Shivetya wrote:
I like it better than Endless Space's method, which is basically "all games are the same"

Continuity is far better then some factions lacking the ability to make any kind of plan.



Besides it depends on how you play.

Shivetya wrote:
Either you were a bad player or you... oh hell if missing a tech or two crippled your MOO2 games you were bad. Sorry but calling a spade a spade has to be done.



Balance? Balance is boring. Is ES balanced at higher difficulties? Far from it, the AI has so much bonuses to its production and such it almost cannot lose.

Um... the AI is fairly easy to beat on Endless difficulty. I just started playing again on monday, and have already 2 games (both medium sized with 3 enemy AIs) where I've seized the dominant position, and stopped.

Of course, both were with custom factions, 1 Hissho with a 80% FIDS boost from bushido, and 1 as Amoeba econ/tech strategy, so that when I attacked my ships were far superior to anything they could field.





With regards to research. I find myself making minor variations depending on what planets I have. For example, if my starting system has an arid planet with it, I might research arid technology really early on.



That said, I do agree it is mostly beelining towards certain techs, and that it doesn't change much in that sense.

We're going to try tackling this over at Endless Dream. I think, ultimately, each given tech tree will always have an "optimal" progression. The trick is to keep players from realizing it for a while ^^.



I've never played MOO2, but it sounds like the technology system FORCES players to make choices. I'd rather have several branching technology 'routes', and allow players to either pick one or spread their research around like naive cannon fodder.



For example, as United Earth you can pick the tactical/invasion tree and go blitzkrieg Space France during the early game, or invest in Boson Exchange technology and start clobbering everyone with Gauss guns in the mid-game, or invest in both trees and clean up late game after somehow surviving to that point.

As for those who claim their games are varied. I bet money that if you took a dozen games and logged all research and its order the deviation would be slim. Most play where I see disruption in research is to counter a new threat. I am pretty sure I could force my self down a path of research I haven't tried before but what would be the point unless someone pointed out that is just is pants on fire better? There is even only a mild difference between playing an aggressive race compared to a peaceful race in this game because there are specific techs you must research too because you need their effect and they are always at the same spot in the tree.



As pointed out by someone else, Civilization managed to avoid the boring aspects and monotony of the tech tree by giving you reasons to pursue certain technologies NOW. As in, you could build items that once built no one else could. While it did not truly prevent the lack of variance a tech tree always had it at least provided an outlet.

Igncom1 wrote:
The overall progress of the game is vital, colonization techs, new improvements, new upgrades and such make it so you can effectively play out your empire.







The technology in Moo2 is far superior to any possible buff, the lack of immediate access to many technology's prevent many of the non-creative and normal races for ever winning, one wrong turn and ist game over. I would hardly call that balanced.

Either you were a bad player or you... oh hell if missing a tech or two crippled your MOO2 games you were bad. Sorry but calling a spade a spade has to be done.



Balance? Balance is boring. Is ES balanced at higher difficulties? Far from it, the AI has so much bonuses to its production and such it almost cannot lose.

Yeah what endless space tech/construction is missing over civ (4 at least ) is that the ability to specialize is neutered somewhat, past the race and trait choices.



You have the trade/non-trade question (although in my mind trade is so powerful early mid with blockade breakers that it's a non choice).

Trade really is insane, even with the increased cost blockade breakers is awesome because it gives you research you just CANNOT get any other way. It's not like you can specialise your system to cripple it for trade but produce a % of the science you would have gotten, in exchange for some production. You just cannot get the research any other way.



With techs it becomes a list of whats awesome and then you just address any weapon or happiness techs you need. Tech is just a beeline to these awesome techs (not a full list) and the rest is pocket change:



Applied Casimir Effect

Nonbaryonic particles

Relativistic economics

Graviton manipulation

Low temp hydration



And then some of these:

Adaptive colonies

Containment fields

Personal shielding

Optimized logistics



I think an element of specialization in the tech tree would be awesome, i.e. make it worth sticking to a certain path.

I mean soil revification and the happiness stuff is nice, but it's really only worth looking at once you have made your awesome systems super awesome, unless you are in a crappy position anyways.

I think one of the reasons people think tech is bland is that there aren't really any trans formative techs in the same way that Civ has then.



Civ techs let you take on new government types, gain units with entirely new abilities, move faster, add new terraforming options, and even blow things up with nukes!



Right now there aren't that many trans formative techs in ES. Basically you have the travel techs for wormholes and warp drive, but then almost everything else just provides bonuses. Your ships don't really gain brand new abilities, they just get stronger bonuses.

Apheirox wrote:
Not really true. If Amplitude really desired to reinvent the tech tree and adopt a system more like either SOTS's or MOO's it could certainly be done. I would say there are in fact very few technologies that can be considered vital - like wormhole travel. What else is crucial? The approval techs, perhaps. Maybe the ridiculous Magnetic Field Generator. And the diplomacy techs, I suppose.

The overall progress of the game is vital, colonization techs, new improvements, new upgrades and such make it so you can effectively play out your empire.

Also: Not sure what 'bull crap' happens to you in MOO2, I will maintain it's research system is far more interesting than ES's. Why do you dislike it? Playing as a non-creative race and missing out on some (or many) techs is part of the balance and you can always get the techs later through diplomacy, conquest or espionage.

The technology in Moo2 is far superior to any possible buff, the lack of immediate access to many technology's prevent many of the non-creative and normal races for ever winning, one wrong turn and ist game over. I would hardly call that balanced.

Igncom1 wrote:
few technology's that are not vital

Not really true. If Amplitude really desired to reinvent the tech tree and adopt a system more like either SOTS's or MOO's it could certainly be done. I would say there are in fact very few technologies that can be considered vital - like wormhole travel. What else is crucial? The approval techs, perhaps. Maybe the ridiculous Magnetic Field Generator. And the diplomacy techs, I suppose.



Also: Not sure what 'bull crap' happens to you in MOO2, I will maintain it's research system is far more interesting than ES's. Why do you dislike it? Playing as a non-creative race and missing out on some (or many) techs is part of the balance and you can always get the techs later through diplomacy, conquest or espionage.

It it involves going out there and finding them, then races with a speed bonus will have a massive advantage, which is crazy.



And the point is that there are few technology's that are not vital, so having a part of the tech tree would just diminish apart of the game for them, leading to the same bull crap that happened in Moo2.

Leave only basic vital techs in available research trees. Remove other techs from trees and place them somewhere in the game's world (on planets, moons, ship debris, wormholes, heroes, space eels etc.) so the lucky players can find them and use them. For some such techs make that only the first player who found them can use them. Others - for anyone who can find them.

I too like the SotS research method. At first I despised it, but then I learned how to use it properly. ES could do something similar without copying I think.

Apheirox wrote:
MOO2's research is vastly superior for this reason. The same can be said about that of SOTS (both 1 and 2).



Randomizing, limiting or removing technologies to force hard decisions on the player and keep every game from playing out the same way is something that adds great depth and value to a 4x.

I would not overstate the superiority of the Moo2 research system, its strength is also its weakness.



A hard decision for one is a crippling game losing flaw for another, this is not balance factor.





And the SOTS research system still allows for the main core of technology's to still be researched regardless, almost none of the ES research tree is expendable by any stretch of the imagination.

Igncom1 wrote:
I do not like the Moo 2 method of research.

MOO2's research is vastly superior for this reason. The same can be said about that of SOTS (both 1 and 2).



Randomizing, limiting or removing technologies to force hard decisions on the player and keep every game from playing out the same way is something that adds great depth and value to a 4x. Both what aforementioned games did as well as completely new concepts should be considered.

Igncom1 wrote:
Continuity is far better then some factions lacking the ability to make any kind of plan.



Besides it depends on how you play.

Agree. My ES games are actually quite varied...!

I'm not sure the uniqueness of the tech tree is the issue. Civ's tech tree is the same for all civilizations and has a stricter progression, and it still manages to be more interesting. I think this is because some techs reward the first player to reach it, either directly or by giving a head start on wonder construction, and the techs are better balanced. In ES some unlocks are way more powerful than others of the same tech level: for example, wormhole travel, Magnetic Field Generators, and Colonial Rights.

Because the one fear I had about a game with a technology tree is coming true too fast for me.



Its automatic. As in, I really don't deviate from an established and well rehearsed traversal of the tree. In essence, one element of the game is no more. Truly, unless I just waste trait points on specific techs the opening is always the same. For the most part race doesn't even matter. Even when I hit the military tree there is one course I follow because it works. This happens in every single game I play that has a tech tree. They are pretty, developers like them because of that; being that they can make some special effects up that look cool and whatnot. Yet they are static. It eventually devolves into a best path barely nudged by the state of the game.



So the question I put up for discussion is, how can it be spiced up. Is there room to swap around techs randomly within the list. Some branches overlap and might provide the leeway needed. Is there room to lose technologies? As in, can we assign technologies into categories of "required by game mechanics", "critical to winning", "good", and "annoying to lose but won't really miss it". The reason to weight technologies is so that a proper chance of their occurring in any tech tree can be assigned. With a random occurrence tech tree we can add traits to make it less likely to miss out on technologies to making it even more likely. Now technologies not appearing on the tree would not prevent researching beyond nor exclude obtaining them from trade. It could even be something you obtain through conquest!



Required by game play would be technologies like Applied Casmir Effect. Without espionage the only way to achieve it would be trade. So based on game state this is required. I would also list technologies that reveal luxury items as required as there would no way to achieve them. However technologies which reveal resources may be in critical to winning or good. Example. not having Hyperium would be critical to winning for some, good for others.



So what I am hoping to open a discussion on is.

a) what do other people think about mixing it up? Putting risk in not having a crucial tech except by means other than research?

b) can this be modded in or does it require code?

c) If you like this idea, how would you score the technologies.

Igncom1 wrote:
I do not like the Moo 2 method of research.

I like it better than Endless Space's method, which is basically "all games are the same"

ChillingTouch wrote:
-- From MoO2 wiki.

I do not like the Moo 2 method of research.

Non-Creative empires must choose 1 tech from each level - they can get the others only by conquest, espionage or trading with other empires. Creative empires research all the techs at the chosen level simultaneously, for the same number of RPs that just one of these techs would cost a non-Creative empire. Uncreative empires get no choice, the game software randomly chooses 1 tech at each level.

-- From MoO2 wiki.