gunnergoz wrote:
Want to change the tech tree or how it works in ES? Fine...but then you have to take into consideration how the ships and weapons work and the fact that there are darn few choices for weapons and countermeasures. 3 on each side is it, really. So how do you make a variable tech tree that still permits you to have use of the few weapons that the game is designed around?



One way is to link the weapons to certain planetary bonuses, which is already part of the game. The difference would be to have more variety of weapons, e.g. 3 or 4 flavors each of lasers or missiles or guns, all with different pros and cons and all using different resources which you must be exploiting in order to use them.



This allows for a more variable research experience, a game that is still within the existing paradigm, and also prevents the boredom that eventually sets in once you learn how to beeline certain techs in order to maximize your positioning for victory.



So, say I'm developing my cruisers and I need an advanced missile. I research the next level and find that I've made a breakthrough in, say, "Intelligent Drones" that require "Di-Methyl-Silica" to build. Now I've got to start looking around for the stuff...where is it? Oh no, to exploit it, I have to skip over to the Economics Tree and next research "Advanced Orbital Mining." I do that and am now able to discover and exploit "Di-Methyl-Silica." Great. Now begins the mad rush to find a planet with the stuff and colonize it before the other guy does...but then, maybe his advanced missiles depend upon some other tech entirely. But, it turns out, he needs the "Di-Methyl Silica" to fuel his next generation Battleships! So it is a race after all...



And so on.



My point is that I like the way ES is evolving and I don't want to alter the recipe...only to give it a little more nutty flavor.

This has been added to the summary list

Want to change the tech tree or how it works in ES? Fine...but then you have to take into consideration how the ships and weapons work and the fact that there are darn few choices for weapons and countermeasures. 3 on each side is it, really. So how do you make a variable tech tree that still permits you to have use of the few weapons that the game is designed around?



One way is to link the weapons to certain planetary bonuses, which is already part of the game. The difference would be to have more variety of weapons, e.g. 3 or 4 flavors each of lasers or missiles or guns, all with different pros and cons and all using different resources which you must be exploiting in order to use them.



This allows for a more variable research experience, a game that is still within the existing paradigm, and also prevents the boredom that eventually sets in once you learn how to beeline certain techs in order to maximize your positioning for victory.



So, say I'm developing my cruisers and I need an advanced missile. I research the next level and find that I've made a breakthrough in, say, "Intelligent Drones" that require "Di-Methyl-Silica" to build. Now I've got to start looking around for the stuff...where is it? Oh no, to exploit it, I have to skip over to the Economics Tree and next research "Advanced Orbital Mining." I do that and am now able to discover and exploit "Di-Methyl-Silica." Great. Now begins the mad rush to find a planet with the stuff and colonize it before the other guy does...but then, maybe his advanced missiles depend upon some other tech entirely. But, it turns out, he needs the "Di-Methyl Silica" to fuel his next generation Battleships! So it is a race after all...



And so on.



My point is that I like the way ES is evolving and I don't want to alter the recipe...only to give it a little more nutty flavor.

As an ex-game developer I can say that some of these ideas are great but would take a substantial change to the way they are doing the tech tree's. Big changes like these take time and almost always influence other aspects of the game design and would undoubtedly be a lot of work. I'm not saying that those changes can't happen. The game is in ALPHA and one would presume still at a stage sweeping changes can be made.



I too agree that SOTS tech tree is a gem of a system. I laugh every time I play SOTS with my son and I hear him curse because he did not acquire point defense tech. He has never lost a game from the lack of a particular tech. It does force him to be creative. I think something similar would be wonderful in Endless Space. I believe with the limited options in space combat, choice and creativity should come from other game aspects. The research tree seems the best place to start.



Here are some suggestions that require minimal retooling and ui changes.



Easily Coded Suggestions:

- Code a percent for a player to get each tech. Some core techs will have 100% chance.

- Tech availability is determined at game start and you disallow some tech's from being research-able.

- It should be noted that the coders don't need to set percentages for EVERY tech. They just need to have a list of techs that will always be available. The rest can be determined by a set percentage.



More personalized research tree:

- Code a percent for a player to get each tech. Some core techs will have 100% chance. This is now determined by the race.

- Tech availability is determined at game start and you disallow some tech's from being research-able. Tech availability is now determined by race. For example Sophons may get a large percent bonus to the research tree.



Acquiring missing technologies:

- If some tech's are simply unavailable it makes those techs VERY desirable when it comes to trading.

- It could also be coded so that any time you win a battle (or take a planet) from a race that has a tech you can't research. There is a chance you will have access to one of those denied tech's.

- Hero's. The spy trait would be an excellent place to put a trait that lets a spy have a percentage change of stealing a tech every turn he's in enemy territory or at planet side.



These suggestions won't turn the Endless Space tech system into SOTS but it will give give players a challenge when it comes to game play. I do realize that a system would require a bit of tweaking in the AI code. Thankfully those kinds of head-aches are behind me. Since this kind of system is NOT a core feature it would be a simple affair to make it a check box option.



Good luck gentlemen with your game. My family is enjoying Endless Space enormously.

@ stargem



That is probably the best way to handle the randomization, and if I may flesh it out a bit more.



that said, it would require a total revamping of tech tree design layout.If they made all tech linear lets say 1 - 2 -3 -4 -5 in a progression in a given field perhaps.



level 1 lasers (affinity)



It means at least 1 rank lasers 100%, rank 2 lasers 80% rank 3 60% ect



level 4 food production tech (affinity)



rank 1 100%, rank 2 100%, rank 3 100%, rank 4 100%, rank 5 80%





When you create a custom faction you set an affinity level with lets say 30 points. which is enough for 6 fully maxed out tech lines, but would weaken the possibilities for all the other techs. It would still be "randomized" tech and also make custom factions fully integratable into the normal factions and MP play.

That is why customized races would need to be able to pick what fields of research they excel and fail at, along with an Creative-type option. Maybe there could be five "tiers" for each field that indicates how likely that they may be able to research advanced technologies within an specific field.



Creative - 100% odds in all fields.

100% odds for advanced research topics in this field, 5 points

80% odds for advanced research topics in this field, 3 points

60% odds for advanced research topics in this field, 2 points

40% odds for advanced research topics in this field, 1 point

20% odds for advanced research topics in this field, costs 0 points.*



*This allows everyone to get a chance at advanced research topics, despite being inept.

I think its a good idea and not a good idea....Sots is awsome, one of my favorites and yes im here on Endless space cause Sots2 was a big dissapointment and still is nto really playable cause they released while it was in Alpha stages. Speaking of whihc i say KUDOs to Endless Space an Amplitude for actually announcing that they would give game access to an ALPHA stage, so when i bought it i knew i was getting an ALPHA still under development, i was happy to pay.



Now its a good idea cuase yes it does add replay-ability but also at the same time a bad idea cause well Sots is Sots and Endless Space is Endless space....u know what i mean? If i wanted to play with a random tech tree i'd go play Sots. I dont want this game to just copy ideas already done by other companies, and yes i do believe that the Randomized tech tree is Kerberos (sots makers) intelectual property. If you were to pursue this idea i think you would need to make sure you have their approval, if only a courtesy.



With a random tech tree you have to make sure that some techs are always avaliable the core tech tree, then you have to add to that tree the non-core techs and randomize their appearance. With the current tree lay out in ES i dont think that is possible, it would require them to redesign their intire tech tree and how it works.



Just my 2cents, let Sots be Sots and let this game be itself (which is already awsome)



PS just had an idea, maybe instead of making the entire tree randomized, why not add several really awsome "End game Techs" like techs you only get after you've hit the end of the tree, and then randomize those? LIke one game you'll get one end game tech and another you'll get another.

if there will not be randomize in tech tree, i would prefer to hide all locked techs, so the player must research to found out what exist.

Naisho wrote:




Each plan is a goal or objective to reach that is within reason. It gives "some" account for variables, and it also does not assume future tech.

Research and development isn't always fueled by a business model. Your point would be a lot better if research were entirely dependent on a business model but the simple truth is that currency is only one of many incentives that drives research. Some of humanities greatest technological achievements were accomplished with survival or charity being the only motivator.



Assuming technology will advance in a certain direction may not be a wise thing for a business to do, but research is completely reliant on this assumption because in order for research to take place at all there has to be a theory which means an end result is perceived / observed. The difficult part is figuring out how to get to the end result.



Cancer research is conducted because the researches and investors assume a cure for cancer will be found at some point in the future. People who have had cancer at one point have been completely cured, this is not disputed however just why or how that person was cured is unknown but once that reason is known then a cure can be created, or at the very least a little more is understood about cancer bringing the future tech one step closer to the present.

Naisho wrote:




Edit:



@Teran



Dead end tech has actually happened alot in history, and then suddenly someone else from another field comes into the scene and from another tech stand point figures it out.

What you have described here is not a technological dead end, it is a pause in advancement. A dead end as represented by the original poster is the literal end of advancement of a certain technology with no further advancement.

Naisho wrote:




Also i didn't mean for that randomized should mean tech from end game tier should appear as tier one, that is ridiculous to the extreme and I am surprised you took the proposal in that direction.

You did not specify this and I do not make assumptions about what a person meant to say versus what that person actually said. Also, you said dead end tech happened a lot in history but failed to provide any examples, would you care to elaborate on what you meant? I want to make sure I understand what you meant by that statement before I respond to it because your statement is both right and wrong (right on the micro level, wrong on the macro level).

I also think this could be conveniently added via modding. It would make for a whole new experience every game, but that would be kind of cool. That said, with the current tech tree, i can't imagine it being viable, but if/when it expands, I'm all for gameplay variety and adapting to different strategies.

If the devs have time, this would be an interesting quirk that could make the game fun - I am always in favor of randomness, after all! But, I honestly see it as being very unimportant to the immediate nature of things. If they get to Remscar's idea (best solution, in my mind) - great. There is already an existing tech matrice that is quite awesome, however, and there is much more that should be addressed first.

There doesn't have to be a one way only. I think it should be done, but it is a pregame option and it can be enabled/disabled. This way everyone is happy!

i had the same Idea, would like more randomized and hidden Tech-Tree for different games

Ok since you guys seem to reference "long term planning" let me give a brief reality check about what long term planning actually looks like.



In any business they have 1 year plans, 5 year plans, and 10 year plans.



Each plan is a goal or objective to reach that is within reason. It gives "some" account for variables, and it also does not assume future tech. (aka clones will be the new cheap labor in the next 1000 years... and then all my plans will be perfect, they have to live in the here and now)



Given "current" tech and "current" ability what can I do that is reasonable. That is the crux of long term management / strategy.





What you guys are calling long term strategy has no real world applications because we do not have a "magical ability" to read the future.



Or are you saying long term strategy is about 100% certainty? (Inside the tech tree)



Edit:



@Teran



Dead end tech has actually happened alot in history, and then suddenly someone else from another field comes into the scene and from another tech stand point figures it out.



Do not mistake linear tech design choices with what has come before, it is the cross fertilization of tech that has given advantages and advances.



Also i didn't mean for that randomized should mean tech from end game tier should appear as tier one, that is ridiculous to the extreme and I am surprised you took the proposal in that direction.

Naisho wrote:




I believe it would be possible, (if you dont want to remove tech) to randomize the spider webbing between tech, and sometimes make tech lines completely end in dead ends, or you have to go about researching a tech almost backwards. Never knowing how the spider webbing connected your tech tree together until you research that current tech thus showing the next possible tech you can research, or just going into a dead end.



This kind of randomization prevents "best build" tech lines from appearing, and making players adapt to evolving situations.



*just food for thought*

I thought your idea had a lot of potential until I saw your comments on dead ends.



The idea of randomization itself is interesting but there would need to be some limits. Total randomness would be too chaotic but if you broke technologies into tiers randomization within each tier would be interesting and would kind of reflect reality in that multiple different research paths can lead to the same technological advancement. Total randomness though would be too unpredictable, you would run into scenarios where you inventing a nuclear reactor before your race learns to create fire.



The reason why dead ends are a terrible idea is that these games generally cover the span of thousands of years and during that time a given race would be constantly improving and upgrading their technology. A dead end presents a problem because it basically stops a race cold at a point in the tech tree when it doesn't make sense. It would be like inventing black and white televisions an deciding the technology has been perfected even though there are obvious paths available to further improvement and refinement.



Dead ends generally only make sense in two situations...



1. The technology has been perfected and refined to a point where further efficiency isn't required or possible based on factors beyond a race's control (like the laws of physics).



2. The technology path reaches a point where it goes beyond the scope of the game... for example researching conventional bombs leads to researching nuclear weapons leads to researching weapons capable of destroying cities from orbit leads to researching weapons capable of destroying entire continents which leads to researching weapons that can destroy entire planets which leads to researching weapons that can destroy entire solar systems which leads to researching weapons that can destroy entire galaxies.



Phew, long sentence. I hope the ghost of grammar doesn't rise from the grave to haunt me...



At any rate, once you get to a point where a technology trivializes the rest of the game it's best to leave it out entirely via a dead end, or end the game immediately upon completion of the research topic signifying that your race's dominance is absolute and further play would be pointless.



Civilization tends to follow the ending the game model while Masters of Orion (if memory serves) simply dead ended research topics into nothing or repeatable research topics that increase the efficiency of all the topics in the tree before it.

Bad idea. It removes strategy from a game that is all about long term strategy. This is not an FPS.



The idea of randomized and cloaked tech tree was also present in Space Empires V. You could not tell what you were going to get after developing any given technology, and it made planning out your game suck. A much better implementation was present in Master of Orion 3, where you could see generally what techs your immediate future held, but could not predict what kind of ships you could plan on making. Good implementation, but the outcome was essentially to cripple long term planning.

Haven't played SotS, but I love the idea of a replayable/emergent tech tree. Static tech trees are too prone to cookie cutter gameplay imo.

Soul0Reaper wrote:
A good game shouldn't need randomized tech trees to keep things unique. The randomly generated galaxies should be enough to influence research paths. Randomized tech to me is a crutch to make things seem different for the sake of seeming different.



Having race unique tech would be better, giving the game one big generic tech tree is kind of boring. One example could be that Ship templates and such could be tailored to fit each race.

Sorry double post but this sprang up while i was writing mine, i give Soul0reaper a big thumbs up! i would agree that race specific tech is much more better way to go for this game, it would fit considering their diveres set of races.

Naisho wrote:
Ok since you guys seem to reference "long term planning" let me give a brief reality check about what long term planning actually looks like.

...

What you guys are calling long term strategy has no real world applications because we do not have a "magical ability" to read the future.

No. A tech tree is not comparable to real world technology, it is much more like a character build.



Within the game, it's a guns vs butter trade, deciding to develop infrastructure to generate a better war machine, or pushing the best weapons. And you should be able to get a good idea of what kind of tech you'll have around say turn 50 vs turn 100, and what kind of flexibility you have to change things around.



There are plenty of people who cannot comprehend such details, and just make it all up as they go along. But the game should not enforce that behavior.

A good game shouldn't need randomized tech trees to keep things unique. The randomly generated galaxies should be enough to influence research paths. Randomized tech to me is a crutch to make things seem different for the sake of seeming different.



Having race unique tech would be better, giving the game one big generic tech tree is kind of boring. One example could be that Ship templates and such could be tailored to fit each race.

I'm personally against this, i liked sword of the stars, but i disliked that aspect of the tech tree. Especially since even in that game each tech was given a chance of appearing based on your race, and I've seen one multiplayer game where two players playing the same race, one got MANY more tech options then the other. I understand the dislike of perfect build and such, but random tech trees is not a great way to counter that. It also makes certain long term planning styles useless. One thing i did like from sword of the stars is the way the amount of research a tech took was semi random.