Scientific Specialization

[Hyomoto]

@Grubsnik - You would split your research between the two projects. Rather than giving you a new draw, you'd just choose from the pool you already have. So if you were a really low research option culture, which I don't think exists, I supposed you could feasibly be limited to a single tech. As for assigning multiple scientists, you'd just be getting the two scientists bonuses added to the base research.

On the subject of 'horrible game design', Stellaris is notorious for it's end game, right? Like, it's just a slog. No matter what victory you hope to pursue, it could be argued every game eventually becomes cleanup: a really long and drawn out cleanup. I'd love to see the statistics on how many games of Stellaris are finished because I'd take a bet a lot of players start a new game once they enter the end game. And yet, many people enjoy Stellaris for the journey. So sure, Stellaris shouldn't make you fail. Still, isn't it strange the ship designer allows you do whatever you want, and ship composition is quite important, and yet everywhere else meaningful choices don't exist? Outside of battle there are few risks. For all it pretends, Stellaris is a very insular experience about self-sufficient societies. Not can be, are. And yet, isn't that the point of diplomacy? Would that not be the advantages of a Federation? The ability to rely on others to round out your empire? Stellaris is a game. One I love watching evolve and like playing, and one that is highly entertaining to talk to other people about their experiences with. But Stellaris is a mediocre RTS, with a mediocre economy layer and a promising government layer, so when you take Stellaris as a whole and start talking about bad design, I look like a dog when you point at something on TV and they just look at your finger. I literally have no clue what you are talking about. Does anyone actually think there's no room for improvement?

Would allowing you more freedom in how to research your tech really be something so profound as to destroy the game? Or is it entirely possible that games, especially like this, benefit from giving the player control? To borrow from Prison Architect, originally they wanted everything to be automated until they realized that the computer could never feasibly understand every player intention. So, while the game never got full automation, the AI was improved to do a decent job in most cases, and the player was given the option to intervene when it doesn't. I think that's a pretty damn good goal.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

This is hardly a fundamental overhaul of the game

No, it isn't. I never said it was. I said that without a fundamental overhaul of the technology tree, your idea is bad and encourages players to fail.

Parallel progression in multiple techs in the same field means researching both techs half as quickly (because, say, your physics research points are being split between two physics techs), while NOT researching in some other field. Now, you can "compensate" (poorly) for this by massively overbuilding (for example) physics research labs, but the game already allows you to do that, and allowing you to also research more physics techs in parallel wouldn't help. It would also be a disastrously bad idea to focus all your labs on physics, because it means falling behind on essentially mandatory technologies in the other two fields you're neglecting.

Without a massive overhaul of the technology system, the option to research multiple techs in the same field in parallel makes absolutely no sense and is always the worst and least optimal choice possible.

 

[Hyomoto]

No, it isn't. I never said it was. I said that without a fundamental overhaul of the technology tree, your idea is bad and encourages players to fail.

Parallel progression in multiple techs in the same field means researching both techs half as quickly (because, say, your physics research points are being split between two physics techs), while NOT researching in some other field. Now, you can "compensate" (poorly) for this by massively overbuilding (for example) physics research labs, but the game already allows you to do that, and allowing you to also research more physics techs in parallel wouldn't help. It would also be a disastrously bad idea to focus all your labs on physics, because it means falling behind on essentially mandatory technologies in the other two fields you're neglecting.

Without a massive overhaul of the technology system, the option to research multiple techs in the same field in parallel makes absolutely no sense and is always the worst and least optimal choice possible.

It doesn't force you to do anything, and in fact would encourage you not to for the reasons you gave. So, while I could see you arguing it's pointless because it largely wouldn't help you, the idea that it would both require a fundamental overhaul of the technology tree and that utilizing it at all would be disastrous, well, frankly: it's dumb. I mean, do you honestly care that much about how other people play? Do you really think it encourages players to fail? Does it actually require a total revamp of the technology tree? Or are you really, really guilty of hyperbole right now.

 

[Hazrond]

besides, specialization is pretty easy. Intelligent + Fanatic Materialist + Encourage Free thought is looking at a generalized bonus of +35%. Add in Natural Sociologists and Society Research Grants and you can have your Society running at +80% meanwhile your Engineering and Physics are lagging behind at a measly bonus of +25%. Specialization is easily possible within the existing system without having to reassign research away from a field entirely.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

Does it actually require a total revamp of the technology tree? Or are you really, really guilty of hyperbole right now.

While I grant you that I originally said "tree", I think you'll find that the post you just quoted actually says "system". "Technology system". As in, the system whereby you collect three different resources for physics, society and engineering research, and in the context of which parallel research within the same field makes no sense and does not help you. For your idea to be remotely sensible, the technology system would have to not work the way it currently does. Why would anyone choose to research two technologies at half speed each, when they could research one at full speed and then another at full speed and have them both in the same total amount of time, but complete one of them sooner? It just baffles me that you could even begin to think that it's a good idea.

 

[Hyomoto]

besides, specialization is pretty easy. Intelligent + Fanatic Materialist + Encourage Free thought is looking at a generalized bonus of +35%. Add in Natural Sociologists and Society Research Grants and you can have your Society running at +80% meanwhile your Engineering and Physics are lagging behind at a measly bonus of +25%. Specialization is easily possible within the existing system without having to reassign research away from a field entirely.

True, but you are combing edicts, ethics and traits, two of which are not easily changed mid-game, and also concerns researching a single tech. Additionally I'm suggesting you should be able to add more scientists to that bonus and research parallel techs. At it's core it really has nothing to do with edicts, ethics or traits. I am fully aware I can min-max bonuses.

While I grant you that I originally said "tree", I think you'll find that the post you just quoted actually says "system". "Technology system". As in, the system whereby you collect three different resources for physics, society and engineering research, and in the context of which parallel research within the same field makes no sense and does not help you. For your idea to be remotely sensible, the technology system would have to not work the way it currently does. Why would anyone choose to research two technologies at half speed each, when they could research one at full speed and then another at full speed and have them both in the same total amount of time, but complete one of them sooner? It just baffles me that you could even begin to think that it's a good idea.

Good question. And that's the type of discourse I'd expect, and appreciate. The answer is pretty simple: the game is already prepped to deal with this and it's honestly probably somewhat overpowered. First, you store excess research. So whatever tech you skip will come in at nearly twice the pace. And second, an edict for Physics research, for example, is maximized by only researching physics technology. You'd be getting 30% on each one, so even if the total research going to each tech was 1/3, your stored research takes a hit, and technology comes in slower, the end result it is way more efficient. Sometimes you'd want to put all your research into a single tech since it would be way faster, but the efficiency gains are nothing to dismiss out of hand. There's also other less obvious stuff like redrawing technology after each completion, creates a larger, less stable cycling which could be desirable or not. As you've pointed out: neglecting the other trees is it's own penalty so I'm guessing for all but the most ardent of min-maxers, most players would usually pursue the benefits of quicker technology over efficiency. Especially in the early game when technology can already be slow.

Still, can we agree that there are boons, penalties and downright unknowns in this? The game wasn't designed with it in mind but I'm suggesting it would be better to be allowed to have more control and flexibility. I mean, hell, haven't you ever ended up with a pool of scientists with the same research trait?

 

[Almond_Brown]

That is precisely what I was talking about, yes. As I said, it could be balanced by having you split your resource between them. The problem really is that the base game doesn't really do tech specialization in the broad sense. Yes you most certain can focus more heavily on one area than another, and I'm sure people do, but generally speaking the game is very adamant about balancing your research. The fact that you are required to both research one of each, and two that research producing buildings provide all three, strongly suggests that.

I'd like to see technology be as significant to a culture as it's government and ethics. After all, does a pacifist society have interest in nuclear bombs? Admitting that you need to research war tech is basically admitting the base game only rewards one style of play. Or to put it another way, you can research only war tech and win, but focusing entirely on society probably not. A federation is a much more difficult win-scenario than bludgeoning everything into submission. Having more control over your technological future and treating it less like a mandatory chore of increasing power and more of a cultural identity is good start.

True enough, but in a game that's core is about "Galactic Expansion" the non-expanders, despite their Scientifically focused prowess, will eventually become overwhelmed, without some powerful expanding friends, under the current system. Non military based Sciences alone simply will not save you...

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

You'd be getting 30% on each one, so even if the total research going to each tech was 1/3, your stored research takes a hit, and technology comes in slower, the end result it is way more efficient.

No, that's ... not how percentages work. Here's an example. My fictitious empire of squid-monsters produces +20 physics research per month. Using the physics edict, I can produce 26 (130%). If I decide to split that research between two physics technologies, each of them gets 10 physics research points per month. With the physics edict, they each get +30%, bringing the total to 13 points per month. 13 plus 13 equals 26. There is no net difference at all. This is the most basic of basic maths.

And what's more, if I'm continuing to accumulate points from other research fields that I'm not spending, then I can use them to instantly buy technologies in those fields later. So not only is my physics research not being sped up, my research in other fields isn't even being slowed down -- I'm just refusing to select the technologies I should by rights have already researched. In fact, research effectively slows down across the board, not because of the way resources are allocated, but just because I am delaying the receipt of technologies in all fields that I could have received much earlier.

Your proposal makes absolutely no sense within the context of the Stellaris technology system. None.

 

[Hyomoto]

No, that's ... not how percentages work. Here's an example. My fictitious empire of squid-monsters produces +20 physics research per month. Using the physics edict, I can produce 26 (130%). If I decide to split that research between two physics technologies, each of them gets 10 physics research points per month. With the physics edict, they each get +30%, bringing the total to 13 points per month. 13 plus 13 equals 26. There is no net difference at all. This is the most basic of basic maths.

And what's more, if I'm continuing to accumulate points from other research fields that I'm not spending, then I can use them to instantly buy technologies in those fields later. So not only is my physics research not being sped up, my research in other fields isn't even being slowed down -- I'm just refusing to select the technologies I should by rights have already researched. In fact, research effectively slows down across the board, not because of the way resources are allocated, but just because I am delaying the receipt of technologies in all fields that I could have received much earlier.

Your proposal makes absolutely no sense within the context of the Stellaris technology system. None.

That is still how percentages work. What you meant to say is the second part in that it wouldn't make any difference. And that's true, I did make a mistake there. So good on you for pointing it out. However, I brought it up before that it may not make any real difference. So, let me back all the way up to the beginning. What I'd like to see is the ability to choose multiple techs or assign multiple scientists to the same tech. Full stop. However, what I'd really love to see is Stellaris treat technology much in the same way it treats government and ethics and allow it to be a defining part of your empire with benefits and drawbacks. For the latter, yes, a full revamp of how technology is dealt with in the game would be required. For the base suggestion, it's just a simple player freedom QOL suggestion that by your own admission: "There is no net difference at all." So, if this is true, then it cannot delay research, it cannot encourage players to fail, it cannot ruin the game. All tenants of why you apparently think it sucks. It would be a highly minor and inoffensive alteration that many people may never notice or even make use of.

But, you've helped me come around. You may have an obsession with hyperbole, but by making me defend and evaluate my position I have realized that it really wouldn't make much difference at all. So while I still like the idea of being free to choose, and to be clear that was always the core of this idea, the lack thereof is rather inoffensive. It's wierd I have to play devil's advocate to my own point because you are so god awful at presenting your position.

One more thing, otherwise it will bother me, is that isn't how stored research works. And for someone with as many hours in game I know you know that isn't how it works. So why are you using a false pretense to describe a situation that can't even exist? Stop that. You'd be a decent person to discuss things with if you didn't have such a habit of trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat.