On the Tech Tree: Discuss?

[Morkonan]

From the V61 Devblog post:

...I've had this idea about changing up the tech tree, and just display all bonuses that you can allocate tech points into, indefinitely, but at an increasing cost. This will really simplify the whole tech aspect of the game, while offering more freedom at the same time. I'd like to hear if anyone has objections to that...

I just wanted to see where a discussion of this subject could go. :)

Disclaimer: It's got a bit "wordy" because I don't have the tree in front of me and haven't put together a mock-up,, sorry. :) I thought about this upon reading the devblog the other night and just wanted to get a discussion started as soon as possible. I'd love to read other's suggestions and their impressions from other games they've enjoyed, too!


My first impressions of the Tech Tree were important to my overall impression of the game's state of development. Of course, I went to that as soon as I could to see "what I could do in the game" and was very impressed by the ginormous spread of the Tech Tree.

I'm still impressed, btw.


So, even though some of these are of a simple "% bonus" type, i still think their entries are somewhat important for the player's engagement. And, the descriptions also have a narrative value of their own, setting the tone for the action of discovering them.

Yes, they do sometimes seem "pendantic" in that they stretch across the screen with rank upon rank of %bonus advances being broken up, here and there, with qualitative discoveries. (That is great, by the way!) Even so, the experience of seeing that tech tree splayed out has its own effect on the player that isn't easily broken even if some are just "%bonus" - "Advancing technology is a very long-term effort and technology is very meaningful." Is that "true?" Probably. But, it's the player's impression of it that is continually reinforced with those tiny little slivers of narrative in some of the individual tech's that's important, too.

I can see why it would be desirable to condense lines of research into "progressive point" systems. It's sort of like having one's "dirty laundry of unpolished work" hanging out for all to see, right? But, I don't think that it should be done from the perspective of constructing a sot of "infinite progressive point system."

Those are boring as heck. They are thoroughly unexciting and terrible in every way. What they do is actually destroy the notion that the player has a "goal" to achieve at any one time and that their agency there is largely... just... technologically pleasuring oneself...

I've played games with such systems in them and their "Technology" advancement mechanics were largely unrewarding whenever they had portions that were "Yay, you get to add a point to this tech." A similar approach was done in "Birth of the Federation," a sort of Star Trek 4x game. IIRC, it had both that sort of advancement system as well as a "building" system that was equally horrible... One would build a "Energy Plant I" to then "advance" to an "Energy Plant II" to then advanced to an "Energy Plant III" and so on... They didn't even bother to give these different names and no attempt was made to provide an engaging experience, there, at all. They could have used any number of "Unobtanium Energy Source" fiction to give that some color. They actively chose not to do so and that's a sign of a lack of proper direction on someone's part.

There are many approaches SoS's Tech Tree could take in order to spice it up and give it some flavor that don't involve serious "mechanical" changes. What matters in the end is how the player experiences it and how they interpret it as part of their sort of 4x/city-building/survival "narrative." The Tech Tree is "Major Gamer Food" for influencing that narrative experience that fans of the genre enjoy. Every fan of this genre is going to place special importance on how that Tech Tree "works." And, how it actually "works" may be different than how it appears to the player to "work." (As those bits of colorful description in some SoS advances already demonstrate.)

I think many gamers may have already had experience in some of the older Civilization titles that offer a "continuing progression points" system. IIRC, that was as late as CivIV? Maybe stopped earlier, though. It was Civ's "Future Tech" series of tech advancements that only acted as a sort of tiny multiplier, at best. It is very important to realize, however, that this progression-point system only appeared at the very END of a long series of much more meaningful technology advancements and unlocks, however. By that time, the player had already experienced a great deal of reward for their efforts in various attained game tools and worthwhile rewards for their in-game achievements in Research. Further, by putting that "Future Tech" system in place, the devs (Firaxis?) were giving the player a sort of lightweight additional goal to acknowledge their continued efforts. They were added to provide the player an additional opportunity, albeit small, to gain a reward.

If a "Technology Tree" consisted entirely of this mechanic, it would be a tragedy. It would also be a loss of opportunity to gain the player's support and engagement. Worse, it'd act as a point of criticism, no matter how expedient and efficient it may be in practice for the developer. I fear it would water down the system to make it uninteresting.

The current system may first appear "uninteresting," but it still has those little panels to "unlock" and the opportunity to fuel a narrative experience is still within each one.

However...

Expediency is nice in some cases.

As with that Civ game that used the Future Tech, a point-progression method applied to certain technologies could work. But, I would suggest that it be limited if it's within a category's series and then used at the end-game stages, only, if it's in an "infinite" capacity.

A general description::

In their essence, the trees could remain much as they are with their separate divisions. This is how gamers want to see their Tech Trees! (There are tons of variations that could be discussed, btw. I've experienced more than i can remember. :))

Within certain portions of individual "trees" are "unlocks" as there are, now. There would also be "pre-reqs" and combos.

However, within those panels that depict a new, unlocked, ability can be is a limited point-progression system. So, for instance, one panel in the category's tree will have a series of three "pips." These pips represent "%bonus" multipliers. They're limited, however, and specific to the unlocked tech ability that panel represents.

The purpose there is to cull unnecessary clutter and/orr to reduce the sort of "disorganized" splay of so many individual advancement panels in a long series. It also "breaks up" the monotony of certain areas of the tree. The purpose is also to place more importance on that particular "unlock" and for players to see that unlocked reward in a more significant light.

Example: (I'm not at my gaming PC, so I am just winging it atm.)

"Taverns

<descriptive and flavor text>
<graphic>
<funny quote from SoS historical character/narrator>

* Pip1,* Pip2, * Pip3"

* Where each individual "pip" marks a separate effort of focused research that applies to the efficiency/bonus of that particular "unlocked" in-game tool. (Using the existing research mechanics, just the same devoted focus on lighting up each separate pip in those panels.)

Those three separate efforts, marked upon completion in that panel, represent the effects of what are now three separate panels present in the "tree" for that associated technological advance in SoS as it stands, now.

The takeaway - Those individual unlockable rewards have their own seperate, specific, multiplier rewards. Other research in that category that has "%bonus" is general. So, for a "tavern" a player can increase general efficiency in that category of research, but if they focus on the "Tavern" once they research it, they can increase some benefit that is signficant for "taverns." A larger service area, for instance, or a storage multiplier (could get deep into mechanics, but even just a slightly larger bonus than the next general one with suitable flavor-text is fine, too.)


In-between these sorts of "unlock" panels would be where the player gains "general" "%bonus" to the appropriate, general, category of researched bonuses.

So, let's say we look at "Farming" where we have a number of different farm types that must be "unlocked." But, we also wish for the player to be able to construct these farms without having to first research them, right?

Well, in that case, they have the basic farm that any ignorant society can construct. It's no different than any unlocked farm in its appearance. It just does not have the same efficiency and will not be able to support as many citizens, thus the need to "research" an "Advanced" version.

This allows for gamifying that system a bit. The "Advanced Version," whatever it is called, is represented as an unlockable tech, but it does not have to be unlocked to reach further "%bonus to Farms" techology. Its path is simply opened by researching some of those. Then, within its panel, once unlocked, are three separate "pips" that represent three more advances in what are effectively "%bonus" for that particular type of Farm. Once fully researched, the player can move on to the next "hallmark" research point in that category. That may even just be a "flavor bonus" panel that has its own unlock, but with slightly larger general bonuses available.

Anyway...

To sum:

A continuing point-progression research system is only ever appropriate if it comes at the end-stages of research for any particular category. ONLY. Not only does a Tech Tree form a major indicator of progression and reward for the player, it also forms a large part of any game's progression and tool system. So, it's not a trivial thing for fans of games in this genre. That just places much more emphasis on the quality of its construction.

My biggest concern here with SoS's tech tree is that it is utilized, purposefully, to engage the player and to provide them with a good, rewarding, narrative framework to enhance their experience of "progression" through their gameplay. I feel "infinite points" being used as the foundation for a new Tech Tree is the wrong way to develop this feature.

Note: Mutually exclusive techs, un-researchable techs, awarded/discovered unique techs, racial tech exclusives, culturally defining techs, etc... These have not been utilized in SoS, AFAIK, and they are all perfectly suitable for discussion and even inclusion into the current tree to spice up gameplay. These are very often used to make Tech Trees and Tech Advancement in general much more of an appealing game activity to gamers. These can be very rewarding additions to gameplay. It's just a matter of discovering how best to avoid "breaking" the tree or "OP'ing" an advance that is the issue with these unique sorts of "Research" mechanics.

PS: Sorry for the length. I'll see what I can diagram up when I can. I'd love to see other suggestions, which is why I wanted the thread started... :)

[fortydayweekend]

Totally agree with unique "qualitative" tech being better than simple quantitative % increases

I'd also throw in linking tech bonuses to material changes, e.g. having max tool level for an industry locked behind tech. Or as Jake has mentioned having new buildings that boost production of other buildings nearby. So the tech just opens something up, it's not an immediate boost.

For abstract things like foreign relations or storage bonuses, maybe have unique statues, torches, or other decorations that need to be built to get the actual bonus

(These shouldn't be additions to a building though like new auxiliaries though, once a building is placed it shouldn't need to be changed)

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by fortydayweekend:

..
For abstract things like foreign relations or storage bonuses, maybe have unique statues, torches, or other decorations that need to be built to get the actual bonus

(These shouldn't be additions to a building though like new auxiliaries though, once a building is placed it shouldn't need to be changed)

That's the spirit!

I don't know what mechanical changes Gamatron is willing to make, here. The issue is that a Tech Tree like this in a game like this forms the foundation of... the game. It's about how the player judges their progress and how the player plans for future goals. It's why any 4X or "Builder" player that plays games with Tech Trees rushes out and opens up any game's Tech Tree, first... nearly before analyzing anything else. So, it's important. BUT, I don't know what Gamatron wants to do in terms of mechanical changes.

I like the idea of unlocking small buildables like that which can give bonuses to certain areas. We have "Statues" that do that , but if there was a way to add that feature for these sorts of new "Statues/whatever" it might be pretty interesting.

I also like the notion of having certain "aesthetic" features that are unlockable or Techs that increase their efficiency if they have bonuses.

I don't know how much beyond the surface level Gamatron would go to work with adding some "gamified" features to the Tech Tree. I imagine if the ideas seemed like they'd be nice improvements to the game's appeal, he might be up for 'em.

In any case, I am very much in favor of "gamifying" portions of the Tech Tree like that.

I'm also in favor of all sorts of other standard Tech Tree additions, like mutually exclusive tech, unique "focused" tech for benefits that work on the Campaign map (Foreign relations has some presence already, but what if we built a statue and, because we unlocked an ability, could "dedicate it to our friends, Faction ___?" And, what if we could only dedicate a limited number of such "monuments?"

When a Tech Tree has a "presence" in a game and the player can see the results, those results are always a reminder of the player's success. Even when "The Pyramids" Wonder in Civ IV is obsolete, the player still gets a culture bonus and still gets reminded they were the first Civlization to build it. A player might keep a Legionary unit around just as an Honor Guard and to remind them of how significant it felt to unlock that unit, too.

PS: It's not that the Tech Tree is everything. It's just that if changes are to be made, I think it needs to be more engaging than a "add points to a tech to get more betterer" sort of system. Dunno what Gamatron has in mind, though.

[fortydayweekend]

A couple of other points

The game already has a unique tech feature in decay/limited knowledge. I don't know how that plays out in huge cities (I'm a serial restarter) but I imagine/hope that means you can't actually tech everything and have to make some choices. It means there's no "future tech" problem.

Also as the game is intended I think to be played as one city for a long time, the tech order doesn't matter as much as in say a 4X where replayability is the main concern. It's more about keeping it interesting at all sizes as you scale up. I totally agree that just having numbers get bigger isn't very engaging (especially when it's just a K turning into an M) and that tech should be opening up new actual "things" for the player throughout.

Finally though as the tech tree is moddable you'll be able to try out different approaches

[Unkillable Cat]

I worry that it will cause new players to be overwhelmed. While those of us that have been playing a while know the rough build order for maintaining supply lines, making everything open from the start it going to break a lot of people.

[Gamatron]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Thank you for the input, it really impacts my decision.

I agree. My current idea is based on the tech tree today, which consist of mostly "gain X for Y" with the occasional "special node" in between. And I thought I'd simplify that, both from a coding POW, but also from a player's POW, but also add the "infinite" option that will allow for infinite configurations, which is a good thing.

But as you say, it might break immersion, soul and the seeking of goals and milestones that are important to a player. The philosophy of the game is a bit fractured into this. In a way I want the game to be infinite, but know full well that once the player is disillusioned and realises this, the drive goes away. You want to break the game, complete it, master it, that's been my drive with these kind of games. But likewise, you stop playing a game that you've "broken". I stopped playing pharaoh just because of this. There are optimal "housing blocks" that you can put down, and once I discovered that the game was over for me.

So, honestly, I don't know which way to go. Do I offer a achievable goal, or do I trick people into believe there is one, like an idle clicker. The latter sounds a bit cheap.

So maybe you're right, the tech tree shouldn't be dumbed down, it should be expanded upon and flavoured. the only problem is the amount of work I need to put down to flesh it out. I always had the plan to steal this work from a modder, but didn't know there were indeed mods for it out there today.

So, I'll leave it untouched for now then. Any suggestions to the core mechanics are most welcome.

[fortydayweekend]

Originally posted by Gamatron:

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Thank you for the input, it really impacts my decision.

I agree. My current idea is based on the tech tree today, which consist of mostly "gain X for Y" with the occasional "special node" in between. And I thought I'd simplify that, both from a coding POW, but also from a player's POW, but also add the "infinite" option that will allow for infinite configurations, which is a good thing.

But as you say, it might break immersion, soul and the seeking of goals and milestones that are important to a player. The philosophy of the game is a bit fractured into this. In a way I want the game to be infinite, but know full well that once the player is disillusioned and realises this, the drive goes away. You want to break the game, complete it, master it, that's been my drive with these kind of games. But likewise, you stop playing a game that you've "broken". I stopped playing pharaoh just because of this. There are optimal "housing blocks" that you can put down, and once I discovered that the game was over for me.

So, honestly, I don't know which way to go. Do I offer a achievable goal, or do I trick people into believe there is one, like an idle clicker. The latter sounds a bit cheap.

So maybe you're right, the tech tree shouldn't be dumbed down, it should be expanded upon and flavoured. the only problem is the amount of work I need to put down to flesh it out. I always had the plan to steal this work from a modder, but didn't know there were indeed mods for it out there today.

So, I'll leave it untouched for now then. Any suggestions to the core mechanics are most welcome.

I've been wondering about this too. Is the idea for the game to be a sandbox, or would explicit goals be added eventually?

You can have it both ways I think, with the game you've made and with mods.
- building to a huge population is unique to SoS and offers a goal and a challenge
- conquering the entire map is (I assume) possible but not trivial
- modders will hopefully be able to create challenging custom maps

I'm a huge Pharaoh fan because I like constraints and they put a lot of effort into the campaign design. One playthrough with "normal" blocks and one abusing the forced walker mechanism and I was done too though - a lot of hours but not infinite replayability. (I tried a third playthrough using forced walkers on grids with no roadblocks which i think should be possible but was too hard for me to figure out).

Inspired by Pharaoh, massive monuments that take a crazy amount of polished stone and gems could be another goal that works in a sandbox. (Pharoah players would also compete on speedruns but that doesn't really seem to fit).

In terms of tech though I think there's a pretty simple solution - because of tech decay / maintenence, you could set it up so that it's basically impossible to get every tech. i.e. you'd need to cover the map with libraries to get the expensive final techs. (That could then be another goal for players to try to achieve).

Achievements are a good mechanic for setting goals, benchmarking difficulty and rewarding players for achieving them.

[Gamatron]

I do intend to add more goals, and I do have a single player campaign in mind. I'm a big opponent of sandbox games. The "build until you loose" design doesn't interest me one bit. So I think I should focus on an expanded tech tree indeed, and goals in general. And try to get as many hours I can from it. Mods can always prolong the vanilla challenge.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Gamatron:

...
So maybe you're right, the tech tree shouldn't be dumbed down, it should be expanded upon and flavoured. the only problem is the amount of work I need to put down to flesh it out. I always had the plan to steal this work from a modder, but didn't know there were indeed mods for it out there today.

So, I'll leave it untouched for now then. Any suggestions to the core mechanics are most welcome.

The most important thing in all of this is that the game reflects your intent.

Nothing is more important than that.

Surely, you intend players to enjoy their experience and that's clear. But, this is also creative work and, as such, I feel it must fully express your intent as it is possible for it to do. That's your goal, IMO, and any reasonable human being would enthusiastically support that goal, given your obvious intent is to achieve it while also adding enjoyment to the gaming experiences of others.

IMO, any suggestion must first bow to that requirement. (Anyone's, including yours if they're unduly influenced by the suggestions of others. Listen to your own conscience, there, always.)

I'd also like to point out that your design in the mechanic of requiring "sustaining" of gained tech advances is wonderful! It's an innovative inclusion in what could otherwise be "just another linear tech tree mechanic."

Those tired mechanics are typically the "I discover it, I own it forever" kind of progression mechanics. They are tools that are built upon, but may be obsoleted by player-choice in favor of new, flashy, techs gained. They are only rarely, if ever, tools that are actually "improved upon" themselves.

The "Civilization" franchise did that with certain units as well as certain "buildings." But, by and large, that was a spreadsheet game in terms of the impact of the Tech Tree on play. The military/tactical bits being the exception as each provided new tools for the player to use. But, players would rarely build legionaries if they had tanks available. Yet... legionaries could defeat tanks in certain situations and archers could shoot down jets in certain iterations of the game.

Your innovation here makes every single Library/etc "meaingful" and reinforces that throughout play. It makes "Research" no longer a "static" gameplay sort of component, but one that has a particular presence within the immediate gameplay field.

It is actually a burden that must be born by the player and must be considered as a component of their expansion and progression strategy. Getting more means sustaining more in what one has gotten... Those "old libraries" are meaningful. That past work is meaningful. The path to progress is both rewarding as well as a burden.

It's pretty darn smart thing you did. :)


Like in most stuffs, I've written and deleted a lot more than appears, here.

I think that if there is any improvements to be made, they rest in relatively few areas:

Presentation and Impression - The Tech Tree looks and feels "epic." That's great! But, it also yields something of an impression of "bland" progression in that there are many of the "% Bonus" sorts of advancements. Yet, those do add up and, for example, allowed me to overcome a dangerous situation with overpopulation versus food production and space limitations. So, it worked out for me. For a "brand new player" who has yet to experience those in their gameplay, the impression may remain for a time.

Consolidating some of those "% bonus" advances may be advisable. But, I think the presence of some of those is still desirable, too. Some research should definitely appear to be a continuing process of slow advancement rather than a series of "Eureka Discoveries." ("Civilization," in contrast, is entirely an experience of "Eureka Discoveries" in its Tech Progression.)

Making the icons/panels for Notable Techs might also be a visual improvement that enhances the player's ability to target them as well as making them a bit more meaningful to attain - If that more flashy icon is now highlighted and stands out in a more flashy way as a result, I feel more suitably rewarded for... making it flashier, right? And, if I can easily target it, I can feel as if I'm making better, more easily discernible, progress "towards" it.

A quick glance at my achievements in the Reserarch Tree would also show a Christmas light effect with occasional brighter glowy outlines of Advancements where I discovered something significant - Every time I look at the tree I'd be reminded of how great I'm doing! Or... darkness is ever-present.. It'd also show in dark, easily seen, contrast with "forgotten" tech, too.

(Don't over-use "size" though, in this, IMO. A more stand-out border is enough, or a tiny size-increase coupled with that. (Probably helps, too, in terms of screenspace.) If you increase their size/screenspace, that makes those more mundane ones much, much, less impressive. You could even get away with a thicker header/bar on those that contain "significant" Advancements. ie: Buildables, unlocks, new buildings/items/in-game tools/abilities)

Utility/Useability - It is a bit unwieldy in certain respects. It's a 2-d scrolling Tech Tree that is pretty screen-gobbling in terms of screenspace. (Not necessarily bad, just evident.)

I think a "Shift + Scroll Wheel" control for scrolling laterally should be added if it's not already in the game... I confess that if it is in the game, now, I can't remember it. :) (Not at my gaming 'puter atm. I just remember trying to find the "end" of certain trees was too troublesome.)

Tabs? Those are the conventional way to break up the presentation of a "Tech Tree." But, there are so very many different Classes in SoS and not all of them have similar numbers of Advances. That's a tough call, but it could be explored - Exploring that presentation style, not simply implementing it, may yield insights into what techs might be deficient or bloated.

Feedback - I experienced the "%bonus" accumulation as being highly beneficial at a certain point in progression. That's great. However, individually, the achievements were not "impressive." They were in terms of the steps I had to take to reach certain desirable Advances, though - I "felt" myself walking down the map of Tech Advances, through the mundane, to reach the notable. That's good.

So, if one is to remove something that may have good potential feedback later in progression, it has to have that feedback experience somewhere. So, "immediate?" Some consolidated Advancement that includes a stage of good feedback for being achieved, yet also doesn't just add more of a "watering down" effect that makes subsequent advancements less notable would be needed.

To contrast, here's an example of a bad design that contains an inherent and imperative "watering down effect" on the rest of typical feedback: For every Advancement that is attained in a game, a new Building is unlocked.

It seems nonsensical, but in a situation where there are only unlockable building/production items, every building is now devalued. They're not as significant as they could be due to the fact that they are the only reward mechanic there. There's nothing else to contrast them against.

In a game with few buildings, that's not so easily seen - It is progression, itself. (RTS games do that a bunch.) But, what if it was a game with lots of buildings? What if it was "SimCity" and the player got new Residential Building types with every Advancement? And, they had to actually build them... and they actually had to keep building them every single time they got a new one? :) Now we know what a "SimCity" experience without dynamic and evolving geometry would look like... Every Advance would be terribly painful. ("Banished" offsets this "pain effect" through obsolence/desirability mechanics, but it's also coupled to unique population and resource mechanics. SoS incorporates the latter and doesn't need the former.)

But, thankfully, SoS isn't SimCity. It incorporates free-building mechanics, too, which really pumps up the engagement and agency with the player. Creativity is highly encouraged with every single building Advancement unlock.

What I'm saying here is that there is a very good reason for seemingly mundane "% bonus" tech advances - They make all the ones that are not "% bonus" advancements just that much more meaningful. And, a mid or late game player can still "feel" the effect.

But... if one was to clean up the Tech Tree, those would be the first to be examined and replaced with Advances that attempt to consolidate a few of them. I do think quite a few may need to remain.

PS: I swear I'm gonna examine this thing in detail. I just haven't had the chance to really dig into it. I have some things going on this week, but hope to get to it in the next few days just so I can figure out whether or not my own opinions on it are full of crap.... or at least of some minor merit. :)

[Gamatron]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

So, first you have me change my mind. Then you have me change my mind back. Well done!

And you're right, I should stick to what matters to me. And I like to think that I do, in the things that matter to me. Like the knowledge degrade, it took a lot of heat, and still do. It's something I'm fairly convinced is a good thing though, so I defend it. From the beginning, I've made the game that I wanted to play. The ultimate game for me. I was very worried at first that no one would share my taste. But now I'm fairly confident there is a market for it, and I will stick to the original plan. That is not to say I don't listen to the community. A lot of ideas that have been proposed have been better than mine, and those goes into the game.

My purposed changes to the tech tree are based on what the tech tree is today. It retains all its functionality, while adding infinite allocations. This means infinite configurations. The tree is already designed so that you can not unlock everything. You need to choose. And this is getting traction with some, thinking they need to build libraries on half the map. The purposed changes should clarify that this isn't the point.

The downside is that it might feel and look cheap. And in all regards it is. Instead of changing 200 text files every time I need to balance something, I can just change a variable and it's done. I don't need to think of descriptive text. Modders, who are making new rooms don't need to think about adding techs for it.

So, given that the tech tree will have the same functionality that it has today, I'm for this change.

But, you have made me realize that the tree could potentially be expanded upon, and I haven't thought about that. I need to think that through, and thoughts like yours are very helpful.

My initial idea is this:
https://imgur.com/bCyByms

Special techs, goals, or christmas decorations, would simply be separate from the +x%.

So in all regards, you still have a tree, but it's streamlined. It will take less space. It can be tabbed. And, while still offering goals, it also offers infinite progression once all goals are reached.

But, there could be problems. What if I want to add more special mechanics, so that the special nodes grow and form their own little tree. Then we would have duplicate functionality. Would be better then to just stick to a traditional tree and decrease the +x% nodes significantly and rely on more tangible upgrades.

I agree that +x% are boring, hollow and cheap upgrades, and maybe one should focus more on a more tangible upgrades. It's doable no doubt. Of course it's more work.

IDK, I'm not convinced either way. Keep the thoughts flowing, they're very helpful. I don't have a strong opinion in regards to the tech tree. It's not in my vision, so I'm all ears.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Gamatron:

Originally posted by Morkonan:

So, first you have me change my mind. Then you have me change my mind back. Well done!

Double the service for the same price! It's efficient! :) (Not necessarily for actually doing anything, though... ;))

And you're right, I should stick to what matters to me. And I like to think that I do, in the things that matter to me. Like the knowledge degrade, it took a lot of heat, and still do. It's something I'm fairly convinced is a good thing though, so I defend it. From the beginning, I've made the game that I wanted to play. The ultimate game for me. I was very worried at first that no one would share my taste. But now I'm fairly confident there is a market for it, and I will stick to the original plan. That is not to say I don't listen to the community. A lot of ideas that have been proposed have been better than mine, and those goes into the game.

It's your baby. It's your creative work. While I do not hold to the notion of all games being "art" they are designed by creators with specific intent for a unique purpose. Hopefully, that's to entertain the player and only sometimes to also communicate a message greater than the sum of their parts. (Which is different than "art.") There's also your own reward to consider - You need to be happy with the creative result of your labor.

But, your intent guides development and it's imperative that win or lose, your intent is evident. There's little room in "the code works, but I didn't mean for that to happen" right? :) Your intent must be achieved as best as it can be in order for you to know whether or not it was as fulfilling an experience as you hoped it would be.

That doesn't mean you can't be wrong. It just means you won't know the final outcome if you can't produce what you intended.

My purposed changes to the tech tree are based on what the tech tree is today. It retains all its functionality, while adding infinite allocations. This means infinite configurations. The tree is already designed so that you can not unlock everything. You need to choose. And this is getting traction with some, thinking they need to build libraries on half the map. The purposed changes should clarify that this isn't the point.

If players can truly interpret that from the tech tree's presentation and utility, that's great. If not, it's going to have to be made clear in some other way.

So, in essence, the player has a gas tank full of gameplay fuel in terms of tools they have and their overall capacity to make use of them. You want the player to know that they can follow the map in the Tech Tree that you have given them, but they will not have enough fuel available to visit every single point of interest. They can get to a few rewarding spots, but can't take a grand tour.

How to do that from the Tech Tree's design or window? Dunno.. Some games use a "Research Capacity" system where the player sees feedback in the form of, let's say, some small window showing "458/1000" points used/available "capacity." The player then has some separate panel/display that informs them they have very limited ability to increase the overall capacity of their research pool, but not a lot. It's a failsafe measure in case they come across a dire need for a Tech they haven't discovered more than one which can be leveraged to give significant advantages. A faction/species, however, could have a significantly larger pool/capacity to utilize, but that's the implied strength of that species.

(Note for consideration: There hasn't yet been a visit to Tech Advancement mechanics that are not linear, like "Exploration Discoveries" or "Captured Tech" or "Events Systems" or "Tech Trading" and the like. Not that I'm proposing any, but your opinion or thoughts about utilizing those may help point the way to what can be used/discussed.)

The downside is that it might feel and look cheap. And in all regards it is. Instead of changing 200 text files every time I need to balance something, I can just change a variable and it's done. I don't need to think of descriptive text. Modders, who are making new rooms don't need to think about adding techs for it.

Well, to comment on that, if it feels and looks "cheap," you need to work on that presentation. I'm sure you don't want it to be something the game hides in the back room so houseguests don't see it...

It's a skeleton that many genre fans are going to want to focus on in order to frame their gameplay. A Tech Tree tells the player whether or not their LaZorTanks can fly... It tells them whether or not they can build Arrow Towers or Sewers. It tells them if there is an intent for a stumbling block to be overcome through applying effort in the Tech Tree or by not being able to rely on providence to clean up their own mess...

Food... I know, by looking at the Tech Tree, that Food Production is an issue I must focus on. I know this on Day 1 simply by divining the intent of the many bonuses to Food Production on the Tech Tree. I also know that my strategy should not be to fill the entire map with farms, but to make them as efficient as possible and have enough of them to gain those %bonus benefits to overcome what production problems I may have. (Though, Trade is a big deal too and is another of your more innovative mechanics - This game is not designed to produce cities that are entirely self-sufficient.)

Without one bit of narrative or terrifying in-game event, I know that "Food" is important just by glancing at the Tech Tree. Will I know that by the presentation of Tech Tree 2.0?

So, given that the tech tree will have the same functionality that it has today, I'm for this change.

It is your game. Let's see how it goes. Even famous comedians try out new jokes on the road, sometimes in comedy clubs nobody really wants to go to. They bomb out, too, and jokes fall flat. They improve the joke, deliver it a bit differently at the next club, then use those reactions to gauge whether or not they're successful. You're in EA... you can throw as much at the wall as you want to see whether or not it sticks. :)

But, you have made me realize that the tree could potentially be expanded upon, and I haven't thought about that. I need to think that through, and thoughts like yours are very helpful.

I write a lot of things in the hope that one of them, even if it's one sentence out of a hundred, can turn out to be useful for someone. You realized it. I just typed hard enough to help you break down the wall, that's all. (Hopefully, it was the right wall.)

My initial idea is this:
https://imgur.com/bCyByms

Special techs, goals, or christmas decorations, would simply be separate from the +x%.

So in all regards, you still have a tree, but it's streamlined. It will take less space. It can be tabbed. And, while still offering goals, it also offers infinite progression once all goals are reached.

That general concept, illustrated with your graphic, has the intent of doing the same thing my suggestion of the sort of advancement with multiple stars/pips/unlocks on its panel. It's a similar notion of streamlining the presentation while highlighting the importance of significant unlocks within the same Class on the tree.

In essence, both ideas as well as those of some others, act to achieve at least three things:

1) Allow for an expanding general system of progress in a Class of techs that still manages to yield a "%bonus" feature for general progression.

2) Make the significant unlocks in the Tree stand out as an equally complimentary part of progression, still being intimately associated with the Class they're themed for.

3) Both appear to be important.

In the initial presentation I know, which is the one in the game at the moment, the Classes have the standard linear tree with some nice, gamified, pre-reqs to fiddle with an engaging "connect the boxes" visual style when compared to most linear tree systems.

So, this presentation is actually more "active" for the player in terms of hunting and pecking through it and connecting up pre-reqs than some other "standard linear progress tech tree" systems. The player chooses routes within Classes and can hop around a bit in the focus within each Class. The have to backtrack, though, to follow sub-trees, which is very nice - There's a cost for not getting the techs you need in favor of bypassing them.

I wanted to point this out because while it does seem to represent a "slog" of research, some of which the player may think is sort of "unfulfilling," the activity itself of making choices along internal lines of progression in classes and picking up re-reqs is "good." Those are good "fiddly bits" in a Tech Tree. Some of that can be cleaned up, but keeping that "asset" as a tree being something the player has to actively fiddle with and examine closely may be important.

But, also note: There were times when everything was going fine and I didn't feel like trying to figure out what I wanted to research, so I just... clicked on stuff... Yes, that happened, and it's not necessarily "good." But, the initial impression is still a good one, I think. The "experience" needs fine-tuning, though.

But, there could be problems. What if I want to add more special mechanics, so that the special nodes grow and form their own little tree. Then we would have duplicate functionality. Would be better then to just stick to a traditional tree and decrease the +x% nodes significantly and rely on more tangible upgrades.

The latter construction, sticking with the general layout with some streamlining, would be the "safe bet." But... does it do what you want? Does it see your intent realized in the game so that you can get appropriate feedback from players?

There are dangers in unconventional systems. There's no precedents to look up, no previous occurrences to learn from. That's where the fun is, though, right? :)

Like many, I've played a bunch of games in this general genre. Like a few, I've had quite a few decades of gameplay. Like a smaller portion, I saw PC gaming being born. FEW developers in this genre "innovate" in their overall Tech Tree design when they have an actual "Tech Tree" in their game. They innovate the presentation most often, but don't deviate on that "my progress builds upon the work I have done before" feedback. That intent to give progression feedback to the player in an easily understandable way is what they focus on. That naturally produces some form of linear presentation. Even unique discovery mechanics or points systems still end up yielding that "progression" display in the Tech portion of play.

The gamey part of the Tech Tree is giving the player useful reward and feedback for their efforts to achieve a goal. They see the results of the tools that they have used displayed on that screen when a Tech "lights up" and is gained. The in-game results of that Tech achievement are, in themselves, something of their own reward.

But, staring at the Tech Tree should always yield a feeling of a history of rewards being gained or tantalizing future goals to be achieved.

That is the most important thing you must do, IMO - Feedback has to be good. Using the Tech Tree to imply goals to be achieved is a must, too. The player must also feel that their efforts there are largely positively rewarded, too. (A lot of players dislike obsolescence mechanics for this reason - It removes a reward previously gained. (eg: That Pyramid Wonder is no longer "special.")

I agree that +x% are boring, hollow and cheap upgrades, and maybe one should focus more on a more tangible upgrades. It's doable no doubt. Of course it's more work.

I don't think they're all useless. They demonstrate an important contrast and their presence makes those unlocks/tangibles "more special" just as a matter of purely mechanical display and interaction.

I know that dribbling a ball is necessary to get to a desired goal. It's often boring, but it is what must be done. But, if dribbling weren't necessary and it was just a matter of repeatedly making goals... would goals be so very exciting?

This isn't a "unit" game like in a 4X/RTS where the player focuses on unlocking units to produce and then watches them blow up stuffs in new, fun, ways. So, making every tech advance a tangible result represented in-game might not serve the overall gameplay well. After all, on the way to attain the new thing, the player does have small hallmarks of %bonus achievements. They get some measure of feedback for dribbling the ball towards the goal...

IDK, I'm not convinced either way. Keep the thoughts flowing, they're very helpful. I don't have a strong opinion in regards to the tech tree. It's not in my vision, so I'm all ears.

Somewhere in there is a neuron waiting to fire off a great idea. It's there. The design of the game, itself, suggests there are many neurons in your head waiting to shout out some new cool thing. Player feedback is the stick that prods your thinking meat into giving up these secrets.

I'll think harder on this today and tomorrow. I want to check some games I remember with some unique tech tree progression designs. Above all, the ones I can think of that are unique have been "serviceable" but not necessarily "great."

PS: This is EA - You are all-powerful and without limits.

Feedback - On your next patch, maybe add a splash notification to encourage feedback/participation for whatever it is you need it for. "This week/month, we're discussing the Tech Tree and I want to know what you think about some new ideas! Clicky the link to add your voice to the discussion! <link> " etc. That targeted feedback type of request is better than the standard "just join us" if you want to add more encouragement.

On the ease of adding new techs, tree editing/layout, while under development - Don't care about it too much, you're in EA. There's also no reason why you have to play by the rules, later, either... You can add as many shiny buttons, tabs, drop-downs and squiggly lines as you want. I don't think you can impose a self-limiting system in terms of design on yourself, here. Can you muck it up? Maybe... if you tried real hard. :) But, you can't do permanent harm, here. (I don't know your intended dev schedule or constraints.)

On the visual interactive elements and additions- I've seen tech advancement "panels" like that where some just got a new, smaller, sub-panel thingie that gets glued onto the main panel. I've also seen "fluid" systems where techs were mobile "bubbles" that floated around the screen and grew/moved with new additions... (Can't remember the name of that game, atm, though.)

[Gamatron]

Originally posted by Morkonan:

Originally posted by Gamatron:

So, first you have me change my mind. Then you have me change my mind back. Well done!

Double the service for the same price! It's efficient! :) (Not necessarily for actually doing anything, though... ;))

And you're right, I should stick to what matters to me. And I like to think that I do, in the things that matter to me. Like the knowledge degrade, it took a lot of heat, and still do. It's something I'm fairly convinced is a good thing though, so I defend it. From the beginning, I've made the game that I wanted to play. The ultimate game for me. I was very worried at first that no one would share my taste. But now I'm fairly confident there is a market for it, and I will stick to the original plan. That is not to say I don't listen to the community. A lot of ideas that have been proposed have been better than mine, and those goes into the game.

It's your baby. It's your creative work. While I do not hold to the notion of all games being "art" they are designed by creators with specific intent for a unique purpose. Hopefully, that's to entertain the player and only sometimes to also communicate a message greater than the sum of their parts. (Which is different than "art.") There's also your own reward to consider - You need to be happy with the creative result of your labor.

But, your intent guides development and it's imperative that win or lose, your intent is evident. There's little room in "the code works, but I didn't mean for that to happen" right? :) Your intent must be achieved as best as it can be in order for you to know whether or not it was as fulfilling an experience as you hoped it would be.

That doesn't mean you can't be wrong. It just means you won't know the final outcome if you can't produce what you intended.

My purposed changes to the tech tree are based on what the tech tree is today. It retains all its functionality, while adding infinite allocations. This means infinite configurations. The tree is already designed so that you can not unlock everything. You need to choose. And this is getting traction with some, thinking they need to build libraries on half the map. The purposed changes should clarify that this isn't the point.

If players can truly interpret that from the tech tree's presentation and utility, that's great. If not, it's going to have to be made clear in some other way.

So, in essence, the player has a gas tank full of gameplay fuel in terms of tools they have and their overall capacity to make use of them. You want the player to know that they can follow the map in the Tech Tree that you have given them, but they will not have enough fuel available to visit every single point of interest. They can get to a few rewarding spots, but can't take a grand tour.

How to do that from the Tech Tree's design or window? Dunno.. Some games use a "Research Capacity" system where the player sees feedback in the form of, let's say, some small window showing "458/1000" points used/available "capacity." The player then has some separate panel/display that informs them they have very limited ability to increase the overall capacity of their research pool, but not a lot. It's a failsafe measure in case they come across a dire need for a Tech they haven't discovered more than one which can be leveraged to give significant advantages. A faction/species, however, could have a significantly larger pool/capacity to utilize, but that's the implied strength of that species.

(Note for consideration: There hasn't yet been a visit to Tech Advancement mechanics that are not linear, like "Exploration Discoveries" or "Captured Tech" or "Events Systems" or "Tech Trading" and the like. Not that I'm proposing any, but your opinion or thoughts about utilizing those may help point the way to what can be used/discussed.)

The downside is that it might feel and look cheap. And in all regards it is. Instead of changing 200 text files every time I need to balance something, I can just change a variable and it's done. I don't need to think of descriptive text. Modders, who are making new rooms don't need to think about adding techs for it.

Well, to comment on that, if it feels and looks "cheap," you need to work on that presentation. I'm sure you don't want it to be something the game hides in the back room so houseguests don't see it...

It's a skeleton that many genre fans are going to want to focus on in order to frame their gameplay. A Tech Tree tells the player whether or not their LaZorTanks can fly... It tells them whether or not they can build Arrow Towers or Sewers. It tells them if there is an intent for a stumbling block to be overcome through applying effort in the Tech Tree or by not being able to rely on providence to clean up their own mess...

Food... I know, by looking at the Tech Tree, that Food Production is an issue I must focus on. I know this on Day 1 simply by divining the intent of the many bonuses to Food Production on the Tech Tree. I also know that my strategy should not be to fill the entire map with farms, but to make them as efficient as possible and have enough of them to gain those %bonus benefits to overcome what production problems I may have. (Though, Trade is a big deal too and is another of your more innovative mechanics - This game is not designed to produce cities that are entirely self-sufficient.)

Without one bit of narrative or terrifying in-game event, I know that "Food" is important just by glancing at the Tech Tree. Will I know that by the presentation of Tech Tree 2.0?

So, given that the tech tree will have the same functionality that it has today, I'm for this change.

It is your game. Let's see how it goes. Even famous comedians try out new jokes on the road, sometimes in comedy clubs nobody really wants to go to. They bomb out, too, and jokes fall flat. They improve the joke, deliver it a bit differently at the next club, then use those reactions to gauge whether or not they're successful. You're in EA... you can throw as much at the wall as you want to see whether or not it sticks. :)

But, you have made me realize that the tree could potentially be expanded upon, and I haven't thought about that. I need to think that through, and thoughts like yours are very helpful.

I write a lot of things in the hope that one of them, even if it's one sentence out of a hundred, can turn out to be useful for someone. You realized it. I just typed hard enough to help you break down the wall, that's all. (Hopefully, it was the right wall.)

My initial idea is this:
https://imgur.com/bCyByms

Special techs, goals, or christmas decorations, would simply be separate from the +x%.

So in all regards, you still have a tree, but it's streamlined. It will take less space. It can be tabbed. And, while still offering goals, it also offers infinite progression once all goals are reached.

That general concept, illustrated with your graphic, has the intent of doing the same thing my suggestion of the sort of advancement with multiple stars/pips/unlocks on its panel. It's a similar notion of streamlining the presentation while highlighting the importance of significant unlocks within the same Class on the tree.

In essence, both ideas as well as those of some others, act to achieve at least three things:

1) Allow for an expanding general system of progress in a Class of techs that still manages to yield a "%bonus" feature for general progression.

2) Make the significant unlocks in the Tree stand out as an equally complimentary part of progression, still being intimately associated with the Class they're themed for.

3) Both appear to be important.

In the initial presentation I know, which is the one in the game at the moment, the Classes have the standard linear tree with some nice, gamified, pre-reqs to fiddle with an engaging "connect the boxes" visual style when compared to most linear tree systems.

So, this presentation is actually more "active" for the player in terms of hunting and pecking through it and connecting up pre-reqs than some other "standard linear progress tech tree" systems. The player chooses routes within Classes and can hop around a bit in the focus within each Class. The have to backtrack, though, to follow sub-trees, which is very nice - There's a cost for not getting the techs you need in favor of bypassing them.

I wanted to point this out because while it does seem to represent a "slog" of research, some of which the player may think is sort of "unfulfilling," the activity itself of making choices along internal lines of progression in classes and picking up re-reqs is "good." Those are good "fiddly bits" in a Tech Tree. Some of that can be cleaned up, but keeping that "asset" as a tree being something the player has to actively fiddle with and examine closely may be important.

But, also note: There were times when everything was going fine and I didn't feel like trying to figure out what I wanted to research, so I just... clicked on stuff... Yes, that happened, and it's not necessarily "good." But, the initial impression is still a good one, I think. The "experience" needs fine-tuning, though.

But, there could be problems. What if I want to add more special mechanics, so that the special nodes grow and form their own little tree. Then we would have duplicate functionality. Would be better then to just stick to a traditional tree and decrease the +x% nodes significantly and rely on more tangible upgrades.

The latter construction, sticking with the general layout with some streamlining, would be the "safe bet." But... does it do what you want? Does it see your intent realized in the game so that you can get appropriate feedback from players?

There are dangers in unconventional systems. There's no precedents to look up, no previous occurrences to learn from. That's where the fun is, though, right? :)

Like many, I've played a bunch of games in this general genre. Like a few, I've had quite a few decades of gameplay. Like a smaller portion, I saw PC gaming being born. FEW developers in this genre "innovate" in their overall Tech Tree design when they have an actual "Tech Tree" in their game. They innovate the presentation most often, but don't deviate on that "my progress builds upon the work I have done before" feedback. That intent to give progression feedback to the player in an easily understandable way is what they focus on. That naturally produces some form of linear presentation. Even unique discovery mechanics or points systems still end up yielding that "progression" display in the Tech portion of play.

The gamey part of the Tech Tree is giving the player useful reward and feedback for their efforts to achieve a goal. They see the results of the tools that they have used displayed on that screen when a Tech "lights up" and is gained. The in-game results of that Tech achievement are, in themselves, something of their own reward.

But, staring at the Tech Tree should always yield a feeling of a history of rewards being gained or tantalizing future goals to be achieved.

That is the most important thing you must do, IMO - Feedback has to be good. Using the Tech Tree to imply goals to be achieved is a must, too. The player must also feel that their efforts there are largely positively rewarded, too. (A lot of players dislike obsolescence mechanics for this reason - It removes a reward previously gained. (eg: That Pyramid Wonder is no longer "special.")

I agree that +x% are boring, hollow and cheap upgrades, and maybe one should focus more on a more tangible upgrades. It's doable no doubt. Of course it's more work.

I don't think they're all useless. They demonstrate an important contrast and their presence makes those unlocks/tangibles "more special" just as a matter of purely mechanical display and interaction.

I know that dribbling a ball is necessary to get to a desired goal. It's often boring, but it is what must be done. But, if dribbling weren't necessary and it was just a matter of repeatedly making goals... would goals be so very exciting?

This isn't a "unit" game like in a 4X/RTS where the player focuses on unlocking units to produce and then watches them blow up stuffs in new, fun, ways. So, making every tech advance a tangible result represented in-game might not serve the overall gameplay well. After all, on the way to attain the new thing, the player does have small hallmarks of %bonus achievements. They get some measure of feedback for dribbling the ball towards the goal...

IDK, I'm not convinced either way. Keep the thoughts flowing, they're very helpful. I don't have a strong opinion in regards to the tech tree. It's not in my vision, so I'm all ears.

Somewhere in there is a neuron waiting to fire off a great idea. It's there. The design of the game, itself, suggests there are many neurons in your head waiting to shout out some new cool thing. Player feedback is the stick that prods your thinking meat into giving up these secrets.

I'll think harder on this today and tomorrow. I want to check some games I remember with some unique tech tree progression designs. Above all, the ones I can think of that are unique have been "serviceable" but not necessarily "great."

PS: This is EA - You are all-powerful and without limits.

Feedback - On your next patch, maybe add a splash notification to encourage feedback/participation for whatever it is you need it for. "This week/month, we're discussing the Tech Tree and I want to know what you think about some new ideas! Clicky the link to add your voice to the discussion! <link> " etc. That targeted feedback type of request is better than the standard "just join us" if you want to add more encouragement.

On the ease of adding new techs, tree editing/layout, while under development - Don't care about it too much, you're in EA. There's also no reason why you have to play by the rules, later, either... You can add as many shiny buttons, tabs, drop-downs and squiggly lines as you want. I don't think you can impose a self-limiting system in terms of design on yourself, here. Can you muck it up? Maybe... if you tried real hard. :) But, you can't do permanent harm, here. (I don't know your intended dev schedule or constraints.)

On the visual interactive elements and additions- I've seen tech advancement "panels" like that where some just got a new, smaller, sub-panel thingie that gets glued onto the main panel. I've also seen "fluid" systems where techs were mobile "bubbles" that floated around the screen and grew/moved with new additions... (Can't remember the name of that game, atm, though.)

All right then, thanks for the pep talk and the reflections. We will see if I have time adding touching this in the next major version.