Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

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
SowerCleaver
Space Squid
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:59 pm

Re: Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

#46 Post by SowerCleaver » Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:18 pm

OllyG wrote:Lasewrs could do fixed damage at every range and another type of weapon would have reduced effect over range. This kind of thing would make the different kind of weapons much more interesting.
Right, and I think one interesting point here is that laser, the level 1 weapon, should also have a pro. If laser is the base model and all other weapons have cool features, laser will be forgotten. I want a doom star deck out with super-refined lasers!
OllyG wrote:Technology which adds to mining for instance should be a refinement of an application which allows a planet to focus on Mining (which everyone should start with). A Technology which allows mining on asteroids would be a new application. Another example of mining boosting application, rather than refinement, would be something which adds to mining production on a world not focused on mining.
The first sentence is fine, except that we need a mechanism that stops a player from obtaining % boosting refinement in rapid succession. We could do so by having theory-prerequisites for each level of refinement (which I think is better than having a mandatory cooldown period).

The applications described in the second and third sentences do not seem to have viable refinement options.
OllyG wrote:I still think that Applications should be able to have other prerequisties, so that it takes longer to research them. Maybe they should all have a long number of minimum turns, so that they don't come immediately after the refinement.
I agree with this, with the caveat that the number of such cross-linked should be rather limited. When you have a prerequesite theory, obviously you need to have researched all theories in the same field leading up to that prerequisite theory, which dramatically increases the RP investment you need to obtain such an application.

Also, when an Application's all prerequisites are satisfied, there should be a sitrep alerting the player about this.
OllyG wrote:Having multiple refinements for a single technology is good, but they should if possible not just be +10%, +25%, +50% and so on.
I think the role of refinement is satisfied with simple number boosts - application should open up new and interesting strategic options.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

#47 Post by eleazar » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:53 pm

OllyG wrote:I still think that Applications should be able to have other prerequisties, so that it takes longer to research them. Maybe they should all have a long number of minimum turns, so that they don't come immediately after the refinement.
Applications can already have multiple prerequisites. Or did you mean to say "Refinements"?
SowerCleaver wrote:Also, when an Application's all prerequisites are satisfied, there should be a sitrep alerting the player about this.
No need. You can queue any tech in the whole tree, and the game will automatically queue all the necessary prerequisites in order.

User avatar
Polymorpher
Space Krill
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:53 pm

Re: Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

#48 Post by Polymorpher » Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:57 pm

The main point is an easily solved problem.

If you don't want to brake down the fan core, and increase re-playability. You can have both behaviors.
People that like one approach over the other, or simply want to continue under traditional gameplay - will play it one way, will find people that want to play it the same way. Ultimately whichever tech way you choose, sooner or later you will test drive the other one, for sheer diversity if not anything else.

And with adjusted research design, which i will get into separately, the idea could be that a one research point from a tech level is required to open the next tech level, and researching a second thing from the same tech level would slow your cutting edge tech capability.

And if someone is looking to explain something on LOGIC. You just need to invent the sci-fi premise conditions, to achieve everything making sense. People dislike logical failings when they are left to the assumption that the universe they interact with has the same foundation as the one they are in. These assumptions are often overlooked by designers, and not everybody wants to invest the imagination to solve such conflicts that could have been avoided by a few syllables of lore.

Here I'm a writer I'll give you an example even quite related with the game. You can have an overlord race that is being entertained by all developments in your universe. And they set the standard for what goes and what doesn't. For MOO that would be the Antarans - say if you broke their rules of operation in the galaxy they kill you. Simple as that. You can invent any number of empirical ideas to make irrational or incoherent notions co exist with standard human earth premises.

For all the games we've dreamed how nice it would be to switch on and off ALREADY existing mechanics on and off - a free project such as this one, could thrive on flexibility. It would attract both the hardcore classic fanatics, and people that are looking to transcend the limits of the old format.

And if you really really want to go - hands on power.

The devs can open every property available in the tech tree and let you design your own using the graphical and property resources already available. Of course that would lead to the establishment of DEFAULT behavior. But the heavy fans of MOO and heavy fans of FO would gladly immerse in this diversity, when they are tired in outmaneuvering each other in the old terms, they can easily enter unexplored territory together and face each other in a environment they are new to.

And we all know, that the first exploration moments in games are the sweetest - the same way a campaign is not as great once you know what happens next and how it develops.

Either way advanced gaming ALWAYS define rules outside the game.

Of course all of it would have to be carefully designed but still.
This way modders are given the opportunity re create moo2 or 3 as best they can given the engine of FO. In which case FO doesn't have to face any copyright as its a free modding initiative that has nothing to do with the project developers.

For instance the same way people have re created Eve Online ships in Homeworld 2.
Image

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

#49 Post by utilae » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:21 am

My problem with the current tech tree view and list views is as follows:

Tech tree view
- spider web problem - it's difficult to trace one tech to a higher tech when there are multiple intersecting lines between techs
- category problem - colour is the only indicator of what category a tech is in
- scroll problem - player has to scroll over the tech tree excessively to plan what techs they want to research
- hiding categories - if you hide a growth category and a growth tech leads to a construction tech,
then the player may assume they can research the construction tech but in truth they must research the hidden growth tech first



List view
- order of techs - the order that techs are to be researched in is not clear


A moo2/3 like system of columns would be better instead of the list view. I think the current tree can be converted easily enough, as you would assign a hierarchy level from the
base of the tree and up. X amount of techs would be on the same level X and would be categorised into Growth, Construction, etc. I'm just not sure how cross category per-requisites would work.

Wulfston
Space Floater
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 4:05 pm

Re: Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

#50 Post by Wulfston » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:53 am

I for one don't seem to have much problem at all understanding the tech tree much. I rather like it.

One thing about the weapons tech is what is bothering me.

Right now, when you start the game you are able to research Mass Driver 2 or the more powerful Laser 1. If you choose Laser 1 then you can go right on to Plasma Cannon 1. And from there straight to Death Ray 1. So I could, in time, have Death Ray 5 without ever even having to research Mass Driver 2. So as far as this line goes, it doesn't make much sense to me.

It would be better I think for you need to research as least Mass Driver 3 before being able to research Laser 1. Perhaps there could even be a small Theoretical Prerequisite in between to learn the newer and more powerful weapon types.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Tech Tree Discussion: FO vs. MoO2

#51 Post by eleazar » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:14 pm

Wulfston wrote:Right now, when you start the game you are able to research Mass Driver 2 or the more powerful Laser 1. If you choose Laser 1 then you can go right on to Plasma Cannon 1. And from there straight to Death Ray 1. So I could, in time, have Death Ray 5 without ever even having to research Mass Driver 2. So as far as this line goes, it doesn't make much sense to me.

It would be better I think for you need to research as least Mass Driver 3 before being able to research Laser 1. Perhaps there could even be a small Theoretical Prerequisite in between to learn the newer and more powerful weapon types.
That's how it is supposed to be.
These are refinements. The concept of a refinement is that you have a strategic choice:
  • a) refine the tech for a small increase quickly (i.e. mass driver 2)
    b) or skip to the next tech, and give a significant increase in power only after a longer wait and bigger investment of research.
You don't need to research every single tech.

Post Reply