Economic technologies dilemma

[Deicide4u]

...doesn't exist.

It makes no sense to skip on any economic upgrade, as they are now. No choice this-or-that. It's just pointless not to get them, the question is only when. And, as a rule, we actually know when to get the most important upgrades.

- Woodcutting Level 1 - either before or after Barracks. No question here, this is a must.
- Farming Level 1 - After clicking to Town phase, or just before if you really need faster farming before Town phase.
- Woodcutting Level 2 - Immediately after getting to Town phase.
- Farming Level 2 - Immediately after getting to Town phase.
- Metal Mining Level 1 - As soon as you put your first metal miners to work.
- Stone Mining Level 1 - As soon as you put your first stone miners to work.
- Metal Mining Level 2 - Just after Stone Mining Level 1.
- Woodcutting Level 3 - Immediately after getting to the City phase.
- Farming Level 3 - Do I even need to say it?

Etc., etc...

In short, economic upgrades in this game are there just to be there. Everyone gets them, it makes no sense not to, or you will fall behind.

I believe that getting rid of the pair-techs was a wrong choice. And we absolutely don't need so many levels of economic upgrades in a game where booming is essentially the same thing as making military.

[Classic-Burger]

11 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

.

I believe that getting rid of the pair-techs was a wrong choice. And we absolutely don't need so many levels of economic upgrades in a game where booming is essentially the same thing as making military.

The economic ones yes.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I agree that they are largely researched as soon as reasonably possible, with little variation, but the answer is not to force trade-offs by making them tech pairs. 
its better to diversify unit costs (we see more priority of the stone tech for slinger civs for example) and maybe reconsider the costs of the eco techs themselves.

we can also make techs non-ubiquitous across civs.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

4 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

game where booming is essentially the same thing as making military

Its not the techs themselves but this^ that is the core of the discussion. Recent gameplay innovations like mercenaries having a primarily metal cost in p2 has made the most extensive impact on skipping some techs, but of course most of the time the booming=turtling approach makes the most sense. I definitely don't think that adding tech pairs back into the game is a good idea except for some civ specific situations like the mauryans berry upgrade choice.

Edited 20 hours ago by BreakfastBurrito_007

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

either before or after Barrack

Choice

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

After clicking to Town phase, or just before if you really need faster farming before Town phase

Choice

(I also research it at  either of these times, most of the time)

——-
Just because you always research a tech doesn’t mean that there isn’t a choice involved in when you research it. 

You have a very simplistic view of the game that doesn’t represent the myriad of other choices out there. You can rush, you can phase up fast, you can skip techs that you don’t need, you can skip eco techs in favor or military techs, you can skip techs in favor or getting more pop, you can skip techs in favor of more buildings

If things were as simple as you say everyone would have more or less the same economy, which isn’t obviously true. 

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

I believe that getting rid of the pair-techs was a wrong choice.

I hate these. They make the game rigid so that you only have one way to play and can’t adjust to meet current game situations. 

[Deicide4u]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Just because you always research a tech doesn’t mean that there isn’t a choice involved in when you research it. 

RPG games have been heavily dumbed-down ever since Oblivion.

In Morrowind, if you played fairly, you had a choice of mostly +2, +3 and +4 (if you were very lucky) attribute points per level up.

But, players figured out that, by leveling up your Misc skills that don't contribute to leveling but still count towards attribute bonuses, you can always get +5 bonuses at each level up.

So, there was a profound choice: you either role-play and have fun with the game, or you play a boring game with numbers.

In Oblivion, you could do the same, but the enemies would get stronger each level up. This prompted players to go a step further, to limit the amount of level ups they do.

What does this have to do with our RTS game? Well, if every eco tech is crucial, and every civilization can get every economic tech, what choice do players have? The most logical choice is to get all techs, ASAP. We can't really role-play in this game. 

Therefore, pair-techs are one way to make the player take a risk and have consequences for his/her actions. To force players to have a "strategy", if you will. 

[Deicide4u]

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

You can rush, you can phase up fast, you can skip techs that you don’t need, you can skip eco techs in favor or military techs

We are strictly talking about eco techs here. You can skip any tech to get more military, but is that really the best choice in mid to long term?

Rushing is also an all-in strategy that basically skips techs.

Phasing up fast, yes. Followed by immediately getting those eco techs that you ignored up til now. If you don't get them, you are way behind, no matter that you're in Town phase 1 minute before the enemy. 

[chrstgtr]

8 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

is that really the best choice in mid to long term

If you win by min 10 then, yes. 

You are showing your ignorance in this thread. Again, I suggest you play multiplayer. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

To force players to have a "strategy"

I don't think developers of any game should be forcing strategies, they should naturally come about given the circumstances of play. Thats the problem i have with overusing tech pairs.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't think developers of any game should be forcing strategies, they should naturally come about given the circumstances of play. Thats the problem i have with overusing tech pairs.

I think this is a bit myopic. If you have a tech. This tech has been in the game for several alphas now (as most eco techs have been). But in the next release this tech has another tech paired to it, what have you lost? Haven't you now gained an additional choice?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

28 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't think developers of any game should be forcing strategies, they should naturally come about given the circumstances of play. Thats the problem i have with overusing tech pairs.

I think this is a bit myopic. If you have a tech. This tech has been in the game for several alphas now (as most eco techs have been). But in the next release this tech has another tech paired to it, what have you lost? Haven't you now gained an additional choice?

Tech pairs are great for certain cases, like some unique techs. But If you make everything a choice of one over the other (like all the eco techs maybe), you are forcing a very black and white strategy on players. In my opinion, picking a path down a specialization tree isn't good strategy, that's why I oppose choosing heroes at game start, aoe4's monument system, and civilization specialization upon phase up.

[Deicide4u]

39 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

But in the next release this tech has another tech paired to it, what have you lost?

Their argument is that you've now lost the opportunity to get the paired tech later in the match, should the circumstances change. You won't get that needed advantage. 

They don't realize that by losing one advantage, you have gained another.

Using the old tech pairs as an example. If you researched "Iron Axe Heads" instead of the "Wheelbarrow", your Citizens now have faster wood gather rate, but lose the ability to carry additional resources. 

Your opponent chose the "Wheelbarrow", and now his Citizens chop wood slower, but can carry extra resources.

This is just one example, but I don't see any game-breaking choices here.

Edited 5 hours ago by Deicide4u

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

21 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Their argument is that you've now lost the opportunity to get the paired tech later in the match

Sure, but in my example you didn't have that choice at all before the 2nd tech was added. It's additive in this example. 

[chrstgtr]

9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's additive in this example. 

But it’s not. It eliminates a road that you can take. For example, the Maurya berry or hunting tech can ruin you. If you pick the berry tech and it turns out the map is super hunt heavy and everyone goes cav hunting then you’re in trouble. Opposite is true too. 
 

it’s only Pareto if it doesn’t take away other options. I see little reason to have tech pairs as opposed to bust adding a tech

Edited 5 hours ago by chrstgtr

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

12 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But it’s not.

But it is, in my example. I'm not talking about combining existing techs into pairs. 

[chrstgtr]

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

But it is, in my example. I'm not talking about combining existing techs into pairs. 

It isn’t. You have lost the choice to do that and the strategy associated with that. 

Every civ has the berry tech. It was in the game for many alphas. If I chose the hunting tech, which make berry gathering slow, and you later discover that there are a lot of harvestable berries on the map then you will be much slower than all other players that did the berry tech. 

Pareto is if you just add a hunting tech that makes hunting faster without eliminating the ability to be berries. 

As a principle matter, I don’t like anything that hinders your ability to adjust later. Tech pairs by definition do that 

[chrstgtr]

52 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

that's why I oppose choosing heroes at game start

It’s also why I dislike how you can only train a hero once. Different heroes might be best at different phases of the game and I shouldn’t lose the ability to adjust back and forth within the game. I can understand if your enemy kills your hero but I am talking about a situation where I voluntarily want to change heroes back and forth. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

55 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Tech pairs are great for certain cases, like some unique techs. But If you make everything a choice of one over the other (like all the eco techs maybe), you are forcing a very black and white strategy on players. In my opinion, picking a path down a specialization tree isn't good strategy, that's why I oppose choosing heroes at game start, aoe4's monument system, and civilization specialization upon phase up.

Very awesome, successful games have these attributes. I don't oppose it at all. 

[Deicide4u]

21 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

If I chose the hunting tech, which make berry gathering slow, and you later discover that there are a lot of harvestable berries on the map then you will be much slower than all other players that did the berry tech. 

The hunting tech shouldn't change the berry gather rates. It should just improve hunting.

Forget about multiplayer for a second. The game needs to be fun to play first and foremost. If the game is fun, players will discover strategies and counter-strategies. Fun games have choices that are risky, but rewarding.

If you devolve a game to a literal spamfest where everyone can get everything in every match (we still don't restrict technologies per civ! AoE 1 had that in 1997), you lose a lot of replayability.

Edited 4 hours ago by Deicide4u

[chrstgtr]

11 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

The hunting tech shouldn't change the berry gather rates. It should just improve hunting.

 

Even at baseline gather rate, you would still be much slower if everyone else has an access to a tech to make berries faster. Tech pairs sole purpose is to eliminate this choice, which is why I entirely dislike them. 
 

11 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

If you devolve a game to a literal spamfest where everyone can get everything in every match

Everyone doesn’t research every technology. Even for the techs that most people do get, they don’t get them at the same time. I suggest you look inward and question whether you are yet to discover other strategies that other players have. And, if the situation you describe did occur (which it hasn’t) then you could just adjust cost/benefits so that it doesn’t happen every time for every player. 

Edited 4 hours ago by chrstgtr

[Classic-Burger]

Technologies don't make a big impact sometimes.

For pairs to work there would have to be a larger election scheme.

Long paths with technologies are needed, so that there are decisions 

An example of Path of Exile.

Lots of decisions, not a spamfest simulation.

With few technologies that do not define a strategy, a coherent line of decisions cannot be followed.

Although Path of Exile is exaggerated, you can see how varied it is.

 

[Deicide4u]

15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Everyone doesn’t research every technology.

You miss the point, they can do that.

16 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I suggest you look inward and question whether you are yet to discover other strategies that other players have. And, if the situation you describe did occur (which it hasn’t) then you could just adjust cost/benefits

I can also "adjust" my attribute multipliers in Morrowind by spending gold on trainers for a skill that my character shouldn't be good at. It will be efficient, yes? But, is that fun?

Again, you miss the point by looking at everything from your high-stakes multiplayer viewpoint. 

[Classic-Burger]

2 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

high-stakes multiplayer viewpoint. 

That's why the game never changes.

[chrstgtr]

4 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

You miss the point, they can do that.

No, YOU miss the point. Players often oscillate between getting a tech in one game and forging it in the next.

You are complaining about a lack of strategies when you don’t use ones that are already available. 
 

12 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

For pairs to work there would have to be a larger election scheme.

Literally none of this requires a tech pair instead of just adding more techs. 

When you research a tech matters. You all both looking at this from a one dimensional view of if it can be researched and ignore all timing dimensions.