Tech Tree Revision: Playability

[Bigjoe5]

The trouble with this is that it's now confusing when and why players can or can't see planets in systems... The systems are visible, and there are no planets in them, so players will think they know there are no planets, but then when they get closer, they will be able to see that there are in fact planets. With the base game, planets and systems (and fleets) have very low (fraction of 1 above 0) stealth, so if one is seen, so is the other, and there are no issues with visible systems that contain invisible planets.

Maybe it's not a problem, but it seems risky to me...

Eventually, it would be nice to give the player information on the system sidepanel of the level of visibility he has of the system, and the greatest level of visibility he's ever had of the system. Once that's accomplished, all the player has to do is learn that planets have a stealth of 15, and everything will be very simple, especially if there are actual numbers on the stealth threshold slider. For now though, I don't think it's a huge problem to have invisible planets in visible systems, since it's not a stretch, or particularly unintuitive, to say that it's easier to detect systems than to detect planets.

I'd like to set up a choice in strategies between research-heavy and production-heavy (and later some other options, like trade-heavy or exploration-heavy, when there is support for them).

I would generally prefer that the main distinction between strategies be less resource-based, perhaps with some smaller, secondary resource-based distinctions, or some resource-based distinctions that are emergent from the player's general strategy. A player that's espionage-focused for example, might focus on research, and get a lot of advanced espionage technologies, or he might focus on production, and produce a lot of espionage-oriented buildings. Either way, he will have to focus on trade, since espionage requires trade, but it's the espionage that's the focus of his strategy, not the trade itself. The same can be said of a military strategy, with a player having a huge, mediocre fleet, or a relatively small fleet using the most advanced technology. I'd eventually like the categories the player focuses on to more or less define his overall strategy, while his choice of techs within that category would tend to define secondary aspects of his strategy such as resource focus.

If there are some tier-1 production-boosting applications available, but research-boosting applications are available on tier-2, players would initially have a choice between researching production-boosting applications and no theories, or the theories leading to research boosts but no short-term production boosts. I'm thinking these two options can be made somewhat mutually exclusive, and self-perpetuating, with research further boosting research but being impractical to get if also getting production-boosting content, and likewise for production boosting production but not research. Things could work out so that progressing through content for a researcher would involve researching (somewhat like Civ games), and progressing through content for a producer would involve making various buildings (somewhat like Master of Magic or StarCraft).

I think I like that, but it doesn't seem like something I could easily accomplish in time for the next release.

Also, why did you remove the human species...

I've been under the impression that we're going to stick with just 2 species for v.4, and AFAIK, nobody is currently in the process of creating ship models and battle music for the Humans. Plus, "the usual" is boring, and it's nice to have a species with a different EP instead, since Gyisache also prefer Terran.

...and if you're going to add the Trith, could you make up an icon, like I did (badly) for the gyisache?

Okey-dokey. One bad icon, coming up:

trith.png (2.99 KiB) Viewed 2055 times

He's not actually, bow-legged, it's just that his thighs, are glowing... it looks better against black...

[Geoff the Medio]

Eventually, it would be nice to give the player information on the system sidepanel of the level of visibility he has of the system, and the greatest level of visibility he's ever had of the system.

By "level of visibility", do you mean the highest detection - stealth level ever? Tracking and showing that kind of detail would be a lot of difficult to understand information, and I'm rather reluctant to make it important to know. The game does currently track the turn on which objects were last visible with basic, partial or full visibility, though, with basic coming from 0-stealth objects every turn, partial through the detection system, and full from owning an object, and different details about the object being revealed in each case...

I don't think it's a huge problem to have invisible planets in visible systems, since it's not a stretch, or particularly unintuitive, to say that it's easier to detect systems than to detect planets.

It may be logical, but as a game mechanic it's somewhat awkward and difficult to understand, especially at first.

I would generally prefer that the main distinction between strategies be less resource-based, perhaps with some smaller, secondary resource-based distinctions, or some resource-based distinctions that are emergent from the player's general strategy. A player that's espionage-focused for example, might focus on research, and get a lot of advanced espionage technologies, or he might focus on production, and produce a lot of espionage-oriented buildings.

Right; eventually I'd like a game strategy to consist of the combination of two or three general areas of focus, with opitons such as production heavy, research heavy, trade heavy, large battle-fleet, advanced small battle-fleet, stealthy disruption fleet, exploration, ground troops, expansionism, espionage, social manipulation, etc. Within those options are things like research vs. production, though, and notably these are options we can actually implement to some degree now, without needing other game systems to be designed or implemented to support the strategies.

Also, why did you remove the human species...

I've been under the impression that we're going to stick with just 2 species for v.4

Why did you think that...? I don't remember that being suggested... I just made 2 species to test the system, hoping someone else would fill in the rest. And really, v0.4 doesn't actually need any species options; species are currently at v0.8 on the roadmap, thoug have effectively been moved to v0.5 to support the diplomacy and empire / species interactions designs... (and will be officially moved if I ever finish rewriting the roadmap).

...and AFAIK, nobody is currently in the process of creating ship models and battle music for the Humans. Plus, "the usual" is boring, and it's nice to have a species with a different EP instead, since Gyisache also prefer Terran.

We don't need humans specifically, but until we have a few more species written up and start balancing, I'd prefer to just keep any extra options we have available.


Edit: What's the deal with the homeworld special? You've added one in your content files, but is it ever used? Homeworlds aren't tracked by the game internally with specials; now each species has one (or more) homeworlds that are determined at the start of the game. The homeworld condition can be used to match any homeworld, or any homeworld of a particular species or list of species. So if you wanted to do something with a homeworld, it would probably go in the species definition.

[Bigjoe5]

By "level of visibility", do you mean the highest detection - stealth level ever?

Yes.

Tracking and showing that kind of detail would be a lot of difficult to understand information...

How so? That would seem to imply that the detection calculation itself is too complicated, and that the actual process and numerical results need to be hidden under the table where the player doesn't have to worry her pretty little head about them.

...and I'm rather reluctant to make it important to know.

One thing that I'm particularly interested in is the possibility of stealth/deception strategies that involve passing off an object as something that it isn't, which can be countered by the other player having a higher visibility level of the object in question, thus being able to divine its true nature. This is in contrast to most 4X games, where everything is pretty much what it appears to be, and there's very little room for deception or subversion (MoO2's espionage system, for example). Attacking a stronger ally with fleet of apparent pirate ships, tricking an opponent into destroying a fake stockpile location, disguising a planet that's attractive to your opponent as one with a bad environment or planet special, etc. To use and counter these strategies intelligently, this information would need to be displayed to the player, and its possible importance made very explicit.

It may be logical, but as a game mechanic it's somewhat awkward and difficult to understand, especially at first.

I'm not really convinced that's the case, but I can change it back and lower the detection of ships and planets if you want, since for now, the size of the tactical map isn't a balancing factor.

Within those options are things like research vs. production, though, and notably these are options we can actually implement to some degree now, without needing other game systems to be designed or implemented to support the strategies.

OK. Do you want me to implement something like that before the next release? Is there even time for that?

I've been under the impression that we're going to stick with just 2 species for v.4

Why did you think that...? I don't remember that being suggested...

I don't remember, really. It might have been that we only "need" 2 species for 0.4, since there will be 3D models for ships being designed, and it would be nice to have 2 distinct "lines" of ships.

We don't need humans specifically, but until we have a few more species written up and start balancing, I'd prefer to just keep any extra options we have available.

I do have several species in mind that could go be added (though "Humans" as such aren't on that list). Do you want me to add/customize a few more species before the next release?

What's the deal with the homeworld special? You've added one in your content files, but is it ever used?

No, it's just a leftover that I forgot to get rid of.

[Geoff the Medio]

By "level of visibility", do you mean the highest detection - stealth level ever?

Yes.

I'm going to use "detection level" to refer to the detection for a given empire for a given object, which can take any arbitrary real number value (and is not detection - stealth). "visibility level" is reserved for a different value, which is one of two or three possible values: basic, partial, full, which determine which subset of the object state information are provided to players about objects.

Tracking and showing that kind of detail would be a lot of difficult to understand information...

How so?

Every object (systems, ships, planets, buildings) would have a recorded / displayed "best detection level applied" number (tracked for each player, but each player would likely only see their number for each object) and a turn when that was applicable. Players would only know about the best detection level for object's they actually detected. For hidden objects inside visible systems, you'd use the system's best detection level applied to estimate the maximum stealth level of planets that could be in the system but not yet observed. It's a bit more complicated though, as objects can move around or change stealth level from when the best detection level was applied and when the object was present.

So... what does the best visibility applied value mean to a player? It's complicated and not very reliable.

That would seem to imply that the detection calculation itself is too complicated, and that the actual process and numerical results need to be hidden under the table where the player doesn't have to worry her pretty little head about them.

The calculation isn't very complicated, but the interpretation of the result potentially is complicated, not not particularly fun. Since historical detection level doesn't guarantee anything about the stealth levels of what is in a system now, it's probably sufficient just to show the detection level at a system on the current turn. Given that, I'm inclined to like a system where anywhere within detection range is guaranteed to have the same detection level, so it's easier to know where you have what detection level (ie. all the same, wherever is in range).

One thing that I'm particularly interested in is the possibility of stealth/deception strategies that involve passing off an object as something that it isn't, which can be countered by the other player having a higher visibility level of the object in question, thus being able to divine its true nature. This is in contrast to most 4X games, where everything is pretty much what it appears to be, and there's very little room for deception or subversion (MoO2's espionage system, for example). Attacking a stronger ally with fleet of apparent pirate ships, tricking an opponent into destroying a fake stockpile location, disguising a planet that's attractive to your opponent as one with a bad environment or planet special, etc. To use and counter these strategies intelligently, this information would need to be displayed to the player, and its possible importance made very explicit.

Being able to misrepresent things, with an apparent stealth level and another stealth level for the truth would be interesting, but not likely to happen soon. But even when this is possible, is it necessary to show a historical detection level, or is just the current detection level sufficient information?

It may be logical, but as a game mechanic it's somewhat awkward and difficult to understand, especially at first.

I'm not really convinced that's the case, but I can change it back and lower the detection of ships and planets if you want, since for now, the size of the tactical map isn't a balancing factor.

I don't want any major changes before v0.3.15. It's pretty much waiting for you to do any bug fixes with the content and/or give it the OK to go. After that I'll request the Linux and OSX packages be made. I was hoping for some testing, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen to any significant degree. So, we'll just have to release and get testing that way... It's how various issues with v0.3.14 were found.

Within those options are things like research vs. production, though, and notably these are options we can actually implement to some degree now, without needing other game systems to be designed or implemented to support the strategies.

OK. Do you want me to implement something like that before the next release? Is there even time for that?

Not before the next release.

It might have been that we only "need" 2 species for 0.4, since there will be 3D models for ships being designed, and it would be nice to have 2 distinct "lines" of ships.

Having need for art / models is a motivation to get them made... I don't see a need to hold back adding species until models are available.

Do you want me to add/customize a few more species before the next release?

No, just the two are fine for v0.3.15.

[Bigjoe5]

I don't want any major changes before v0.3.15. It's pretty much waiting for you to do any bug fixes with the content and/or give it the OK to go.

OK, so I've been playtesting the new content files for a majority of the past 36 hours, but unfortunately, am only moderately close to being finished (30 second turn processing mid-late game doesn't exactly help matters). I've already uncovered/fixed a few somewhat major problems, so I'm not really confident with releasing them without finishing the playtesting (i.e. researching all the way through the tech tree and using all the technologies/buildings in context. I'll try to get some more done tomorrow, but I'm quite frankly going to be very busy for the rest of the week, so it's not terribly likely that I'll get finished as soon as I had hoped. At any rate, I'll upload the changes I've made so far, just in case they'll be useful to anyone.

[Geoff the Medio]

I'm going to release v0.3.15 with this version of the content files then. Since there are bugs with the engine itself, a some additional issues with the content files aren't so important. I also don't want to wait any longer, as I've had to delay any significant code changes for over a week already, and don't want to inconvenience the OSX and Linux packagers with additional delays.

[Bigjoe5]

OK. In that case, I'll probably finish with the playtesting and upload the changes some time in the next week or so. Also, big red Xs that need to be solved: supply.png needs to be copied into the focus icons folder, and there is a reference in buildings.txt to Redcap's Black Hole Generator building icon, which pd apparently hasn't actually committed to SVN, but which I keep in my data folder anyway, because I like it.

[Geoff the Medio]

...Redcap's Black Hole Generator building icon, which pd apparently hasn't actually committed to SVN, but which I keep in my data folder anyway, because I like it.

Is there a transparent background full-size (128x128) version of that icon?

[Bigjoe5]

...Redcap's Black Hole Generator building icon, which pd apparently hasn't actually committed to SVN, but which I keep in my data folder anyway, because I like it.

Is there a transparent background full-size (128x128) version of that icon?

According to pd, 64x64 is full size.

[Bigjoe5]

It's hard to say for sure, since the code's still a bit buggy, but I think I've fixed most of the issues with these content files. The eng_stringtable is, to the best of my knowledge, updated with all the recent changes.

Also, stealth.png needs to be copied into the focus folder, since there's a big red X representing the stealth focus when I build a Planetary Cloaking Device.

[Geoff the Medio]

It's hard to say for sure, since the code's still a bit buggy, but I think I've fixed most of the issues with these content files.

As far as I can tell, the only change in those content files was to a single effects group (the last) in ship_parts.txt. Every other game content file is the same as the latest SVN. Is that intentional?

The eng_stringtable is, to the best of my knowledge, updated with all the recent changes.

You've removed the link colour strings and changed Returning to Intro Menu to Returning to Main Menu, renamed The Terran Imperium to just Terran Imperium, added the missing string DESC_VAR_FLEET and updated the Distortion Modulator string. Is that all, and all intentional...?

Also, stealth.png needs to be copied into the focus folder, since there's a big red X representing the stealth focus when I build a Planetary Cloaking Device.

You mean the stealth.png in the meter icons directory?

[Bigjoe5]

As far as I can tell, the only change in those content files was to a single effects group (the last) in ship_parts.txt. Every other game content file is the same as the latest SVN. Is that intentional?

That may well be the case, though due to having changed a lot of things back and forth for the purposes of testing, I guess I had the impression of having changed a whole lot more... Also, I seemed to have forgotten that I submitted the fixed content files a while ago after having made apparently a majority of the required changes.

You've removed the link colour strings...

...which while true, is very odd, since I specifically remember adding them to my version... This is an unintentional omission.

...and changed Returning to Intro Menu to Returning to Main Menu, renamed The Terran Imperium to just Terran Imperium, added the missing string DESC_VAR_FLEET and updated the Distortion Modulator string. Is that all, and all intentional...?

These are intentional.

Also, stealth.png needs to be copied into the focus folder, since there's a big red X representing the stealth focus when I build a Planetary Cloaking Device.

You mean the stealth.png in the meter icons directory?

Yes, that one.

[Bigjoe5]

Made a few fixes based on feedback from Gargamel.

- Added a stacking group to Enclave of the Void building
- Allowed Neutronium Forge to be built at an outpost, and modified stringtable to reflect this

[eleazar]

Streamlining the Tech Tree

OK, i think the consensus is clear: The tech tree is too complicated, especially for the amount of stuff it does.

The numbers:

• 136 applications
  83 theories
  4 refinements
  --------------
  233 techs total
  
  51 techs have multiple prerequisites

My thoughts:

* The most obvious way to simplify is to mash together most/all theories with their most basic application. That would reduce the number of techs by over 1/3rd.

* Some ideas seem unnecessarily divided into many techs. Like a different tech for each size of asteroid hull. I think it's fine if a single tech unlocks multiple obviously related things. I'm not sure how common this is.

* There is too much interlinking, i.e. techs with multiple prerequisites, so that instead of diverging branches we get a tangled mass. Trimming down the number of techs with multiple prerequisites should make it easier to see what's going on, and avoid the situations where to research a tech a couple steps away, you get a huge number of items in the queue.

* Many effects that we might want to have are not currently available. I think it would be best to comment out any techs that are placeholders for effects that we just can't do yet.

There are probably changes that should be made beyond what i've listed, but i think the above would be a good first step.

I'm willing to undertake, unless somebody else wants to or has some similar scheme in the works.

[Bigjoe5]

Feel free, though I think the format of the tech tree itself is the more important thing that needs revision.