• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In the current version mining tech are not revolutionary, kinda boring, but still create something interesting.

If you improve your mines, their upkeep increase, meaning you have to produce more energy. Your economy improves, but requires adjustments.

Lab techs allow you to specialize but at the expense of other domains.

None of these techs do that, though I can see why it is hard to do this kind of things with the new system.
uhm...
you do know there are laready repeatables right?
 
In the current version mining tech are not revolutionary, kinda boring, but still create something interesting.

If you improve your mines, their upkeep increase, meaning you have to produce more energy. Your economy improves, but requires adjustments.

Lab techs allow you to specialize but at the expense of other domains.

None of these techs do that, though I can see why it is hard to do this kind of things with the new system.

It seems logical to have technology without any cost to boost some aspect of your civilization. New scientific theory are a very good instance of it, they open a new direction for R&D. The two others seems to be more some method optimization than a new technology with associated cost. I think it is interesting to distinguish technological/paradigm revolution (with some infrastructure upgrade for somes, with greater effect and cost) and methological optimization ( lesser effect, but nearly no cost).
 
I'm not a big fan of those techs, because they give instant bonus with no cost.

Well, currently technology is irrelevantt because the cost is actually too huge. Extensive development is superrior, upgraiding existing buildings cost more resources with diminishing returns. Why would you invest in tech if you still need other resources to actually benefit from it, if you can invest in those resources? That's why current meta is to ignore science till mid game.
But if technology gives some bonuses on its own - it can become helpfull. Such technologies should exist just as those which actually opens new buildings and stuff.

The one thing that I somewhat dislike is that food production per farmer increases percently while production per scientist on a fixed value. That gives my inner perfectionist a headache.
 
Who sais these are at the beginning of the game?
And to be frank, you can reach repeatables rather fast if you've set your mind on them
Wiz's tweet. (should work now)

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1039231681478184960

"starting research"

Well, currently technology is irrelevantt because the cost is actually too huge. Extensive development is superrior, upgraiding existing buildings cost more resources with diminishing returns. Why would you invest in tech if you still need other resources to actually benefit from it, if you can invest in those resources? That's why current meta is to ignore science till mid game.
But if technology gives some bonuses on its own - it can become helpfull. Such technologies should exist just as those which actually opens new buildings and stuff.

The one thing that I somewhat dislike is that food production per farmer increases percently while production per scientist on a fixed value. That gives my inner perfectionist a headache.

Even if today's techs give diminishing returns, their return is still greater than those techs.
 
Last edited:
You turn off the guaranteed planets.
Once gets 0 and can not colonize anything.
The other gets 6 Planets and has only the difficulty of the choice.

Please explain wich definition of "Just or equitable" that fullfills. Or wich other meaning of the word "fair" you mean.
@Kayden_II : Do you have anything to say aside "none of your examples will ever happen in reality"?
Because frankly I can not think of something that is both:
a) As useless for discusssion
b) As wrong

101 of Programming:
"Anything that is possible to happen in a programm, will happen if it is just used by enough people over enough time." It is nice to never have to concern yourself with this reality. But Programmers do not have that Luxury.

So that leaves you with 0 Arguments aside from "Me not like Starting Planets".
And me with actually Data and examples?


Actually that is just one Situation.
But I guess you had to use "sentence by sentence disction" to find anything to argue against?

I just have to tell you that you are making a terrible argument here. According to the same logic one can argue that any random generation of habitable planets should be prohibited as it can lead to someone having 2 planets to colonise, while the other having 8 planets which is not fair according to the dictionary.

You've picked an extreme and low probable example. Even if is to happen due to huge sample size, you can't just ignore the odds. 0.00001 is indeed not 0, but it's much closer to 0 than to 1. Those who assume that something with low chances of happening never happens and/or doesn't worth considering is definetely mistaken but they are still less wrong than those who think that low-probable events are the thing we should consider the most and/or build all our strategy around them. Both are failures but yours is more devastating.
 
Even if today's techs give diminishing returns, their return is still greater than those techs.

No they don't. For instance science lab tech (either ph/eng/soc) gives you +1 unstackable science point per month per scientist-pop after you spend minerals on upgrading, also costing extra energy.

With new system you get +1 stackable science point per month per scientist-pop with no extra cost. That's obviously more effective. Or did you mean somethin else?
 
you'l have to post a screenshot or something.
i get an error with that link (or twitter in general) something about a failed tunnel connection?
There's been a lot of changes to various techs in Le Guin, and a whole bunch of new technologies added as well. Here's a look at how your starting research might look after 2.2 (non final numbers etc al).

DmwYFadXcAIwJrB.jpg

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1039232301564133376
 
Not at the beginning of the game.
Those techs are literally the old "get a better science lab/farm/mine" but translated into the new system
 
No they don't. For instance science lab tech (either ph/eng/soc) gives you +1 unstackable science point per month per scientist-pop after you spend minerals on upgrading, also costing extra energy.

With new system you get +1 stackable science point per month per scientist-pop with no extra cost. That's obviously more effective. Or did you mean somethin else?
Yeah it is true for science, but for other resources, current versions tech are stronger than +10%.

But I realize that this discussion is sterile as long as we don't see the final version and how it will really work.
 
You turn off the guaranteed planets.
Once gets 0 and can not colonize anything.
The other gets 6 Planets and has only the difficulty of the choice.

Please explain wich definition of "Just or equitable" that fullfills. Or wich other meaning of the word "fair" you mean.
"Both samples were drawn from the same continuous probability distribution"

Claiming that's not "fair" is like tossing a fair coin twice and then having a tantrum that you got heads while the other guy got tails.
 
In regards to the teasers, look forward to having to re-lean the entire tech tree from the looks of how different planetary/building techs will be. (Not being sarcastic, I love re-learning entire game systems from the ground up.)

I'm not a big fan of those techs, because they give instant bonus with no cost.
Those are litearlly just the T2 Mine, Farm and Physics Lab tech, minus the micro of applying them.

This is perhaps the most boring picture of Martins whole Twitter teasers. He did not even change the names of them! Maybe move the tiers around a bit, but that is it.


To be fair to me, @Mardols sounded like a man who wanted there to be literally no strata for flavour reasons, so I assumed that the equalisation of political power would be an irrelevance to him.
Strata a game rule - that like leaders - even applies to hiveminds.
Different political power between Strata only applies as a result of the Living Standarts.

Yes, I'm selectively blind to the obvious truth that empires with terraforming gasses and liquids look very different to empires without terraforming gasses and liquids.
You get the Terraforming done way earlier, meaning you get to reap the benefits of terraformed planets earlier with impacts on the Global strategic scale.

It's 2? i thought you only got one suitable planet that was garantee to spawn near
The game spawns 2 chains of 2 Systems. Chain 1 has the Colony in the first. Chain 2 has the colony in second.
 
Umm, the system of random habitable planet generation is already equal odds. There is an equal chance for any biome type to spawn around you more or less for all biomes equally, gaia worlds and tomb worlds aside. Same as it is with an AI or fellow player race.

exactly, but imagine if you were competing in some sort of death tournament, where you rolled for what weapon you'll use. everyone has the same chance to get any given weapon, but then you have to watch a fight where someone is fighting a dude with an assault rifle with a ladle. it's not fair, even though they both had the same chance to get any given weapon.

the point is this system, isn't "fair", and by reducing rng and increasing the base minimum, you make it fairer, and don't have quite the same odds, now their both at least fighting with swords now, even if one is a bit longer.
 
exactly, but imagine if you were competing in some sort of death tournament, where you rolled for what weapon you'll use. everyone has the same chance to get any given weapon, but then you have to watch a fight where someone is fighting a dude with an assault rifle with a ladle. it's not fair, even though they both had the same chance to get any given weapon.
Whoever set up that game, really needs to learn about the Delta of Randomness:
 
exactly, but imagine if you were competing in some sort of death tournament, where you rolled for what weapon you'll use. everyone has the same chance to get any given weapon, but then you have to watch a fight where someone is fighting a dude with an assault rifle with a ladle. it's not fair, even though they both had the same chance to get any given weapon.

the point is this system, isn't "fair", and by reducing rng and increasing the base minimum, you make it fairer, and don't have quite the same odds, now their both at least fighting with swords now, even if one is a bit longer.
I dont think thats whats happening here.
its more like a gladiator battle and the options are things ranging from a dagger to a battle axe. The odds can make things unfair but its not impossible to overcome.
 
There's been a lot of changes to various techs in Le Guin, and a whole bunch of new technologies added as well. Here's a look at how your starting research might look after 2.2 (non final numbers etc al).

DmwYFadXcAIwJrB.jpg

https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1039232301564133376
How much research can a single scientist achieve in 2.2?
It will start at 9 (3 of each) and if the old techs remain like Quantum theory it might increase it's base output to 18 or even 25.
At to that other bonuses like stability and we are looking at 30.
Then upgrade your lab and place it on a city planet and 1 planet will produce more science than most empires in 2.1.