DESIGN: Learning Category

Message

#76 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:51 am

Ok, version 3 for consideration... in half-size format.

Bastian-Bux · #77 Post by **Bastian-Bux** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:52 am

I assume your "theories" are in reality clusters of related theories, right? Cause 16 theories looks a bit short for me, especially if there are so large "gaps" between them.

Away from that I like it ^^.

Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:57 am

Bastian-Bux wrote:I assume your "theories" are in reality clusters of related theories, right? Cause 16 theories looks a bit short for me, especially if there are so large "gaps" between them.

Well, if there's 16 theories in an average category, and we end up with 8 categories, that's 128 theory techs alone, not counting any applications or refinements... Just how big will this tech tree be?

The theories are meant to be a set of related ideas. The sub-ideas can be fleshed out to varying degrees by the mini-trees of applications or sub-theories under each main trunk theory.

Edit: New thread page should probly have the tree image at the top, so people won't miss it...

#79 Post by **Tyreth** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:09 am

I think it is great that you are building the outline of theory techs for the learning category. The names are very SMAC in flavour, which is not a problem.

Just want to remind that the ultimate destination of FreeOrion as far as technology goes is much further than SMAC reaches. They never departed Planet, and technology was focussed mostly on the ability to dominate it. In FreeOrion you should reach the level of SMAC technology far earlier, and be researching technology that allows you to do bigger and better things:
* Planets covered entirely by cities
* Communications networks that allow communication across the galaxy in moments
* Ships as big as planets
* Stargates
etc.

The theory names presented so far don't seem to indicate such large technologies. Most of these will be theories for other categories - but they will have foundations in the "learn" category. So the question I'm asking: are the late game learn theories sufficient enough foundation for other categories to do the "big" things?

As you said Geoff, 16 theories in each category - that's a lot of theories. We need the tech tree to span adequately from our vision of early game to late game. What that means exactly will become clearer as the ideas for the game evolve in our minds.

#80 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:44 am

Tyreth wrote:In FreeOrion you should [...] be researching technology that allows you to do bigger and better things:
* Planets covered entirely by cities
* Communications networks that allow communication across the galaxy in moments
* Ships as big as planets
* Stargates

[...]

are the late game learn theories sufficient enough foundation for other categories to do the "big" things?

I'm not sure I really see the problem with what I have now, or how to change it to be better...

Planet sized ships or planet spanning cities are mostly just extentions or improvements on basic ship and city technology. They would be enabled by various growth, construction and production techs that allow enough food, good enough materials techniques and enough materials to make them. It seems reasonable to me that those techs would be unlocked by things like Gravitonics, Force-Field Harmonics, Temporal Mechanics, Matter-Energy Conversion etc. Stargates and instant galaxy-spanning communication could just as easily depend on these same ideas... (it seems to me).

If you feel we need more dramatic / important profound big theories in Learning, can you suggest anything about what they might be? I've already covered understanding and manipulating all the fundamental forces, creating and destroying matter itself, controlling time, expanding spatial dimensions, the nature of creation / god(s) and, well, unified consciousness of all minds: living, artificial and the universe / god(s) it / themselves...

How much more profound and big can it get than that?

skdiw · #81 Post by **skdiw** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:49 am

Geoff's tree looks good to me. Unless, we gonna do the era thing when all the techs, ships, UI, buildings gets a face-lift toward the next age. I don't about inter-disciplinary pre-req or uber learning tech + uber econ tech = something else.

I think 16 theories is a huge number, BB. Don't forget military cats too. And the number multiplies as you tack on multiple application and multiple refinements underneath each cat-theory-app-refinement hiearchy.

If we planned to cap the bonus to 100 meters, which I strongly recommend open ended. Then each bonus should be average of +2. That will give us already a ton of techs--a number too much I think. And don't forget, if we partition each tech too small of a bonus, the player won't bother researching. Remember research is a subset of growth of the grand 4X strategy. Research is a big part of the game, but not the center piece. The techs should have enough flavor, but not breeze, which it feels like atm, like it did in Moo3.

#82 Post by **Tyreth** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:46 am

Geoff the Medio wrote: If you feel we need more dramatic / important profound big theories in Learning, can you suggest anything about what they might be? I've already covered understanding and manipulating all the fundamental forces, creating and destroying matter itself, controlling time, expanding spatial dimensions, the nature of creation / god(s) and, well, unified consciousness of all minds: living, artificial and the universe / god(s) it / themselves...

Not suggesting there's a problem with how you've done it now, just throwing in some thoughts in case they hadn't been considered.

Bastian-Bux · #83 Post by **Bastian-Bux** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:47 am

Geoff, pls add at least one theory of each other category as requirement for transcendency.

Like transcendent architecture is needed for Singularity of Transcendence.

Thus to achieve transcendence you had to have researched all categories, not just learning. Else learning becomes TOO powerfull.

#84 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:11 am

Bastian-Bux wrote:Geoff, pls add at least one theory of each other category as requirement for transcendency.

Hrm... A good idea...

Though I'm not sure it's strictly necessary, as presumably the latter Learning techs would be so expensive that you couldn't research them unless you'd researched at least part way through most other categories...

But in some cases, it makes sense to do so anyway:

From Production: Zero-Point Generation

From Construction: Transcendent Architecture (maybe you don't need this theory as an explicit prerequisite for it, but applications unlocked by it are necessary to unlock the pre-transcendence applications under Singularity of Transcendence...?)

From Economics: Stablized Hypergrowth? Economic Hegemony? (kinda hard to see how knowledge of economics is required for transcendence...)

From Growth: I haven't done up the Growth category theory trunk yet, but like Economics, it's hard to see how food production and health or even genetic manipulation would be required to transcend...

utilae · #85 Post by **utilae** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:04 am

Transendance might not be the ultimate tech. We could have equivelent ultimate techs in other categories.

Bastian-Bux · #86 Post by **Bastian-Bux** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:53 pm

Actually an economic theory that leads to transcendence would be one that allows "fair" distribution of goods? At least that would be a real great achievement.

Maybe we could even have severall possible routes of transcendency, one of them being through genetical manipulation (instead of psionical transformation). Then grwoth would become important for this way.

But you are right, that hasn't to be in the theory trunk, maybe we find a way to intertwine at the apllications level.

#87 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:58 pm

Bastian-Bux wrote:Actually an economic theory that leads to transcendence would be one that allows "fair" distribution of goods? At least that would be a real great achievement.

Maybe if this was Communist Orion...?

You could make a similar argument about a "perfect" Capitalist system that brought about perfectly efficient (not "fair") resource distribution and was the perfect system to encourage innovation...

It's a bit more profoundly "transcendent" to no longer need "goods" at all though...

Maybe we could even have severall possible routes of transcendency, one of them being through genetical manipulation (instead of psionical transformation). Then grwoth would become important for this way.

It's a nice idea for practical gameplay, but I find it hard to accept the basic premise (which is sufficinetly important for conceptual gameplay as to not be entirely an unsupported realism argument). Unless you can genetically manipulate yourself out of your physical body (which seems like a contradiction in terms), the only help GM would give towards transcendence would be to make it happen faster / easier / better by making you smarter... which would be an application in Learning, not a main trunk theory in Growth...

We can certainly have other very technology / research dependent ways to win, but I don't think they really qualify as transcendence...

Edit: Though I could be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music

Bastian-Bux · #88 Post by **Bastian-Bux** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:22 pm

Thats why I put "fair" into ", cause neither so called communicsm nor capitalism achieved this aim, and I suppose we are still very far away from it.

If I'm talking about a "fair" distribution I think about a system that allows the whole populace to participate somehow on this transcendence. IMHO this is a prerequisite for true transendence of a race: to allo everyone to share in it.

So this "fair" distribution would in my opinion be something that transcendences both the communist and the capitalist idea as much as transcendent architecture transcendences our contemporary construction.

Don't ask me how that would look like. If I'd have a vision about that, I would be an influental politician, or at least a economics guru ^^.

PS: You are real bad Geoff. I just gotta pay that 5.22€ for Blood Music ^^.

#89 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:07 pm

Bastian-Bux wrote:...neither so called communicsm nor capitalism achieved this aim, and I suppose we are still very far away from it.

There haven't been any actual communist societies though (by most definitions). Theoretically, actual communism would involve a reasonably fair "distribution" of goods, as everyone would collectively own everything. Presumably this would including Universal Transcendence Access Cards...

#90 Post by **Geoff the Medio** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:02 pm

New version... Now in "big enough to read easily" format!