Declutter Repeatable Tech in Engineering

[Hastet]

High Density Munitions/Loader Efficiency
^Currently adds +5% damage/attack speed for kinetic weapons. Proposal: add +5% damage/attack speed for kinetic and missile weapons while removing repeatable missile damage/RoF technologies.

Focusing Array/Flash Coolant
^Currently adds +5% damage/attack speed for energy weapons. Proposal: add +5% damage/attack speed for energy weapons and strike craft while removing repeatable strike craft damage/RoF technologies.

Fortified Core Layers/Synchronized Firing Patterns
^Remove these two defense platform technologies.

///
Why am I suggesting this? There are currently 10 infinitely repeatable techs in engineering, 4 in physics, and 5 in biology. That's pretty imbalanced from a numerical point of view. Not only that, but you will get ugly weapon synergies if you select random research tech. No matter what weapons system you use, spreading research between missiles, kinetics, and strike craft will be a massive waste of your research.

Also, defense platforms already benefit from shield/armor/energy/kinetic research. Spinning off two more repeatables exclusively for defense platforms is a waste of engineering research--especially since empires can stack multiple fleets to overwhelm defense platforms.

With the new proposal you cut down the engineering repeatable techs to just 4--2 in kinetics, 1 mineral, and 1 armor. Not only that, but the new synergies will mesh much better together if you select auto-research. You will no longer have to worry about engineering research going into weapons systems that you don't use or rely heavily on in your empire.

ALL repeatable research will now lead to beneficial results, with random research being much more useful and focused.

 

[NotAYakk]

Physics:

* Energy production
* Reactor Power (Increases reactor cost)
* Shield Strength (Increases power usage)
* Energy Weapon Speed (Increases power usage)
* Predictive Algorithms (+% evasion/tracking)

No energy weapon damage.

Society:

* Biotech (Food and Leader lifespan)
* Tactics (Fighter Toughness and Army damage)
* Admin Cap
* Edict Duration
* Fleet Cap

Engineering
* Mineral Production (+% build speed as well)
* Payload (Kinetics and Missile damage, Increases power usage)
* Thrusters (ship, missile and fighter speed)
* Materials (+% Armor and Hull)
* Station Engineering (+% Starbase damage, Increase DP count)

 

[GhostDanny]

Physics:

* Reactor Power (Increases reactor cost)
* Shield Strength (Increases power usage)
* Energy Weapon Speed (Increases power usage)
* Predictive Algorithms (+% evasion/tracking)

No energy weapon damage.

Society:

* Fleet Cap

Engineering
* Mineral Production (+% build speed as well)
* Payload (Kinetics and Missile damage, Increases power usage)
* Thrusters (ship, missile and fighter speed)
* Station Engineering (+% Starbase damage, Increase DP count)

I disagree with all these points.
Stacking any of these repeatables would make you wildly OP.
With some additional bonuses making no sense.

Predictive Algorithms and Thrusters especially could be stacked to unheard of levels, which eventually can make battleships move and evade like corvettes!
No energy weapon damage just turns Kinetic into the new meta.
Increasing power usage while giving the ability to get more reactor power essentially makes them both redundant.

 

[NotAYakk]

I disagree with all these points.
Stacking any of these repeatables would make you wildly OP.
With some additional bonuses making no sense.

Predictive Algorithms and Thrusters especially could be stacked to unheard of levels, which eventually can make battleships move and evade like corvettes!

If (evasion-tracking) is capped (instead of them seperately), and the gains are small, it should take a huge advantage to make battleships evade like corvettes.

Someone with dozens of repeatable techs ahead should be really hard to fight.

No energy weapon damage just turns Kinetic into the new meta.

No, energy weapons get attack speed, but no damage.

Kinetics and missiles get damage, but no attack speed. Missiles do get missile speed; but that just makes them approach the target faster, not fire faster.

It is true the first wave of super long range weapons matters a lot. So a deep tech tree meta of kinetics might win.

Note, however, that I provided armor, hull and shield scaling. Today, attack scales on the square, while defence scales sub linearly. That is one of the reasons fights become increasingly about first strikes.

At 20 repeats in, your shields and armor are 100% thicker. Your hull is 0% thicker. Your attacks are 100% faster and do 100% more damage, 300% more damage per second.

If very roughly 1/2 of your toughness is hull, you get 50% harder to kill. Enemy first volley does 100% more damage, destroying more ships. The time you get from extreme range to long, you take 300% more damage than you did at 0 repeats.

Then long to medium, again 300% more damage.

4x the damage, 1.5x the toughness, so almost 3x as many ships die before you close below long range.

Increasing power usage while giving the ability to get more reactor power essentially makes them both redundant.

Reactors cost more, and you can get advanced in one more than the other.

5% energy attack speed, 3% energy usage.
5% shield capacity and regen, 3% energy usage
3% reactor power, 3% reactor cost
5% energy production, 2% energy weapon range
2% evasion/tracking

+2% admin cap
+2% fleet cap
+2% edict duration and edict effect
+5% missile/fighter armor/shields/hull
+5% food, +5 year leader lifespan


5% armor+3% hull. 3% cost increase on armor.
5% minerals, 5% planet and starbase build speed, 2% armor/kin/missile price discount
5% kin and missile damage, 3% kin cost increase.
2% ship speed, 5% missile and fighter speed
5% station and DP build speed, 5% station damage/hull, +1 DP per station

I forgot to make armor also scale in costs above.

Maybe the power cost+reactor improvement won't work; the goal is 2 repeating techs to "fully" get the benefits.

I guess that is more about 5 techs per category, and making them all something you'd want.

 

[exi123]

If (evasion-tracking) is capped (instead of them seperately), and the gains are small, it should take a huge advantage to make battleships evade like corvettes.

Someone with dozens of repeatable techs ahead should be really hard to fight.

No, energy weapons get attack speed, but no damage.

Kinetics and missiles get damage, but no attack speed. Missiles do get missile speed; but that just makes them approach the target faster, not fire faster.

It is true the first wave of super long range weapons matters a lot. So a deep tech tree meta of kinetics might win.

Note, however, that I provided armor, hull and shield scaling. Today, attack scales on the square, while defence scales sub linearly. That is one of the reasons fights become increasingly about first strikes.

At 20 repeats in, your shields and armor are 100% thicker. Your hull is 0% thicker. Your attacks are 100% faster and do 100% more damage, 300% more damage per second.

If very roughly 1/2 of your toughness is hull, you get 50% harder to kill. Enemy first volley does 100% more damage, destroying more ships. The time you get from extreme range to long, you take 300% more damage than you did at 0 repeats.

Then long to medium, again 300% more damage.

4x the damage, 1.5x the toughness, so almost 3x as many ships die before you close below long range.


Reactors cost more, and you can get advanced in one more than the other.

5% energy attack speed, 3% energy usage.
5% shield capacity and regen, 3% energy usage
3% reactor power, 3% reactor cost
5% energy production, 2% energy weapon range
2% evasion/tracking

+2% admin cap
+2% fleet cap
+2% edict duration and edict effect
+5% missile/fighter armor/shields/hull
+5% food, +5 year leader lifespan


5% armor+3% hull. 3% cost increase on armor.
5% minerals, 5% planet and starbase build speed, 2% armor/kin/missile price discount
5% kin and missile damage, 3% kin cost increase.
2% ship speed, 5% missile and fighter speed
5% station and DP build speed, 5% station damage/hull, +1 DP per station

I forgot to make armor also scale in costs above.

Maybe the power cost+reactor improvement won't work; the goal is 2 repeating techs to "fully" get the benefits.

I guess that is more about 5 techs per category, and making them all something you'd want.

I disagree with repeatables which grant bonuses for range, evasion and the energy upkeep within the ship design. I agree with the points that we should also have a repeatable for hull strenght on all kind of things, which could scale little bit more than damage weapons can deal. This would lead to more hp on the field with lesser damage, longer space battles which would also give much more weoponry a purpose in the lategame. This could even brake the stale first strike meta we have now. I would go even further and remove all techs which increase the speed weapons are fired. That repeatables could also increase the cost for ships to balance them more is also an idea i can live with.

I could also live with the removal of repeatables which increase the output of basic resources like minerals, food and energy which could eventually lead to scenarios where we reach a new scarcity and buff the meaning of mega structures in the lategame.

 

[NotAYakk]

I disagree with repeatables which grant bonuses for range, evasion and the energy upkeep within the ship design. I agree with the points that we should also have a repeatable for hull strenght on all kind of things, which could scale little bit more than damage weapons can deal. This would lead to more hp on the field with lesser damage, longer space battles which would also give much more weoponry a purpose in the lategame. This could even brake the stale first strike meta we have now. I would go even further and remove all techs which increase the speed weapons are fired. That repeatables could also increase the cost for ships to balance them more is also an idea i can live with.

I could also live with the removal of repeatables which increase the output of basic resources like minerals, food and energy which could eventually lead to scenarios where we reach a new scarcity and buff the meaning of mega structures in the lategame.

If the effectiveness technologies also increased cost then you'd run into an interesting resource race.

I'm thinking power doesn't work now. You don't want to obsolete existing designs I don't think? The game engine wouldn't support it, and a power increase on components would do it.

You can make ships cost more, even if existing ones are upgraded for free.

So another stab at it.

Physics:
* 10% attack speed on energy weapons, 5% increased energy weapons cost.
* 10% larger shields, 10% faster shield regen, 5% increased shield cost
* 3% increased energy generation, 5% increased researcher input and output
* 2% increased tracking, 1% increased weapon range
* 5% increased catalyst/metallurgist upkeep and output

Social:
* 10% higher fighter damage, 5% faster fighters, 5% higher hanger cost.
* +5 leader lifespan, 3% higher food generation, 1% higher amenities generation
* 5% increased army damage, 5% increased army health, 5% fleet cap
* 5% longer edicts and 5% admin cap
* 5% faster DP, starbases, starbase update, 5% increased defence and offence on defence platforms and starbases, +1 DP per starbase

Engineering:
* 10% kinetic and missile weapon damage, 5% increased kinetic and missile weapon cost.
* 3% increased mineral generation, 5% increased consumer goods input and output
* 10% stronger armor, 5% increased armor cost, 10% faster armor regen
* 5% stronger hulls, 1% increased hull cost
* 2% increased evasion, 1% increased ship speed, 5% faster missiles

Raw resources intentionally lag behind here. Costs goes up at roughly half the rate of effectiveness does.

Weapons Range opposes Speed.
Shields/Armor opposes Damage.
Costs go up 5% per step.
Raw material output go up 3%, and processing to alloys goes up 5% (but both input and output). So you'll get raw material constrained.
Researcher tech might be too good.

Evasion is capped at 90%. (Ideally this would be evasion-tracking that was capped at 90%). So a battleship with 90%+ evasion is taking 10x less damage than one with 0% evasion; infinite evasion is good, not game breaking. To get a 20% evasion battleship up to 90% would require a 35 repeatable tech edge on your foe.

And 35 repeatable techs is ships costing +175% that do +450% damage.

(It would be even better if evasion vs tracking was Accuracy * T/(T+E) or something.)

Everyone will want:
P: 2% increased tracking, 1% increased weapon range
P: 5% increased catalyst/metallurgist upkeep and output
E: 2% increased evasion, 1% increased ship speed, 5% faster missiles
E: 3% increased mineral generation, 5% increased consumer goods input and output
E: 5% stronger hulls, 1% increased hull cost
for their ships.

Then you could pick a weapon system and an armor (or more than one) from:
P: 10% attack speed on energy weapons, 5% increased energy weapons cost
to have your ships and production of them scale.

Fighters:
S: 10% higher fighter damage, 5% faster fighters, 5% higher hanger cost.

Kinetics/Missiles:
E: 10% kinetic and missile weapon damage, 5% increased kinetic and missile weapon cost.

Shields:
P: 10% larger shields, 10% faster shield regen, 5% increased shield cost

Armor:
E: 10% stronger armor, 5% increased armor cost, 10% faster armor regen

Finally, general economic stuff:
S: 5% increased army damage, 5% increased army health, 5% fleet cap
P: 3% increased energy generation, 5% increased researcher input and output
S: +5 leader lifespan, 3% higher food generation, 1% higher amenities generation
S: 5% longer edicts and 5% admin cap

Finally, the starbase one:
S: 5% faster DP, starbases, starbase update, 5% increased defence and offence on defence platforms and starbases, +1 DP per starbase

At most a handful of these are suboptimal. If you are making traditional ships (not hyper specialized), you are only doing 3 "extra" techs.

I made hull only 5%; you get to boost half of the hull's HP, not all of it.