Major Tech Tree Overhaul

[Krikkitone]

Makes sense to keep the existing icon for Influence... but definitely something different for Logistics (if that's its main effect, that's what it should be called) (especially as it sounds better right between Influence and Production)

probably something like some starlane connected stars

[labgnome]

Okay, so I went back and edited my original post to clear-up some of the issues around the names of the categories. Hopefully that's helpful.

[The Silent One]

Supply carries/transmits production, so the branch that handles supply has a good case for adjacency to production.

That does make sense, although I'm still dubious about moving the supply techs into their own category and expanding the number of categories too much; we might end up with a lot of empty-feeling, monotonous categories.

On the other hand, I think it's an excellent idea to define more cleary what kind of technologies / improvements the categories represent, and I agree there's some technologies that could be moved. As far as I am concerned, starlane bore, black hole generator and collapser can be moved to construction, and terraforming and gaia transformation as well, as you suggested.

The cost reduction / increase connections between apps seem overly complicated to me (and it complicates the UI too). To keep it simple, these connections should be used only between applications of a single theory, as you suggested for terraforming / different metabolism environment adaptions. So if a player researchs the "organic" app, the cost for the "lithic" etc. app increase, which creates choice (will I colonise more worlds with my lithic, or with my phototrophic species?). Cost increases between tech levels don't make mcuh sense - players will probably always grab the early boni, so for later boni the "cost increase" will be sort of "auto-implemented".

How do you guys feel about converting the tech tree into the TAR(I) system and grouping apps under theories as I suggested in my mock-up? Is it worth putting more work into?

[labgnome]

Supply carries/transmits production, so the branch that handles supply has a good case for adjacency to production.

That does make sense, although I'm still dubious about moving the supply techs into their own category and expanding the number of categories too much; we might end up with a lot of empty-feeling, monotonous categories.

I suppose I bit more clarification is in order. I do think that Logistics is a good name and I was seriously considering putting the engine (and possibly fuel) ship parts in this category so it would cover "making things go". Similarly: depending on what we decide to do with it or have it cover it could get quite a bit more to do. I also expect some might be a bit sparse, but as we develop new things I think that good delineation will help us know where to put things as we get them. Influence and government-type stuff is still to come, so those are hypothetical right now, but will need places and will need places distinct from what we currently have now. If we do go the civ-6 type rout I definitely want government-type stuff to have a branch (or two).

On the other hand, I think it's an excellent idea to define more cleary what kind of technologies / improvements the categories represent, and I agree there's some technologies that could be moved. As far as I am concerned, starlane bore, black hole generator and collapser can be moved to construction, and terraforming and gaia transformation as well, as you suggested.

The more time I think about that the more I like the idea. It makes Infrastructure a "cool toys" category. Also FYI: if we don't have anything for the time being for those categories in question, we don't have to use them, we can just have that classification there waiting for when that's a thing. Which brings me to civics: if we do get governments, which looks like they might be down the pipeline too, we could put any techs for "social policies" that have cool special effects there. It could make for a triangle with Engineering and Infrastructure, that is the "cool toys" triangle.

The cost reduction / increase connections between apps seem overly complicated to me (and it complicates the UI too).

I'm not sure that we need to show the cost-relationships in the UI, as mentioning it in the tech descriptions might suffice, so long as we are clear about it. The pictures I've made are really for our benefit as content creators. The cost decreases are namely to limit techs to one or two actual prerequisites that stick pretty strictly to this system for the time being while allowing for inter-relatedness between applications. IE: it makes sense that a civilization that has better sensors would also be able to get better stealth easier, but the requirement is having the previous stealth technology, not the sensor technology.

To keep it simple, these connections should be used only between applications of a single theory, as you suggested for terraforming / different metabolism environment adaptions. So if a player researchs the "organic" app, the cost for the "lithic" etc. app increase, which creates choice (will I colonise more worlds with my lithic, or with my phototrophic species?).

That's kind-of the point. It is suppose to make your choice of colonizing species more strategic. I would even hope that it would make the choice of native species you grab-up more strategic too. Not only move away form everyone gets every bonus, but also players just indiscriminately grabbing-up every native species they come across. Mind you investing in terraforming would mean you wouldn't have to worry about that as much.

Cost increases between tech levels don't make mcuh sense - players will probably always grab the early boni, so for later boni the "cost increase" will be sort of "auto-implemented".

They didn't before in the current structure, but with everything branching off of theories and stat boosts being "dead ends", this can help curb the late-game ballooning we currently get by making it less optimal to grab up every bonus in one area. Again, it promotes more strategic choices. The "really early" bonuses might get excluded form this if it's a safe assumption everyone will want/need them, it really depends on what kinds of choices we are going to be putting the player in a position to be making.

How do you guys feel about converting the tech tree into the TAR(I) system and grouping apps under theories as I suggested in my mock-up? Is it worth putting more work into?

I really like your ideas for the UI. I also think we're 80-90% on the same page on these things. Keep in mind I want to build a skeleton at this point. OR-gates, variable tech trees and any other muscles can be built on top of it once it's complete. Basically what I really want to do with this overhaul is not just fix the problems we have now, but create a framework to build future improvements on top of. It's not just about where Free Orion is now, it's about where we can take this project after we have this tool.

[Oberlus]

[...]

1. I understand noting about Git.

Now I am well aware that I am not a programmer but I have enjoyed being involved in Free Orion. That is in fact after hitting a brick wall I dropped my efforts to re-work the tech tree, because I knew that I was not going to be able to do it myself and would have to be sending everything through someone else, and unable to test things out for myself, and that's a lot more work than anything else I've contributed.
[...]

Hey, @labgome. No idea if you will read this, but I'm following in your footsteps, working on the major overhaul of the tech tree.

@Jaumito is also working on this (no idea how far he's got).

Right now I'm building (using mermaid) the complete tech tree from the basic techs and trying to enforce T/A/R model as commented in this thread, borrowing most of your (also The Silent One) ideas. I'm planning to, eventually, and if Jaumito isn't faster than me (something easy), prepare a PR on github for all of it (so it shouldn't be a problem if you don't use it). The difficulties for me, right now, lie in the many decissions about what techs reallocate where in the tree, changing prerequisites, moving some effects... Considering that a big part of the current tree is rather far away from the T/A/R model and the concepts (or redesign criteria) drawn in this thread, I have the fear that what I am thinking could be too radical. Although, if I understood Vezzra's thoughts correctly, we have his sanction about reworking the whole tree from scratch.

Anyway, I'm thinking about post questions about particular changes, and having your ideas first hand could be great. If you are still around, please get in contact with us (posting here).

[Vezzra]

Although, if I understood Vezzra's thoughts correctly, we have his sanction about reworking the whole tree from scratch.

To be precise, what I said was that a complete redesign of the tech tree from scratch will be necessary (IMO). As far as the Theory/Application/Refinement model is concerned, we need to reach general consensus first that we really want to stick with that original idea. While I'm in favor of doing so, others have expressed different preferences (e.g. Geoff IIRC). So, before you're going to sink a lot of time and effort into this project, we should probably try to reach a definite decision on that.

The other thing is, do you really want to take on that task at this point? Not that it wouldn't be nice to have a reworked, better tech tree, but with the addition on major game mechanics still ahead of us I expect more major changes to the tech tree becoming necessary, requiring reworking the tech tree again and again. Personaly I'd life with just doing the minimal necessary patching of the tech tree to keep things working, to keep the time and effort necessary to maintain the tech tree down.

But if you're willing to deal with all that work, you're welcome to go ahead of course.

[Oberlus]

I've already blacked-out twice while trying to figure out a way to impose an strict TAR model into the current tech tree

As far as the Theory/Application/Refinement model is concerned, we need to reach general consensus first that we really want to stick with that original idea.

I'll start a thread on that question. Right now it is the most difficult part for me: doing a big reordering of the current tech "graph" to make it more alike the tech "tree" that TAR model implies, with definite branches. Right now it is a mess (i.e. a relatively complex network, but certainly not a tree). And the difficulty is on knowing ahead if it will be liked, I've done some work with the learning tech tree and I think it would work. But it certainly will need feedback and chewing.

The other thing is, do you really want to take on that task at this point? Not that it wouldn't be nice to have a reworked, better tech tree, but with the addition on major game mechanics still ahead of us I expect more major changes to the tech tree becoming necessary, requiring reworking the tech tree again and again.

Yes (at least for now), but slowly and carefully. First, get consensus on the restrictions to impose or not (linked thread above).

Personaly I'd life with just doing the minimal necessary patching of the tech tree to keep things working, to keep the time and effort necessary to maintain the tech tree down.

I'll probably start doing that