FreeOrion

I'm going to close this thread if it reaches 7 pages (and review it this weekend). So don't post anything else unless you really haven't got your two bits in.

-Aq

_________________
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

For what it's worth, I really like this breakdown best of the ones I've seen. I'm coming in late, and frankly I'm too busy writing the v0.3 code to catch up properly, so forgive this question if I could have just read back a bit. Do those categories group theoretical techs? So for instance might "Space Industry" include general sciency theoreticals like "Tachyon Entanglement Theory" or some such?

All right, scrap all that.

I just read a bit more, and I think I prefer something more like this one from Utilae:

-Environmental Sciences (inc. biology)
-Social Sciences (inc. esp/diplo)
-Economics (inc. mining, industry)
-Construction (w/ some ship stuff)
-Information Processing (inc. computers)
-Space/Time Sciences

The individual categories are less important to me than the emphasis on theory. Since the progression of techs is Theory-Application-Refinement, we shouldn't have categories that group things based on application, right?

Hmm, as someone else already asked, does it make sense discussing about specific categories before we have the techs? I guess only the number of caterories is interesting from a UI design point of view. Everything else should be open to be changed.

_________________
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

I just read a bit more, and I think I prefer something more like this one from Utilae:

-Environmental Sciences (inc. biology)
-Social Sciences (inc. esp/diplo)
-Economics (inc. mining, industry)
-Construction (w/ some ship stuff)
-Information Processing (inc. computers)
-Space/Time Sciences


I like this idea myself as well - 6 categories is enough, but not too much.

_________________
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

I like these too. Except, I think Information Processing should be 'Electronics'. I don't think of sensors as information processing, more as electronic technology. Electronics also implies computers and information processors. I think Electronics is a broader category and is more intuitive for things that will go there other than pure computers. Even though radars, infrared optics, microphones and such use small computers to interpret and spit out information in human terms, they are not usually thought of as information processors.

The idea with Information Processing, is the gathering, and analysis of information. So this would cover things like scouting, spying, research, computers (genrally used for the purpose of analysing information) and scanners (when you scan or detect an enemy ship you gain information).

To me electronics is just what most of these kind of things are made out of, although does that have to be the case. Maybe most of these things are made out of crystals or some other wierd thing. So electronics doesn't really work so well imo.

Eeeep. I would imagine electronics to merely be a (low level) branch of technology within an 'Information Processing' category. I would hope that any self-respecting "sci-fi mumbo jumbo" game would have the ability to research optical computers, biological computers and so on.

_________________
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.

This idea is the best as for me.

I've reviewed this thread and I find myself leaning mostly towards Drek and the Anonymous guest. In fact, effective immediatley, I'm replacing all of you with anonymous guests. Thanks everyone!

... okay, really.

Here's what I want to do:

- Agree that ship categories aren't relevant for now, table those (Procrostination!)

- Pick my favorite list so far, which is:


- Extract the suggestions that don't fit with the design document or are simply too obtuse. If you have 'Biology' or 'Chemical Engineering' or, really, anything that is science-y and not gameplay-based, there's no point to calling a category that. The anonymous guest got it right on the head here. The player is thinking about what they want (bigger ships, better farming) and not the fluff names we will be giving to things.

Even with Drek's list above, I wouldn't include Statecraft since we have no happiness, security, or government picks for now. We also have no terraforming so I don't think we need to deal with that. So If I had to make the list tomorrow, I'd say Growth, Production, Learning, Construction, and Commerce (not sure about combining them - I think long-term I could see the economic picks put in the Statecraft category and just steer the fluff towards interstellar trade).

Comment on my comments for a day or two and then I'll talk with the design team to see what our next step is. I'm out of town Wed-Sat but I should be able to take a look at this thread again before I go. Unless you all hate this, I think we're close.

-Aq

_________________
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

What is in the Construction category? Presumably there would need to be more than just things that improve the construction meter... Most other things that I'd call "construction" would fit under Production.

Since the whole point was to make things easy to find, I'd suggest renaming a few categories for clarity of scope (a few options for each, to indicate the ambiguity, to suggest new names):

"Growth" -> "Farming & Growth" or "Farming & Health" (equivalent) or "Farming & Life Sciences" (allowing for later insertion of bio-warfare)

"Production" -> "Industry & Resources" or "Production & Resourses" (if "Industry" is not meant to be the primary kind of production, and "Mining" not the primary way to get resources)

"Learning" -> "Research" or "Information & Research" (If including "data processing", or in order to facilitate inclusion of sensors in future)

And to remove what I consider to be a bad implied bias,

"Commerce" -> "Economics"

Not all economic systems involve commerce within their own closed society. IMO this would also be a more reasonable name for a category that includes "construction" stuff, if "construction" means infrastructure.

I'd also request / suggest putting "Trade" with "Economics" to give "Economics & Trade". I can see the logic in putting trade in a "Sociology" or "Statecraft" category, but IMO "Trade" is more relevant to Economic (or Commercial) aspects of the game than diplomatic or social ones. And regarding putting Economics / Commerece / Trade / Statecraft / Diplomacy / Sociology all in the same category, IMO that's too much for one category, and Economics / Trade are of sufficient importance to warrant their own category.

IMO, for this discussion to be concluded effectively, deciding what should be in the categories is more important than the actual names chosen... However the names should specifically and unambiguously indicate what is and isn't in the categories, and not sound awkward or weird (which is obviously an opinion / taste issue).

It wouldn't be much of a thang to include it in this version. I figured it would just be one the build projects in the content version.

Bio-warfare is a military tech, and so, imo, belongs in a military category.




I believe there'll be plenty of Statecraft techs. Adding Economics to the mix would make for a heavy category.

This looks good to me, the catogories are nice and clear and feel like they will be rougly equal in # of Tecnologies.

I am wondering what if most people like the BLANK & BLANK format that Geoff uses. It has the advantage of making a catorgory sound broader and more descriptive but the downside of making the name longer and possibly running into a name conflict. I dont realy have anything against it and if we use it I would go with these alternatives.

Biology & Growth...............B&G
Materials & Industry..............M&I
Information & Academics.........I&A
Society & StateCraft..................S&S
Development & Economics............D&E

Also I am wondering as to the fundamental destinction between M&I and D&E. Would it be correct to say "Materaials and Industry is for making a planet make MORE stuff" and "Development and Economics is to alow a planet to make a wider VARIETY of stuff , improve the planet and make more money".

I am now wondering how many Tecs we can fit all of shipbuilding under. With 5 used for mostly non-combat stuff we can have 3-5 Shipbuilding Tecs and keep ourselves under the 8-10 goal. This can all be done later ofcorse but I think thats a very reasonable goal.

[EDIT] I think Geoff is right Biological Weapons should go in Bio catagory, yes I know its just fluff but if you ask me most peoplare going to be pissed if the Biological Weapons are not under the Bio catagory its far more natural. That and if we dont have to worry about create a Military tec so wide it includes Laser Beams and Plauge Bombs.

_________________
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

A biobomb might share some BIG techs (prerequist theories) with farming and health, but as a military tech it should go into a military category.

Probably should start a brainstorming thread for military techs...

I think it could go in either. But we should put it into "weapons", or millitary if we want to call it that.