Too many unsignificant techs

Trifna · March 10, 2003, 13:19

I've played MOO3 a little (tested a little everything, etc.) and something came out for me... there are so many techs to be searched for, so many paths to be looked at, that only the more MOO-maniacs will really look at what they're doing!! Oh, you will certainly decide to go more "economics", "physics" or "social", but will you really act as you were acting in SMAC?

I don't. Why? Why are the techs tasteless compared to SMAC? It's like eating tofu with nothing else!!*

*I'm the only one eating tofu alone, but take this sentence more universally

Harry Seldon · March 10, 2003, 14:45

The insignificant techs are justs cogs in a greater technology. I don't usually follow each tech as I research but it's good to see you have to lay some ground work before attaining high level tech.

Alexfrog · March 10, 2003, 17:37

I agree there should be a lot less techs, with each tech being much more significant. Thus, you could actually CARE about most of them...

Alexfrog · March 10, 2003, 17:43

like it is in moo2....

CharlesBHoff · March 11, 2003, 03:45

Before mankind was able to discover and use radio he has to discover 20 others basic thing to be able to built the first
crude radio and alots more to improve radio.

Arnelos · March 11, 2003, 04:09

Translation: MoO3 should have been MoO 2.1

I happen to think that MoO2's techtree is distinctly stale... I like MoO2, but find it's tech is a big problem with replayability... you see, you always end up going for same techs in the same order... game after game after game after game after game.

It's positively boring.

The number one way I increased the replay value of MoO2 for myself was to force myself to always play with the Uncreative pick. That made MoO2 a lot more interesting in a hurry.

As for the sheer NUMBER of techs... Perhaps somewhere between MoO2 and MoO3 would be better than the 380 techs of MoO3... but I'm not really that upset with the sheer number. Ideally, you shouldn't really know what a tech does until you possess it, but while that would be "realistic", it doesn't make for "fun" and enjoyable gameplay.

Howver, I'm inclined to not be as bothered by a higher number. I think shooting high and accidentally shooting too high isn't as bad as shooting too low. But that's just personal preference I guess

vmxa1 · March 11, 2003, 04:30

I do not have a problem with Moo3 tech, it looks like the designers played a lot of Pax2. Prereqs for advances adds flavor.

MariOne · March 11, 2003, 05:11

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Before mankind was able to discover and use radio he has to discover 20 others basic thing to be able to built the first
crude radio and alots more to improve radio.

This is an obvious truism.

But please don't forget that a GAME does not *necessarily* have to be SimReality.

A background adds to the experience, and the more realistic it is, the more it "might" add to immersion factor.

But ultimately, it's far less important that a feature makes sense than it makes FUN.
It's only interesting that it makes sense inasmuch that sense is functional to the fun it adds to gameplay.

All those who led to the discovery of Radio also had to eat and go to the loo everyday of their lives.
It might amaze you, but albeit a detail & MM freak, I don't figure that a game modeling all that would make the "Discovery the Radio" funnier...

just my .02€

Wraithen · March 11, 2003, 16:23

How about reducing the number of techs while increasing the randomness inherent to what level they appear at, or whether (sp?) they can be researched by said empire at all? (I've not played for long enough to know if some empires can't get all the techs).

Think that'd work? It'd help replayability a lot.

CJM · March 11, 2003, 20:01

I believe I agree (to some extent) with Trifna. It's not always clear what the tech discoveries actually do for your empire, which makes discovering them a bit underwhelming. Sure, finding the secrets of Advanced Blahdy-Blah reduces overhead costs a bit, but how much? is it significant? should I think about trading Class III shields for it? It's frustrating.

On the other hand, I do like the uncertainty in discoveries...takes me back to the original MOO.

Master Marcus · March 11, 2003, 20:09

So far I love the tech tree, once you've catched the mechanisms like the rest of the learning curve ( but I admit many many fans, in fact the mass of players just can't because the game is so intimidating and uninviting for today's standards - too bad MoO3 should remain a hidden masterpiece ). Just my 2 cents, but so far I find the tree admirable, functional, well balanced next to the growing productivity of your empire, and the vast majority of the techs justified ( the naming and wording may be esoteric though, like interchangeable policies with a very vague description ).

CharlesBHoff · March 11, 2003, 21:17

Than person just said one day I than going to built than. First he need vaccun tudes, how do you make vaccun tudes,
make glass in shape of than tudes with almost no air in its after you pump the air out, then you need some metal fignaes and grids in the vaccun tudes to make the electron do what you want then to do, then you need than stead scource of elecrtic current. I donot mean vaccun tudes exist before the radia. Vaccun tudes before the radio where handmake not mass product. So before the first radia can be
built all the parts needed to make one must either exist already or can be make.

The Unknown · March 11, 2003, 21:26

I think the tech tree for moo3 is very well done, actually. I loved SMAC, but one of it's problems was that the techs were way too powerful--and it just got worse as you went up the ladder. There's no way, for example, that the Spartans with fission reactor (or whatever it was) can compete with the Morgans (or University) with fusion reactor because it -doubled your hit points-. And that's just one tech! You couldn't even think about living without it, or Tree Farm, or Supply Crawler, or any number of them.

Don't get me wrong, it was a lot of fun to have rediculously powerful and important techs, but it doesn't make for a very good competitive (multiplayer) game. That was SMAC's critical flaw, in my opinion.

Moo2 was better than SMAC as far as this, but really...could you live without automated factories? Research lab? MIRVing nukes? There were a number of other "must haves" too, which is a weakness in the game.

Moo3's techs are numberous, bland, and they're fairly unimportant individually. And I like it that way! It makes the strategy of not caring about tech (e.g. the Believers or Spartans of SMAC) much more viable.

Now, once you start getting 10-15 more techs than your opponent, then it starts to mean something, and you can bring your tech edge to bear. And, it's good for the tech power, too, because the non-tech power can't make up that difference just by stealing -one- tech. If the non-tech power wants to make up that difference, he's really gonna have to work at it--the way it should be. Or he can just not care: two good options.

Another thing moo3 did right regarding tech is about trading. You can trade tech, but you can't trade tech -levels-. Meaning, sure I can trade you my lvl 3 energy tech when you're at lvl 2, but that doesn't suddenly bring you up to level 3! You're still going to have to research lvl 3 as if you never traded. Bascially, it makes trading tech something you don't -have- to do if you don't want. It's not nearly as beneficial as it was in SMAC, when you could just jump up the tech tree like crazy by trading.

To sum up, I think moo3's tech system is the best to date in a TBS. Not the most fun (not by a long shot) but the best for a competitive, multiplayer game.

CharlesBHoff · March 11, 2003, 21:37

Than famous Sci Fi pub once wrote than story about than late modern Jet fighter=bomder going back in time to land at
than army air field in 1920's. Their hardry learn any new tech
as their didnot understand the principal of soild state eletron, and other advange tech.

yndy · March 12, 2003, 10:10

I agree with each side here. On one hand it’s good that individually one tech is not a must (I also played MOO2 with uncreative) but on the other I do not have the time or the nerve to understand what each tech does. Sometimes I discover 2 or three techs a turn, then I always trade (blindly) and get one or two techs every three turns. I cannot spend 5 minutes each turn to understand the new techs so I just build them blindly and hope whatever they do is good. I don’t want a tech tree with everything known beforehand but give me some figures to hang to (+1% bioharvesting; + 2% industry; -4% space per laser beam.
Plus I should check all the other species techs to see what they do and to decide which ones I want and which of my techs are worth more for him. This looks like micromanagement of tech when the game should be about macromanagement.

Grumbold · March 12, 2003, 10:22

Familiarity eases that problem a bit. At the start of the game I know which techs I want to look for and shoot for first. Later I'll look for other species with things I need to balance whatever problems I'm having.

The gradual improvement system greatly limits the problem of people being stuffed by the lack of certain basic techs.

kalbear · March 12, 2003, 17:26

One of the bigger problems is that there is simply so much to weed through, that it's hard to tell what is good and bad. Autofactories are as important if not moreso than they were in MoO2 in terms of production increases. Soil enrichment is often a key, as are deep extraction and automining early on. Robo factories are also amazing. Pollution processors and decomp centers are excellent picks.

And then you have to wade through...so much other stuff. There's all the weapon techs, which have at least two special mods (autofire, enveloping, etc) + improved and two levels of miniaturization; there's four different types of beam weapons, each of which has a new weapon every 5 levels or so.

That's a LOT of techs. What's more ridiculous is that one can get things like 'plasma beam miniaturization I' without plasma beams. Great.

Then there's the wonder of the HFOG improvements, which aren't all that helpful. Or the weird biodiversity ones, that don't appear to do all that much. Reducing the techs to the actual useful ones (without the mini/autofire/etc) and letting those be defined by tech level, ala MoO2, would be a great step.

kalbear · March 12, 2003, 18:50

Double post...sorry.

Harry Seldon · March 13, 2003, 11:01

Quote:

What's more ridiculous is that one can get things like 'plasma beam miniaturization I' without plasma beams. Great.

I agree. It's like finding a way to colorize television signals but not having a way to receive them.

Trifna · March 14, 2003, 20:30

Sometimes they could be generalized in one thing... AT LEAST (maybe at best also) they could be like... all in one technology to which are givin parts. Exemple:
Fusion motorcycle, part A: rotationary engine

And this technology would be represented by ONE icon, except it would be divided in parts like this, that wouldn't necessarily research in order (A, B, C...). THIS would be simple and complete. Each tech could get a ratio next to it (1 of 4 parts). MAYBE (if not complexifying) some parts could be useful to more than one tech.