Hello Humankind Designers and Community,

I think Stellaris implemented research in the best possible way in a 4X game EVER.

Why?

- each playthrough is unique

- there isn't a 'best build'

- it ressembles the way tech advancement happens in real life

But How?

- by having an element of randomness in its mechanism

So the way it works is:

• every time a research is finished, the player chooses 1 new tech to research amongst 3 (or 4 or 5... some techs give more than 3 choices) that are drawn from the tech pool
• the 3 possible choices are drawn with a calculated probability: (1) basic techs have a higher probability to show up than advanced ones, (2) some extremely powerful techs have a very, very low probability, (3) techs that require prerequisites don't show up if the player hasn't researched the prerequistes, and (4) scientists doing research may be specialized in one field (giving a higher probability to show up to techs pertaining to this field).

It allows to create emerging and unique stories and civilizations instead of having all players adopt the same 'best techs', specially in multiplayers. And that's the way it happened in humankind: simple tech were shared amongst many civs, advanced techs were only discovered by happy fews, and discoveries or tech advancements mostly happen by chance.

It'd be easy to tailor the system for historic civilizations instead of space: for example, instead of having scientists specialized in one field, it could be that the civilizations of each era have a specialized field that reflects their course in history. And of course, limiting the choices to techs historically available to their era.

So please, please: have technology research work in Humankind similarly than Stellaris.

I haven't played Stellaris but this doesn't seem fun to me. I am personally against systems that use forced randomness to immitate uniqueness and replayability. I would rather have solid, fully contolable options every time while playing in the ENVIRONMENT that grants uniqueness and encourages you to suggest picking several different options.

While I might agree with you that players in 4X games have too much control over research priorities, the randomness for science in Stellaris is not a good way to do it.

1. Souce of randomness.

Before the Renaissance, most science was "applied science." This means that the King or Emperor did not usually say "Today I will find a way to make steel." Instead, people who worked in metals found through trial-and-error how to get furnaces hot enough, and iron ore of the right type, to create steel. Even today, most inventions come from corporate labs, with support of national grants or national labs working on "theoretical sciences."

SUM: Randomness in the real world is because no one person is directing all the scientists at once. Based on Amplitudes previous games, perhaps each quarter in a city contributes research toward a scientific field, with the player able to direct a fraction of that research to a technology of their choice. Later in the game, players will gain more control over technology research by directly paying for laboratories.

2. Paradox vs Amplitude

Have you played other Paradox titles besides Stellaris? Have you played any Amplitude titles? I think you will find that these studios handle research in their games very differently. One reason why Stellaris works well is that the system is designed for very long, real time play. Amplitude titles usually have shorter, turn-based play. Research in Stellaris is progressively linear, so if you want Laser Weapons 2, you need Laser Weapons 1. Research in Endless Space 2 is also linear in impact, but the tech web and development limits make research less linear.

3. Min-Max

There is a min-max for Stellaris. Corvette spam or battleships with XL mounts. There will always be an optimal path for research, especially in warfare. Rather than take away player agency with forced randomness, why not give more reasons to chose sub-optimal paths? Create "quests" or in-game penalties for researching one field exclusively.

I totally agree with OP. I would love to see a semi randomized tech system. However, I think technologie and discoveries are really what set civilisation apart, and make them unique. We will see, but I have very few hope. I think the dice are thrown, and Amplitude won't change anything. We will get the usual, boring, everybody-ends-the-same ala Civilisation 1-2-3-4-5-6 tech tree...

I think a good system would be a hybrid where you have the normal tech tree, but after every tech you also have one random tech that's off the tree that you could reserach instead. Some would have prerequisites, some would be culture exclusive, and some might unlock new (but short) branches on the tree. Examples could include exotic units that don't appear in any particular culture like war dogs, or perhaps techs that increase the output of buildings (maybe even your legacy emblematic buildings) that you've already built.

Another option: in the game Pandora while every civ has the same tech tree, each game how those techs connect to each other is randomized, with the only consistent thing the eras the techs appear in. Given how Amplitude usually doesn't require particular orders for research, I don't see this option coming up.

One more idea. While every tech is available for research, every X techs you research one of them becomes a super-version of the tech, and if you choose to research it that time you get stronger results than if you'd researched it straight away. This could lead to interesting scenarios where the player has to decide if they want to research the "optimal" tech right now or gamble that it will be even more powerful later.

I don't mind having random availability of technology, but it most of it should be in a tree. Progress builds on top of previous developments, I never liked how in Stellaris tech just comes out of the blue.

FizzyElf wrote:

Hello Humankind Designers and Community,

So please, please: have technology research work in Humankind similarly than Stellaris.

No offence meant, but considering the videos thay are posting, and the fact that the game is due this year, I think you're way too late for your proposal.

"It'd be easy" Sorry again but what do you know? Considering the impact of research and technologies on the gameplay, My guess, working in SW dev, is that it would impact vastly the game logic and therefore the code. Playing and knowing/understanding games doesn't make you a game designer nor a dev.

Then, I cannot stop having fun playing Endless Space 2 (after hundreds of hours on 1 & 2) so I don't see reasearch as an issue in Amplitudes game. That you personnaly prefer something different doesn't make it better. It's just different.

As our lead designer Meedoc explained in another thread about technology, we are using a "technology tree" divided into eras and featuring "OR" dependencies: It is similar to how other 4X games do this, but you only need to research one prerequisite for a rechnology rather than all of them, allowing you to skip some technologies.

While I don't disagree that some degree of randomized technology can make for interesting and varied games (I certainly do enjoy Stellaris quite a bit myself), I don't think such a system would be a good fit for Humankind.

From my experience Amplitde games did profit of community members feedback, a lot. The feedback did lead to multiple different available settings, when creating a "new game" (it doesn't matter what Amplitudes game titles we refer to). A clever move to adjust each released game to all kind of players taste - as long as the player knows how to make use of it. The more input, the more adaptable fun results. Go on with personal preferences, as long as anyone is alone out there!