i suggested pre-release that there should be a dynamic ledger i.e. one that unfolds as you learn more about the galaxy.
Last edited:
For the love of God, when are we ever gonna get an in game tech tree library?
- Thread starter happyscrub
- Start date
-
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.
Obfuscating the effects of mysterious space artifacts is cool. (Ideally we'd have at least two outcomes for every anomaly, and at least 300 anomalies, so that only fanatically monofocal explorers in heavily connected galaxies are going to hit the same anomaly, let alone the same anomaly outcome, twice in one playthrough, but that's just me being greedy
)Obfuscating the effects of the tech tree that you're going to work your way through every time you play the game, and where the limit of the randomization is determining which currently exposed tech nodes you're allowed to pick up, is much less cool.
Why is it so important to have an in-game tech tree? It doesn't make sense for a first few games where they're deliberately hiding possibilities. That's a very important framing experience for the entire game. "Here's the big unknown. Go explore it." It's easily one of the big draws for the genre.
After that, the vast, vast majority of techs are single shots or linear upgrades. You don't really need to know that you need laser tech 1 to research laser tech 2.
Nor is developing a working tech tree trivial. Letting those who want the information to use the wiki is definitely the best course of action from a developer's standpoint.
After that, the vast, vast majority of techs are single shots or linear upgrades. You don't really need to know that you need laser tech 1 to research laser tech 2.
Nor is developing a working tech tree trivial. Letting those who want the information to use the wiki is definitely the best course of action from a developer's standpoint.
There are tech trees and there are tech TIERS that depend on previous tiers (and all your "mini techs" apply). The game doesn't even tell you about the tiers.
I know that I'm probably in the minority here, but I have to say that I really don't like the current tech system. I get the idea of randomizing techs to a certain degree, in order to make the game less predictable. However, imho it takes away a lot of the strategy. I really would like to be able to stir my country into the direction that I desire, without having to rely on a random number generator. Especially, since after a few playthroughs we all know the techs that are generally available. So they won't come in as a huge surprise anyway.
Personally, I am not a friend of randomness in strategy games, so I would prefer a tech tree like we have in HoI IV, for example. But even if we are not getting this, I think, an in-game browser of all possible techs, their effects, requirements and chance is definitely needed.
But maybe they could actually implement the possibility to choose between the random tech system we have now and a more linear, more predictable tech system like the one in HoI IV?
Personally, I am not a friend of randomness in strategy games, so I would prefer a tech tree like we have in HoI IV, for example. But even if we are not getting this, I think, an in-game browser of all possible techs, their effects, requirements and chance is definitely needed.
But maybe they could actually implement the possibility to choose between the random tech system we have now and a more linear, more predictable tech system like the one in HoI IV?
While not absolutely necessary, some sort of indication what techs depend on what would be handy. I remember in one of the playthroughs I spent years and years waiting for dark matter extraction tech to appear. Finally, I got pissed off, went on wiki and learned to my surprise that it's gated behind Tachyon sensors for some reason.
Another not-so-obvious dependency is Morphogenetic Field (i.e. Xenomorph army) being locked behind Epigenetic Triggers (tech to uplift pre-sapients). Also, which techs unlock repeatables: in 2.2. energy damage depends on lvl4 lasers, but energy fire rate - on lvl2 ones.
While you always can google this info, I would appreciate ability to see that in-game without resorting to Internet.
Another not-so-obvious dependency is Morphogenetic Field (i.e. Xenomorph army) being locked behind Epigenetic Triggers (tech to uplift pre-sapients). Also, which techs unlock repeatables: in 2.2. energy damage depends on lvl4 lasers, but energy fire rate - on lvl2 ones.
While you always can google this info, I would appreciate ability to see that in-game without resorting to Internet.
But seriously guys, I cannot imagine that any scientist conducts research in such a random way as it is done in Stellaris. You just don't go and await what the day brings for you. Scientists get specific tasks and then they work on them.
Imagine you are head of your state and need a new or improved ship model or a new weapon. Naturally, you would go to your scientists and tell them to research a new ship or weapon technology, wouldn't you? I don't see any way the scientists answer would be something like: "Well Sir, we cannot research the new ship, because at the moment, we do only have this new food building and a method for even faster research available. You might ask again in 100 months."
Wouldn't it be much more sensible, if we could decide the specific focus of research, but the actual research time/cost was somewhat randomized? There could be unexpected difficulties that delay the project. Maybe a project would even have to be cancelled, if it turns out to be not feasible to proceed. I could imagine some interesting events in this regard.
But in my opinion - and you are of course free to disagree - the current system is neither fun, nor is it a realistic simulation as stated above in this thread.
Imagine you are head of your state and need a new or improved ship model or a new weapon. Naturally, you would go to your scientists and tell them to research a new ship or weapon technology, wouldn't you? I don't see any way the scientists answer would be something like: "Well Sir, we cannot research the new ship, because at the moment, we do only have this new food building and a method for even faster research available. You might ask again in 100 months."
Wouldn't it be much more sensible, if we could decide the specific focus of research, but the actual research time/cost was somewhat randomized? There could be unexpected difficulties that delay the project. Maybe a project would even have to be cancelled, if it turns out to be not feasible to proceed. I could imagine some interesting events in this regard.
But in my opinion - and you are of course free to disagree - the current system is neither fun, nor is it a realistic simulation as stated above in this thread.
I like games that do it this way, or even put how much finance you put towards the research itself, which is what determines it speed on top of a randomizer of how hard it will be to research. Sword of the Stars did it this way how you described it, and you decided how much income you put towards the research to speed it up. Some empires and species were naturally more adept at researching some tech, while horrible at researching others.
This could also be done in Stellaris. A pacifist people will have a big boost to social tech, but weapons, ships, etc. will be more difficult for them since fighting is not their specialty by any means.
This happens to an extent already with tech weighting. Pacifists have a lower chance of drawing weapon techs, militarists a higher chance, authoritarians have a higher chance to get "the living state" the discovery tradition increases your chance of seeing sensor techs.
That is true. However, I think it would be much better, if the impact was on research cost instead of research choice. It might be harder to develop weapon tech in a pacifist society, because your people is generally somewhat opposed. But it does not mean, your scientists are incapable or less capable of researching them. It should just be more expensive, since probably more groundwork research has to be done and you might have to conceil it. Nice side-effect would be that it makes the game less random and more strategic.
I do also like the idea of allocating funding to certain areas of research.
What you've got in this thread is a bunch of grogs feeling anxiety about the prospect of being de-skilled by having the information they've won hard through hundreds or thousands of hours made more easily-studied. Stellaris needs a lot more in-game help, or a proper manual. At a minimum, if they want to send you off to the wiki for help they need to take some responsibility for the state of it. Few articles have been updated since 2.0, and fewer since 2.2, but the game itself literally sends you there when you click for help.
If you got SMAC in a box, it came with a poster showing the tech tree.
One of the frustrations I've had with the lack of a good reference to the tech tree is that you do get some explicit references in the game to dependencies; e.g., observation posts have options that are grayed-out unless you have a specific tech researched, and you can't choose certain ascension perks unless you've got the pre-requisite techs. So you've got to choose whether to choose a less attractive option now, or hold off until later, without knowing how much later it will be.
There is an ingame guide to the tech tree.
Its the wiki button. Right there, down in the lower right corner.
Its the wiki button. Right there, down in the lower right corner.
It's not a tree. For the most part, you have a bunch of technologies at different tiers. Occasionally, there will be prerequisites, but those are usually very straight-forward. Lower level lasers are a prerequisite for higher level lasers and similar.
In cases where this is less true, techs that lead to others that aren't just an upgrade tend to have an indicator saying "This tech will lead to further developments in <some field>.
Having a full tech tree would remove a lot of the mystery and surprise of the game. It also doesn't gel well with the random nature of techs, which is very not tree like.
In cases where this is less true, techs that lead to others that aren't just an upgrade tend to have an indicator saying "This tech will lead to further developments in <some field>.
Having a full tech tree would remove a lot of the mystery and surprise of the game. It also doesn't gel well with the random nature of techs, which is very not tree like.
I don't require a tree, but I would very much like a better library of researched techs than what we have now. For starters, I'd like to know how many techs from each category I have so that I for example can get an idea of what to catch up on.
How about: You're the head of state and you ask your researchers to come up with designs for a battleship and they say "Sorry, we don't know how to build a ship any bigger than our cruisers, and we don't currently have any ideas for how to solve the various structural issues that keep us from making anything bigger. But we do have a proposal from a guy who has an idea for how to make a more efficient food processing plant, and a proposal for a new mineral extraction process, and a proposal for a better plasma gun. Those are the only ideas our scientists have at this time. Which one would you like us to work on? Maybe we'll have a better idea on how to make bigger ships later on, but no matter how much we try right now, bigger ships keep folding up like oragami when we turn on the engines. We can't do much until someone comes up with a new idea." That's how the current system works, and it makes a certain amount of sense. Kinda. It's not perfect, but any system that only allows you to research one tech at a time is going to be unrealistic. At least we get to research techs from 3 different fields (physics, society and engineering) at a time.
It's not like you could have researched how to make an atomic bomb during World War I. No one had any clue how to do it then, and no matter how much money you might have thrown at it, you couldn't have done it. The research project simply wasn't available. But 30 years later, a few bright folks had come up with new ideas, and suddenly it was on the list.
What I have a problem with is that I can know that it's possible to make an ecumenopilis, which requires the Arcology Project ascendence perk, and for some reason I can know that I first have to have Anti-Gravity Engineering technology to get the perk, but I have no way of knowing what I have to do to get that tech. It's certainly not obvious that I first have to get the Weather Control Systems tech.
And as I write this, I can't just go check the wiki, because the wiki currently has no info on the Anti-Gravity Engineering tech. This kind of info needs to be accessible within the game. Maybe an actual "tree" representation isn't needed, but some way to find out what tech is a prerequisite for another is.
As has been pointed out, there is no guarantee that Anti-Gravity Engineering (hereafter, AGE) will show up as a research option as soon as I finish Weather Control Systems (WCS), but it is guaranteed that AGE won't ever show up until I have finished WCS. And if I don't know that WCS is required, I could waste a whole lot of time researching more useful sounding techs and wondering why I never have AGE available to research.
I've found this stuff called Dark Matter, and I know that I need the Dark Matter Drawing tech to use it. But I keep waiting and waiting for it to show up in my list so I can research it. What? You mean I have to learn sensor techs to make it available? WTF? How should I have known that? (At least that one is on the wiki)
It's a grand strategy game. We should have the info available that is required to plan and execute our strategies.
The offline wiki that doesn't have any info on Anti-Gravity Engineering, except that is it a pre-req for the Arcology Project ascension perk?
Gues the wiki has to be updated, but thats not realy a counter argument for what i said