes the most of his available options with strategic thinking, not who wasted more E1 techs on things he could've got later.

But with systems like Expedition power, Planetary specialization or early weapon techs, there isn't any benefit for committing to that playstyle and sticking by it. In fact, the current tech tree design punishes you for it because you'll most likely lack another essential technology. I know it's frustrating, not being able to do a certain action because you didn't pick that thing 50 turns ago, but we need to find solutions for these issues that will not penalize its specialists. Otherwise, just give every core mechanic to everyone. If not, strategies will simply evolve around getting techs when its most optimal and really needing an earlier one will be a sign indicating you're losing.

For example, we could create a new support module that allows a fleet to deploy in a system, losing any movement points for the following turn but increasing its Expedition power. The bonus increases if the fleet stays in the system for many turns, but with diminishing returns (1 turn for +1, 3 turns for +2, etc...). With this, anyone can explore any curiosity, but doing so will require immobilizing an exploration fleet for a long time, while specialists will be able to do more with fewer ships or less time.

I get that many players don't like having to read through half the tech tree when learning the game, but diversity is good. Diversity both of means and of strategies. One must not come at the cost of another. A good game progression should allow one to land back on its feet even after a few mistakes so you can learn, but should also make reasonning and planning essential to success against harder opponents, and that last part will often come through specializing.

There has been a lot of discussion surrounding the tech progression.  There does not appear to be a lot of consistent agreement on the exact problem with it or on preferred mechanics.  Some want a return to ES1 style tree, some are fine with EL-style eras.  Some want something different.  There are some key points of criticism though that get repeated often:

Primary Concerns

1. Feeling that too many technologies are "required" and so regardless of race or other factors you end up feeling like you are forced down the same technology path every game.
2. Related to the above, feeling that too many fundamental gameplay mechanics (basic diplomacy options, developments, trade system, etc.) are coupled to technologies and are defacto requirements.  This exacerbates point #1 above.
3. General disdain for the escalating technology costs because it is a hard sell thematically and feels like a forced / game-y gameplay mechanic.  Coupled with #1 and #2 it further makes technology progression feel like a linear path you have to follow with little room to deviate in interesting or creative ways or backtrack to earlier techs later when you need them.

Proposed Resolution / Idea

The following idea reflects an interest in addressing the concerns above head-on while blending the mechanics of the era system with the feeling and decision space of ES1's technology web.  Here is the suggestion:

1. Split Eras by Field. Continue to use the era system.  HOWEVER ... each "tech field" (i.e. the quadrants within each era for discovery, military, economic, social tech) progresses through the eras independently.   The next era of a field would be unlocked by researching a certain number of the tech's within that field only.  A further restriction might be considered that you need at least two fields in a given era to be unlocked before you can unlock the next era in one of those fields.  So you can't go to era 5 military without building up at least one other field along the way.
2. Split Tech's into More Techs.  Most tech's currently provide TWO benefits.  In order to provide a greater diversity of technologies, split all/most techs apart into two separate technologies.  Each field in each era would therefore have 8-10 technologies (instead of 4 or 5) within it.  Advancing to the next era would require say 50% of the tech's to be researched in that field.
3. Escalating Tech Costs - Part 1.  Research cost escalation is constrained within each field, rather than rise across the entire technology tree.  So you could make, for example, a beeline down the military tree, but still be able to go back later and pick up early era social techs (for example) at a relatively low cost. 
4. Escalating Tech Costs - Part 2. The degree of technology cost escalation can also be coupled to the size of your empire.  Larger, less nimble empires would see their tech costs rise more quickly within a field as part of #3 above, while smaller empires would see less severe increases.  This would help create a nice organic balance between growing tall vs. wide - and also help out start positions where players don't have as many colonizable worlds.
5. Era Bonus Techs.  Certain critical or required technologies could be given to the player as a free bonus for unlocking the next era of a particular field.  For example, progressing into Era 2 on social would automatically unlock additional diplomatic options.  Era 2 economic would automatically unlock the trade system techs.  Military or Exploration could automatically unlock a certain hull type.  Other technologies could replace these that would provide more passive bonuses to their respective fields.  E.g. an optional tech that would further boost your diplomatic effectiveness.

I honestly think that if this was implemented it would be the best of both worlds.  Tech progression would feel much more like it did in ES1 - as there would be many more techs overall and each field could be progressed through more independently as it was in ES1.  However, it also takes advantages of the flexibility inherent in the era-based system of not having to follow a literal tree/path to get what you want.  And coupled with field bonuses for unlocking a new era, it would make progressing from era to era more engaging and rewarding.  

Lastly - I feel like this system could work pretty well without having to scrap the entire tech system and start over.  The same basic era and tech structures would remain in place, just with each field being independent of each other.

Thoughts?