Decision Time

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

What do you mean by polish it?

I mean that instead of rearanging anything, just work on what we have. There are no major flaws in either system, so the only flaws present will be the fault of us, those who create the researches.

Okay. So back to working on the research list thread, right?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

What do you mean by polish it?

I mean that instead of rearanging anything, just work on what we have. There are no major flaws in either system, so the only flaws present will be the fault of us, those who create the researches.

Okay. So back to working on the research list thread, right?

Yup. Impliment inventions though. Belgium fine idea.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

What do you mean by polish it?

I mean that instead of rearanging anything, just work on what we have. There are no major flaws in either system, so the only flaws present will be the fault of us, those who create the researches.

Okay. So back to working on the research list thread, right?

Yup. Impliment inventions though. Belgium fine idea.

Will do my best to do so.

I think we should have a combination of both, they both have their advantages. But there isn't an option for that...

I vote for a tree with branches.

I don't have any idea of how that would look, and part the variability tech webs have would be wasted. Show how do you mean the Tech tree with branches.

Redstar wrote:

Is there a thread somewhere that lays out the "Branch" idea? I don't think I've ever encountered it in a game before, so I'm having a difficult time imagining how it works - and how it's different than the tree.

Here You Go

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tree
Pros - All connected, easy to follow, triggers
Cons - Sometimes too many prerequisites can clutter and slow progress

Branch
Pros - Allows more variation through inventions
Cons - Not as many researches, some researches don't have inventions, this will make them seem less important

Let me add a Con to Tree, No Diversity.
Also, all Researches would have inventions. The Branches in the tree are the researches, and the minor things related to that branch are put in as inventions.

As I mentioned in my thread, I could work out a larger example for how the Research Web could look. Would anyone like me to do this?

That would probably be a good idea.
-Waap.

Smothmoth wrote:

Redstar wrote:

Is there a thread somewhere that lays out the "Branch" idea? I don't think I've ever encountered it in a game before, so I'm having a difficult time imagining how it works - and how it's different than the tree.

Here You Go

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Tree
Pros - All connected, easy to follow, triggers
Cons - Sometimes too many prerequisites can clutter and slow progress

Branch
Pros - Allows more variation through inventions
Cons - Not as many researches, some researches don't have inventions, this will make them seem less important

Let me add a Con to Tree, No Diversity.
Also, all Researches would have inventions. The Branches in the tree are the researches, and the minor things related to that branch are put in as inventions.

As I mentioned in my thread, I could work out a larger example for how the Research Web could look. Would anyone like me to do this?

How can every research have inventions? We have tried to convert all the researches we can into inventions, and they are still hugely outnumbered. Also, if we have researches and inventions how does the web offer more diversity other than penalising players for changing research paths?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

How can every research have inventions? We have tried to convert all the researches we can into inventions, and they are still hugely outnumbered.

It was working pretty well for the example I was creating, I'll finish that up by tomorrow and post it.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Also, if we have researches and inventions how does the web offer more diversity other than penalising players for changing research paths?

"Web" was just a name, my idea was pretty much always just the original tree with the inventions system / making it non-linear. I was also talking about a way to organize/visualize the tree, but I guess that got mixed up with the actually gameplay elements.

Anyway I'll finish that example, I think having it will help a ton.

It doesn't matter if we have a web or tree, that is just visualisation. Both trees and webs can be made non-linear, the web just makes non-linear paths easier to read. Non-linearity really depends only on how the tree/web is made.

A large part of the non-linearity in your concept comes from branches. This will require quite a big change in the current tree, as most researches in it are meant as Breakthroughs.

Commander Keen wrote:

It doesn't matter if we have a web or tree, that is just visualisation. Both trees and webs can be made non-linear, the web just makes non-linear paths easier to read. Non-linearity really depends only on how the tree/web is made.

Yes, but people wanted a visualization of the concept, so I think working out a rough example would be a good idea. It doesn't have to be how we represent it in game, but having a visual will help everyone understand the concept better.

Commander Keen wrote:

A large part of the non-linearity in your concept comes from branches. This will require quite a big change in the current tree, as most researches in it are meant as Breakthroughs.

Some changes yes, but I think they are worth it.

I think the problem is that we still don't quite understand how the web is supposed to improve diversity, other than inventions, which we all agree should be included.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I think the problem is that we still don't quite understand how the web is supposed to improve diversity, other than inventions, which we all agree should be included.

Inventions were pretty much it I guess, but what I was proposing had inventions greatly outnumber researches. Researches would be general areas of research, the inventions would represent all the byproducts of the effort focused into that field.

I've looked through the current research list, in my opinion the majority of the items could be considered inventions. While many could be seen as essential breakthroughs, they were still usually discovered by random chance. We could just greatly increase the discovery chance for the really important ones.

As for that example I was working on, I haven't had time to really put any work into it. I don't see myself having much free time in the next few weeks, so we will just have to do without the example.

@Alaska: The web itself does nothing. We could have a classical tree without losing any diversity, it's just easier to organise and read. The only problem with web is that it has to be created in graphical form, unlike our current tree.

@Smoth: The only problem I see might be the number of inventions to branches. If we create too many branches with lots of inventions in them, then the player will get a "Your nation has discovered X" message every 5 seconds. If we don't create enough branches, then there will not be much diversity in research options, mostly after discovering the Scientific method. If we don't create enough inventions, variability will be severely limited. It will have to be made just right. A HUGE amount of work.

Smothmoth wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I think the problem is that we still don't quite understand how the web is supposed to improve diversity, other than inventions, which we all agree should be included.

Inventions were pretty much it I guess, but what I was proposing had inventions greatly outnumber researches. Researches would be general areas of research, the inventions would represent all the byproducts of the effort focused into that field.

I've looked through the current research list, in my opinion the majority of the items could be considered inventions. While many could be seen as essential breakthroughs, they were still usually discovered by random chance. We could just greatly increase the discovery chance for the really important ones.

As for that example I was working on, I haven't had time to really put any work into it. I don't see myself having much free time in the next few weeks, so we will just have to do without the example.

Okay. This'll help people who have a problem with the whole "sociological researches aren't researched" thing.

Commander Keen wrote:

The only problem I see might be the number of inventions to branches. If we create too many branches with lots of inventions in them, then the player will get a "Your nation has discovered X" message every 5 seconds. If we don't create enough branches, then there will not be much diversity in research options, mostly after discovering the Scientific method. If we don't create enough inventions, variability will be severely limited. It will have to be made just right. A HUGE amount of work.

I was thinking about having around 3-5 inventions per branch, this could vary though. As for the ideal number of branches, that is up for debate.

I don't really see a problem with getting spammed with game messages though, this happens in every Grand Strategy game ever. There really isn't a way to avoid it, the player needs to stay informed on whats going on.

Smothmoth wrote:

I was thinking about having around 3-5 inventions per branch, this could vary though. As for the ideal number of branches, that is up for debate.

I don't really see a problem with getting spammed with game messages though, this happens in every Grand Strategy game ever. There really isn't a way to avoid it, the player needs to stay informed on whats going on.

Could you please suggest what the ideal branches to contain the sociological researches from caste system through to serfdom would be?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Could you please suggest what the ideal branches to contain the sociological researches from caste system through to serfdom would be?

How does this look?

Spoiler:

Well, i always think of theology as the actual study of religions, and therefore shouldn't really predate mono- and polytheism.

Smoth, quick correction here: Feudalism doesn't exist. The system was invented in the flood of anti-cultural propaganda used to promote rennaisance ideals.

Smothmoth wrote:

I don't really see a problem with getting spammed with game messages though, this happens in every Grand Strategy game ever. There really isn't a way to avoid it, the player needs to stay informed on whats going on.

Other games having message spam doesn't mean it's okay. It's true the player needs to be informed, but overwhelming him even on idle is bad practice.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Well, i always think of theology as the actual study of religions, and therefore shouldn't really predate mono- and polytheism.

I thought it was a good term to use to represent the religious leaders sitting down and trying to understand what they were worshiping. Transitioning from worshiping the Sun to worshiping the Sun God. Does that make sense, or is there another term you think would work better?

Tenebrarum wrote:

Smoth, quick correction here: Feudalism doesn't exist. The system was invented in the flood of anti-cultural propaganda used to promote rennaisance ideals.

What the Belgium are you talking about?

Commander Keen wrote:

Other games having message spam doesn't mean it's okay. It's true the player needs to be informed, but overwhelming him even on idle is bad practice.

It isn't just other games that have this, its the genre standard. I've never felt overwhelmed, but I can't get enough of these games and I know they aren't for everyone.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Smoth, quick correction here: Feudalism doesn't exist. The system was invented in the flood of anti-cultural propaganda used to promote rennaisance ideals.

Now I have to go back and shake my finger at my middle-school history teachers. I never knew that. (Though, off-topic, feudalism is supposed to refer to pre-renaissance, not renaissance...)
However, we definitely have something called "Feudalism" hanging out in the tech tree - etymological debates aside, we can either a) rename it or b) consent to allowing it to remain defined and named as is.
Smoth, Tenebrarum and I often look too hard into the little details. Don't worry about it.

Back on topic, game spam may be incessant, but isn't there usually a cheat or toggle to disable it?

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Now I have to go back and shake my finger at my middle-school history teachers. I never knew that. (Though, off-topic, feudalism is supposed to refer to pre-renaissance, not renaissance...) However, we definitely have something called "Feudalism" hanging out in the tech tree - etymological debates aside, we can either a) rename it or b) consent to allowing it to remain defined and named as is.
Smoth, Tenebrarum and I often look too hard into the little details. Don't worry about it.

Feudalism was a real social system, I have no idea why someone would try to say otherwise. The term itself wasn't coined until the Renaissance, but the system that term defines existed. It is the most popular and widely used term used to describe the social system in Europe from the 9th-15th centuries.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Back on topic, game spam may be incessant, but isn't there usually a cheat or toggle to disable it?

There are always extensive options, but I prefer to always get messages on everything. If I don't I feel I'm not getting all the information I need. The option to change what events and discoveries you get messages and notifications for are there though.

Hence why I think it should be togglable. This is not really a programming issue, it's a player preference issue, just like special events cameras. If we hard code for what we think the majority of players want, we're going to annoy the other half - who might be the actual majority. Togglable options will allow Smoth to micromanage and Alaska not to bother with the notifications at all.