Major Tech Tree Overhaul

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#1 Post by labgnome » Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:19 am

So in this thread here I have put out ideas I have had for a while on changing the tech tree. As I've started looking over the various technologies, current and planned game mechanics and structure of the tech tree, I have come to realize that a truly major change and restructuring of the technology tree is necessary. This is probaly not going to be ready for 0.5, but maybe 0.6 on the front end if I can keep at it. However I wanted to run my ideas by everyone and get feedback first before completely committing to this idea.

The main issues of the tech tree currently:
  • Legibility: As it stands the tech tree is of moderate to minimal legibility.
  • Balance: many techs that boost in-game stats are difficult to balance, and even harder to change because of interdependence.
  • Comprehension: why is the technology for starlane bores in knowledge? Why doesn't collective thought network have a production prerequisite?
The technology tree we currently have is not KISS or easily modifiable, both things that Free Orion is supposed to be.

What I am going to propose here, and have in the previous thread, is a whole-sale re-structuring of the technology tree. Each major branch of the tech tree will get a "theory trunk". It will borrow from the TAR (theory-application-refinement) structure, with several caveats.
  1. Every theory will lead to at least one application or a major improvement/refinement
  2. No theory in the trunk will require an application
  3. *Stat boosters will not lead to other applications
  4. The technology victory will have only theory prerequisites
  5. The path to the technology victory will not be help for the diplomatic or conquest victories
*Exception: building or ship-part improvements may lead to further stat improvements

For Example: adaptive automation would not be dependent on nascent artificial intelligence and neither of them would lead to exobots. Now exobots would be dependent on a production theory tech, probably with a growth theory tech cross-dependency. Adaptive automation would be dependent on an earlier Production theory tech, and not NAI. Instead exobots might get a cost-reduction if you research AA and NAI. Neither NAI or AA would lead to anything, so you would only research them if you wanted the bonus. However currently you just get both bonuses if you want to get exobots. This creates all sorts of issues with balance. Many feel these tech are overpowered, but we can't just remove them, because then no one would get exobots.

For some general-case tech tree branch we should get a structure that looks something like this:
Image
Using this structure, you can see it's a lot easier to "prune" unwanted or problematic technologies, as well as graft new technologies or entire sub-branches if we wanted to. IN fact now we can easily move technologies along the tech tree if we want players to get them sooner or later.

As I've been doing preliminary work on this and realized that the tech tree might actually need more of a re-work that just this. With influence (a whole game mechanic) coming; with fighters, point-defense existing and missile on the way; metabolism specific bombardments existing and metabolism specific growth tech coming; with the work on detection and stealth; with the production and research boosters possibly getting major re-work I realized that the tech tree might need even further changes. Major changes to existing categories or even whole new categories might need to happen.

One thing that might seem minor, but occurred to me was to look at the color-coding of the branches. As it is a way we sort thing it should have an understandable and logical pattern to it. I decided to try to keep as much of the original scheme as possible, while tying to place categories that were close in association or function close together on a color wheel.
Concept Tech Wheel.png
Concept Tech Wheel.png (74.95 KiB) Viewed 2048 times
Red: Production
This is staying similar. It will be cleaned-up through the new structure. Production and production based cross-dependencies and cost-reductions are about getting the most out of the planets you have IE: tall empires. It will host technologies that will allow you to increase production. It is a necessary supplement for a large fleet or lots of building projects. It will be a major branch with a theory core leading to the technology victory.

Orange: Engineering (also: Ships)
This is staying close to the same. This section will be for ship hulls, and maybe a small set of ship parts. Relying closely on production it is a similar color. It will be a secondary branch without a theory core, and variable cross-dependency for the different ship-lines. There will probably not be a theory core.

Yellow: Weapons
These ship-parts will get their own category and color. Weapons and weapons based cross-dependencies and cost-reductions are about getting to the conquest victory. It will be a major branch with a theory core that does not lead to the technology victory. It is tied closely to ships and is thus similar in color.

Chartreuse: Attrition (?)
This branch is new. Basically when I was looking through the tech tree and trying to re-work growth, I realized there was a sub-category of "negative growth" technologies. To "clean up" the growth category, these now get their own category. Concentration Camps, Bombardments and Bioterror facilities and anything else similarly nasty will fall into this category. These technologies are all about reducing unwanted populations. It will be a secondary branch without a theory core. It will have the most cross-dependency with growth and weapons.

Green: Growth
Kind-of similar to what exists now, but probably the biggest changes of the major branches. Bioterror, terraforming and gaia transformation will be moved out. Each metabolism will get specific bonuses that allow for the colonization of a wider range of planet types, as apposed to universal ones. Growth and growth based cross-dependencies and cost-reductions are about getting as many planets as possible. It will essential be for players who want "wide empires". It will be a major branch with a theory trunk leading to the technology victory. It should look something like this:
Growth Tech Tree.png
Growth Tech Tree.png (152.99 KiB) Viewed 2048 times
Teal: Infrastructure (formerly: Construction)
Currently construction exists, and get yellow. Most technologies, or the applications thereof that fit better in construction and don't currently reside there come form knowledge or growth, so I will probably keep those as cross-dependencies. The color-coding has been changed to reflect this. Terraforming, gaia transformation, and the techs for starlane bore and nexus, artificial singularity, and (probably) singularity collapser will go here. Concentration camps and space elevators will be moved out. Armor ship parts might be moved here. Applications from this branch will be about changing the map, increasing the construction/infrastructure stats of your planets, and increasing the structure of your ships. This will be a minor branch, that might get a theory trunk, but would no longer lead to the technology victory if it did.

Cyan: Learning
Similar to what exists now, probably the most similar. It will be losing most of the map-changing applications to construction, and now be more solidly about boosting research to get you to the technology victory. Combining the theory cores of this branch with Production, Growth and Intelligence will get you to the technology victory.

Azure: Defense
Largely the same as what exists now. Cross-dependencies for knowledge and intelligence will be introduced (I'm looking at you planetary shields). Troop pod technologies might go here. The color remains similar, and it is close to knowledge and intelligence as good planetary defense will be important to players going for the tech victory or a stealth strategy. It will be a minor branch that might get a theory trunk but that would not lead to the technology victory.

Blue: Intelligence
Similar to what exists now, and getting a theory core, with the biggest change being that it will now help you get to the technology victory. Intelligence and intelligence based cross-dependencies and cost-reductions are about hiding your presence. This will hopefully facilitate the "stealth as a strategy" concept once implemented. Force-energy camoflauge and the distortion modulator will be dependent on the new theory-core. The technologies in this branch will be about stealth or detection, possibly with some espionage additions.

Purple: Civics (?)
Totally new category. This would be a category for increasing planet happiness, and possibly decreasing enemy happiness. If governments become a thing, there might be some social-policy techs that come from here. I color-coded it to suggest a closeness to intelligence and influence. It will be a minor branch.

Majenta: Influence (I don't have a better name)
Totally new category. This would be a category for technologies that affect the upcoming influence mechanic. Any buildings or ship-parts that affected it would also come from here. If governments become a thing many social-policy techs will likely come from here. Influence and influence based cross-dependencies and cost-reductions should be about achieving any sort of diplomatic victory. It will be a major branch with a theory trunk that does not lead to the technology victory.

Pink: Logistics (formerly: Economics)
Apparently a resurrected category. This would be the category that affected the supply mechanic and ship-speed. Space elevators will go here divorcing them from construction. If governments become a thing, there might be some social-policy techs that come from here. This placement is dependent on my opinion that supply should be primarily what carries influence, in addition to production, thus placing the supply-affecting technology branch between the two of them in color-coding would make the most sense. It will be a minor branch.

The color-coding is designed to represent three different victory conditions and thee differing game strategies, with minor categories in-between based on relation and cross-dependency. The thee "strategy" branches are primary additive colors and the three "victory" branches are primary subtractive colors. The other branches are (hopefully) appropriate blends of these colors. The intent here is to make the technology tree more obvious in function and easier to modify without breaking. I want to create a system that is simple to understand and explain. Twelve categories might seem like a lot, but we have a lot of applications and stats currently, and with influence coming we will only get more. This system is intended to have a place for everything and have a logical system to put everything in its place. There are no more random lumping together of buildings and stat boosts. The only really "different" stats that remain together are detection and stealth. Other than that they all get their own category. There are no "wastebin" or "other" categories.

I should be starting a pull request on github in the next week or so but I wanted to start discussion here.
Last edited by labgnome on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#2 Post by The Silent One » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:22 pm

I welcome a rework of the tech tree and wouldn't mind making a do-over of most of the art in the process, that is, if we can find a good solution for the tech trees current problems with consensus of the community.

What I agree on is:
labgnome wrote: 1) Every theory will lead to at least one application or a major improvement/refinement
2) No theory in the trunk will require an application
3) *Stat boosters will not lead to other applications
4) The technology victory will have only theory prerequisites
Sounds all very good to me. I'd rephrase 3) as "Stat boosters do not have refinements (opposed to buildings and ship parts).

I would add:
- every tech category gets a main theory trunk (what you wrote before your list) that may have a limited amount of forks and branches; and:
- refinements do not have prerequisites
... because I think it reduces clutter & confusion. The accessibility of refinements is now handled by an increasing research time and cost (see beam weapons), and it works good in my opinion.

The color wheel admittedly doesn't make much sense to me as it is now. Why would construction be so far away from production, why would diplomacy be next to it? I'm also not certain if we need this amount of categories.
I should be starting a pull request on github in the next week or so but I wanted to start discussion here.
It's great that you're very motivated, but please be patient. We're talking about huge changes that need to be approved by at least the core team before anyone starts with anything. I'd really like to flesh out my new tech tree concept some more (which is, I think, not far from what you suggest), and for that I'll need some more time.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

dbenage-cx
Programmer
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#3 Post by dbenage-cx » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:42 pm

I like how some of these suit well with their opposite on the wheel.
Construction and Defense do look to be oddly placed, maybe (CCW):
Production->Construction->Defense->Civics->Influence->Intelligence->Learning->Economy...etc
That moves influence from a game strategy to victory type. Defense as a victory type could be hard to sell until you pair it with the now opposing growth strategy.

If some summary graphic is provided in-game (and this becomes the final form), it may be helpful to draw links between the three victory and three strategy branches, then scale and/or offset the 6 minor branches.
Could the minor branches be consistent somehow in the use of a core theory branch?
Any content posted should be considered licensed GNU GPL 2.0 and/or CC-BY-SA 3.0 as appropriate.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#4 Post by labgnome » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:17 am

The Silent One wrote:Sounds all very good to me. I'd rephrase 3) as "Stat boosters do not have refinements (opposed to buildings and ship parts).
Probably a good call
The Silent One wrote:I would add:
- every tech category gets a main theory trunk (what you wrote before your list) that may have a limited amount of forks and branches; and:
- refinements do not have prerequisites
... because I think it reduces clutter & confusion. The accessibility of refinements is now handled by an increasing research time and cost (see beam weapons), and it works good in my opinion.
On your first point: I know some people aren't too receptive to the TAR structure, so I wanted to focus on the six main categories first. Also currently the way we do ships is the worst fit for converting to this structure, with four wildly different development branches, that are also structured fairly well on their own, and not quite as "in need" of attention. It's more of a category than a proper "branch". Likewise while defense is coherent enough for a theory trunk, it is not currently a section of the tech tree I would consider in need of attention. The only new category I am committed to creating a theory core for is "influence" or whatever we are going to call the branch that handles that mechanic, as it looks like it will need to be a major enough part of the game to require that level of attention and functionality. Everything else: attrition, (the poorly named) construction, defense, civics (?), economics and even ships are supplemental to the other elements of the game, and are probably better described as "categories" than branches. Also we could totally wrap them into the adjacent branches easily and justifiably in most cases if this is too many categories. I was just trying to have the categories as "uncluttered" as possible.

On your second point: they would have application prerequisites at the least, I should think. Also aren't stat boosts refinements? This is why I prefer to think of them as "Improvements", I think it's a bit more clear and versatile.
The Silent One wrote:The color wheel admittedly doesn't make much sense to me as it is now. Why would construction be so far away from production, why would diplomacy be next to it? I'm also not certain if we need this amount of categories.
dbenage-cx wrote:I like how some of these suit well with their opposite on the wheel.
Construction and Defense do look to be oddly placed, maybe (CCW):
Production->Construction->Defense->Civics->Influence->Intelligence->Learning->Economy...etc
That moves influence from a game strategy to victory type. Defense as a victory type could be hard to sell until you pair it with the now opposing growth strategy.
Okay, so the color-adjacency is actually something I worked on through several versions I am largely satisfied that it represents a logical arrangement with respect to game functionality. However, it is dependent on the wildcard of the influence mechanic's functionality so the best-fit cases might change. I am totally open to re-naming categories though.

For some of the specific issues you've brought up: keep in mind Economics (the pink handshake) = supply mechanic, since this is one that's getting to you guys. Supply carries/transmits production, so the branch that handles supply has a good case for adjacency to production. Production is necessary for ships, so even without cross-dependency there is a close association. Also ships are the primary platforms of weapons or other offensive measures. So the economics-production-ships-weapons arc of the circle is fairly sound. Right now the "construction" stat does not affect production, and is also refereed to as infrastructure by some people (perhaps a better name). The construction category (the teal wrench) hosts techs that unlock things that seem to be about changing the map. It was put adjacent to learning and growth because those are the categories that would have the most techs or applications moved from them to this category, so that's why I placed it between them in color-coding. Defense really was placed where it is because there wasn't a better place, but being opposite the ships category seems somewhat fitting as it's focused on planets. The civics/happiness - influence - economics/supply arc is purely speculative on my part. Also keep in mind re-naming these categories so that the "sound better" is totally on the table. Also I tried to keep the color-coding as close to what we currently use as possible to minimize confusion. So construction, ships, growth and learning have the same colors they currently do. Magenta seems a good color-fit for influence mechanic from the color of the influence speech-bubble icon that currently exists. Intelligence and defense get a slight color change, but stay close. Really construction changing was mostly due to what I thought were the best adjacency arguments, and realizing that if I went with a color-code to function rout I would have to move it: or change the colors-coding of most of the other categories, which made less sense to me.

On the number of categories: Yes twelve is quite a lot, though not too much more then we functionally have now with ships, ship parts, and weapons technically functioning as categories even if they aren't color-coded as such. I wanted to avoid categories that would become grab-bags or waste-bins for things because they handled several different mechanics of types of things I didn't know how to put elsewhere. This is why I divorced the supply mechanic from the "construction" branch, as it really should be its own category. This is also why I created attrition as a category: when I was looking at growth techs, I realized the closeness to bombardment and first considered wrapping them into growth. Then, I realized their pop-reduction fit with not just the bioterror building, but also concentration camps, as a sort of "negative growth" sub-category of growth. When I started thinking about color-coding I realized that growth could be cleaned-up by giving them a separate category. Really "civics" (happiness mechanic) is the only one that might be extraneous. However I think most people feel that there should be a happiness-influence connection, and not wanting to assume the nature of the connection I thought giving it a category of its own should work while everything is being fleshed-out. FYI: Ships is the only category to not have a game-stat that corresponds to it, and growth only gets "two" because it's the only one that we have stuff to both boost and remove, that correspond to very different goals and functions. Defense covers multiple stats/effects, that all have similar function, and intelligence covers two (really 2 vs. 1) opposing stats. As simple as Free Orion is, it is in fact already that complicated. The seeming "simplicity" of our current tech tree is a lie.
The Silent One wrote:It's great that you're very motivated, but please be patient. We're talking about huge changes that need to be approved by at least the core team before anyone starts with anything. I'd really like to flesh out my new tech tree concept some more (which is, I think, not far from what you suggest), and for that I'll need some more time.
I understand, and I will definitely try to be. But I don't really understand github yet, so I was going to start one sooner rather than later so that the learning curve isn't so much of an obstacle for me. That way I can learn how to use github while we are discussing this, then focus on implementation once there is something close to a consensus.
dbenage-cx wrote:If some summary graphic is provided in-game (and this becomes the final form), it may be helpful to draw links between the three victory and three strategy branches, then scale and/or offset the 6 minor branches.
Could the minor branches be consistent somehow in the use of a core theory branch?
That would be something I would like to see, and that's why I made the graphics I did. Think of this as a 1st draft for it.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#5 Post by labgnome » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:41 am

Here is a visual guide for what I am doing so far:
Tech2.png
Tech2.png (8.99 KiB) Viewed 2006 times
  • Solid black lines denote requirement
  • Dashed black lines denote cost reduction
  • Dashed red lines denote cost increase
You can see example mock-ups for what learning and production would look like under this new system. Learning looks the most similar and I think it cleans-up production nicely. Mind you any of the specifics here could be subject to change.
Learning Tech Tree.png
Learning Tech Tree.png (44.25 KiB) Viewed 2006 times
Production Tech Tree.png
Production Tech Tree.png (46.7 KiB) Viewed 2006 times
Hopefully showing rather than telling will help get more people on-board with this idea and help us stay on the same page. But you can clearly see the booster techs off to the side, and the different applications branching off from the theory trunk. The cost reduction or increase is speculative, but I like the idea that for each booster for a particular thing you get the others go up in cost, making it harder to get all of them.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#6 Post by The Silent One » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:39 pm

@labgnome: I will need some more time to look at your ideas and respond in detail soon.

For now, here's my tech screen mockup. It's not supposed to show an actual arrangement of technologies or their connections, it's supposed to demonstrate a possible layout and some mechanisms for the TAR-system.

Description: theories have nice large icons with a category specific border. They don't have an effect themselves, but unlock applications that are grouped below them. Application types are stat boosts, buildings, ship hulls and ship parts. The type of application is indicated by an icon in front of it (house, arrows, ship, maybe at a later time one for ship parts). Some buildings or ship parts may have refinements, the level of refinement is indicated by a number at the bottom right of the app type icon. Some applications, not theories or refinements, may have prerequisites from different categories. These are indicated by an icon to the left of the app type icon. It disappears when it has been researched.
Attachments
tech_mockup3.jpg
tech_mockup3.jpg (313.88 KiB) Viewed 1993 times
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12458
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#7 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:58 pm

Lots of empty green space in the theory icons... Any plans to fill it with something?
The Silent One wrote:the level of refinement is indicated by a number
This would require refinements to be non-branching...

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#8 Post by labgnome » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:16 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:This would require refinements to be non-branching...
I think for the most part they kind of are by nature. IE: you are improving some currently existing stat or mechanic of the application it's tied to.

There is only one current case where I can see possible "branching" refinement, which is if we wanted to grant additional boosts to the collective thought network like the industry center, which boost either research or production, so refinements could boost either. Though this could be handled be just having two parallel tracks of refinements to it though. The other possible case would be if we went the rout of giving some rate-of-fire to all weapons, and thus you could potentially improve either one. Again: this could be handled by giving two parallel refinement tracks. In both cases the potential branching issue seems solvable if the "branch" occurs at the application and not within the refinement path itself. As this is a work-in-progress the specific depictions for this will be subject to change.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#9 Post by labgnome » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:13 pm

Thinking about the TAR structure, and the way FO seems to work maybe we should conceptualize it a bit diferently. I amgoign to suggest a "TAR+I" or Theory-Application-Refinement with Improvements. Basically a way for us to more concicely discuss the effects and structure of our tech tree:
  • Theories will be just that: prerequisites for other things.
  • Applications will be technologies that add new things into the game.
  • Improvements will add new attributes to things that are already there (planets, building, ect...).
  • Refinements will improve existing attributes of things already in there.
Maybe something like the following structure:
Tech3.png
Tech3.png (14.81 KiB) Viewed 1978 times
Here you can see the structural difference between an improvement and a refinement. Theories can lead to either an application or an improvement. Applications can lead to either an improvement or a refinement. Improvements can only lead to refinements. Refinements can only lead to further refinements. For our purposes stat boosters will generally be dead-end improvements (population, production and research are things added to planets which are already there). TLDR: something more than a refinement but less than an application in uniqueness or novelty could be considered an "improvement".

It can be a little more complex: in-that with theory cross-dependency applications might lead to new applications. I might also require that improvements have further theory dependency, maybe even cross-branch dependency as you are actually adding something new.

Also here's some more branches: weapons and intelligence.
Attachments
Intelligence Tech Tree.png
Intelligence Tech Tree.png (61.67 KiB) Viewed 1978 times
Weapons Tech Tree.png
Weapons Tech Tree.png (55.13 KiB) Viewed 1978 times
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#10 Post by The Silent One » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:Lots of empty green space in the theory icons... Any plans to fill it with something?
The size of the panels is supposed to convey the RP/time cost relationship between theories and applications (theories expensive, applications cheaper). But I will try out some smaller sizes and give some thought to how the theory panel space could be used meaningfully.
Geoff the Medio wrote:
The Silent One wrote:the level of refinement is indicated by a number
This would require refinements to be non-branching...
If a refinement had two branches, they would both show up under the theory icon with a level number, "3" in this example:

Code: Select all

1 ----- 2 ----- 3
        |
         ------ 3

Theory of Something
Refinement 2 complete
Refinement 3 researchable
Refinement 3 researchable
(... but you probably would only be able to research one, so if you add one the other will be locked or hidden?)

Distinguishing refinements and improvements seems good design-wise, but is it necessary to distinguish them in game?
... I could imagine putting improvements at the end of the "refinement chains", as an incentive to push the research there.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#11 Post by labgnome » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:17 pm

The Silent One wrote:Distinguishing refinements and improvements seems good design-wise, but is it necessary to distinguish them in game?
... I could imagine putting improvements at the end of the "refinement chains", as an incentive to push the research there.
We don't have to but doing so makes our design choices more transparent; and thus hopefully comprehensible and understandable to the player. Opaque implementation can exacerbate inherent problems in specific design choices if players can't see why something is they way it is in game and thus actually understand how the mechanic is supposed to function.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#12 Post by labgnome » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:37 am

So here is a mock-up for the last major branch:
Influience Tech Tree.png
Influience Tech Tree.png (39.48 KiB) Viewed 1955 times
This is purely speculative. So I have two techs that boost influence on a per-pop basis, one tech that gives a flat boost and one that gives a happiness dependent boost. I put translinguistics (with a possible diploshuttle) and psi dom in the category as possible good fits for it.

With this I hope it gives people an idea of how this can be implemented and how this will help organize and clean-up the tech tree. I'm still debating how to handle the supplemental categories. However I think I have a sound model for relationships and structure. Hopefully if people actually like this: we can start working out particulars.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
em3
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#13 Post by em3 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:45 pm

labgnome wrote:For some of the specific issues you've brought up: keep in mind Economics (the pink handshake) = supply mechanic, since this is one that's getting to you guys. Supply carries/transmits production, so the branch that handles supply has a good case for adjacency to production.
So maybe rename this category to Logistics?
[...] for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane. - Randall Munroe, title text to xkcd #556

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#14 Post by Krikkitone » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:55 pm

em3 wrote:
labgnome wrote:For some of the specific issues you've brought up: keep in mind Economics (the pink handshake) = supply mechanic, since this is one that's getting to you guys. Supply carries/transmits production, so the branch that handles supply has a good case for adjacency to production.
So maybe rename this category to Logistics?
That would fit with switching the icons for "Influence" which seems to fit a handshake better, and "Logistics".. (modify that icon to more resemble a 'connected galaxy')

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Major Tech Tree Overhaul

#15 Post by labgnome » Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:14 pm

Krikkitone wrote:
em3 wrote:
labgnome wrote:For some of the specific issues you've brought up: keep in mind Economics (the pink handshake) = supply mechanic, since this is one that's getting to you guys. Supply carries/transmits production, so the branch that handles supply has a good case for adjacency to production.
So maybe rename this category to Logistics?
That would fit with switching the icons for "Influence" which seems to fit a handshake better, and "Logistics".. (modify that icon to more resemble a 'connected galaxy')
Changing the names is totally up for grabs. For the time being I want to try to keep the "FreeOrion" icon for influence as it will probably be a pretty major mechanic. A lot of the categories have names that aren't exactly what they are, like "learning" being the research mechanic or "engineering" being the ships and ship parts so I figured "economics" was a good fit for the supply mechanic. Logistics also works. I want the icons to be something simple and easy to see. Preferably with no-fewer parts than what's already up there. I couldn't find a good one in the existing resources, so I used what I could find. If anyone wants to submit alternative names/icons that's totally on the table. Really construction should probably be called infrastructure. I just didn't want to presume to change the existing name.
Last edited by labgnome on Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

Post Reply