Technologies discussion

[Andrettin]

Why isn't the wheel a tech, even though the icon is present?

[Enrique]

The unpairing of techs in A17 is a great thing, in my opinion. Also, you get more of them. Big fan of this change!

Really?

I can understand that they were removed for the sake of easier rebalance to set the new gameplay direction, but I hope they come back.

IMHO the tech pairing system added another layer of strategy, also it was a nice personality touch to the game, and in top of that increased the replay value of the matches.

[zzippy]

IMHO the tech pairing system added another layer of strategy,...

How can pairing add layers of strategy? Please explain.

Imho it reduces strategy depth, due to the nature of pairing.

Edited October 25, 2014 by zzippy

[agentx]

I think the pairing with cheap techs asks the player to answer an easy A/B question. With unpaired and expensive techs you have yes/no questions which involve at least an estimate whether and when a tech is worth the investment. Also that decision sits on any tech not only on pairs. In short there are now more and even more difficult decisions to be made.

[Enrique]

IMHO the tech pairing system added another layer of strategy,...

How can pairing add layers of strategy? Please explain.

Imho it reduces strategy depth, due to the nature of pairing.

Military strategy: the art of planning a campaign or large military operation

Planning is the key word here. By having to take a decision you have to "plan" what your actions will be in the match. That involves thinking what you think the other player is up to, via scouting, judging by the opponent's civilization or intel gather in battles, also knowing your civ pros and cons and even the map attributes should be taken into account.

This do not mean it should be a "best combination" of techs to research, and definitely not "losing directly" a match for a bad decision, but to gain an strategic advantage over your opponent if you made the right decision or planning.

Why do you think it reduces strategy depth?

[Zeta1127]

The mutually exclusive nature of tech pairs seems to irritated some people, probably because they believe they should be able to research every tech as they see fit. The choices in tech pairs are really specializations, which I like.

[auron2401]

Tech pairing would be more useful in Super techs, Which give Huge advantages (and maybe small disadvantages) which would change your playstyle when you research them.

Like reforms, you can give yourself +10% farming, or buff the life of your infantry, etc.

..obviously they would be better thought out than that, but my point stands.

Edited October 26, 2014 by auron2401

[iNcog]

The mutually exclusive nature of tech pairs seems to irritated some people, probably because they believe they should be able to research every tech as they see fit. The choices in tech pairs are really specializations, which I like.

I invite you to read through all the posts in this thread.

Just in case you don't: realize that time is also a resource in an RTS game. You are required to specialize in certain techs even if you can research them all: you don't have time to research them all unless the match goes to the late game. Specialization is there even if techs aren't paired up. You actually have more specialization since you can make the choice to get a lot of tech early on (to the detriment of your economy or your military spending, meaning you have to play defensive) or you can choose not to invest into a lot of tech to get a quick military lead (meaning you have more units -> you use those units to try to get a lead by doing damage).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

As Enrique say, the pairing of techs add more replay value that is now lost in A17. The pairs give the player interesting choices and trees that can be different every time they play. Now, all techs are in straight line and expensive, meaning you make fewer choices in a game. There could be a mix of small choices and big choices with a mix of a lot of pairs with some single techs, inexpensive and expensive. Instead now there is only big choices in a straight line and no pairs. Not as interesting as before as it could be. I do not think you will agree (given I was made fun for suggesting vision and imagination) so I make my own mod and play my own way.

[Stan`]

I'm not an experienced player, therefore I may be wrong, but it appeared to me that everybody was using the same paired techs. That could mean two things : One, they were not balanced and therefore you were right, two they were and therefore were not adding anything to the game provided that they were not used. I personnally hate to have to make that kind of decisions (ie : upgrade bowmen to crossbowmen and therefore having units that cost different resources without having the ability to switch back to bowmen if I have only wood) However I think that used in a proper way and mixed with non paired techs that could be a great addition to the game, making it more unique. This is why I would suggest having some back in the game.

It also appears to me than more and more people are turning towards mods instead of making the main game the best it could be. I mean this is just weird to split a whole and a little community over this so harsh. I believe we are not a bunch of little kids fighting to see who has the best superhero, why can't we have a constructive discussion instead of you say that, I say this, without this and that having any connections ? I believe founders and players despite having a different view of the game can come up with something greater if they just discuss it.

As we are still on alpha stage nothing is fixed, a lot of things can still change. Making them change the best way know could maybe allow the team and the players to take the best decision and use the different views to come one big project instead of rivalry mods... Just my two cents

Regards. Stan.

[feneur]

It also appears to me than more and more people are turning towards mods instead of making the main game the best it could be. I mean this is just weird to split a whole and a little community over this so harsh. I believe we are not a bunch of little kids fighting to see who has the best superhero, why can't we have a constructive discussion instead of you say that, I say this, without this and that having any connections ? I believe founders and players despite having a different view of the game can come up with something greater if they just discuss it.

We might still be in the Alpha stage, but a lot of things in the main game are at the stage where we really shouldn't add too many things to them at this point, so there's less room for completely new and game-changing things (re-adding paired techs with more relevant pairs is not what I'm talking about, rather the kind of completely game-changing new features some people have suggested). It's perfectly fine for people to implement them in mods though so they can be tried and tested, and if people like them included in part 2. When they can be a part of the game design from the start.

As for things which actually can go in the game, I think the route of modding might be good here too. Because if something is implemented in a mod and works well -- then it's proven that it works well and can be added to the game. That's far better than arguing and not getting anywhere -- a mod to show how things work in practice is a lot more compelling than arguments alone

[iNcog]

As Enrique say, the pairing of techs add more replay value that is now lost in A17. The pairs give the player interesting choices and trees that can be different every time they play. Now, all techs are in straight line and expensive, meaning you make fewer choices in a game. There could be a mix of small choices and big choices with a mix of a lot of pairs with some single techs, inexpensive and expensive. Instead now there is only big choices in a straight line and no pairs. Not as interesting as before as it could be. I do not think you will agree (given I was made fun for suggesting vision and imagination) so I make my own mod and play my own way.

Replay value in an RTS is arguably limitless; a meta-game will always evolve if the RTS is well-designed (I believe that 0 AD's design is quite sound) given that strategies evolve as players adapt to them. Imagine I come up with a "Rush A". Since the game is well designed, "Rush A" has a counter named "Safe Play B". So if I scout someone who is going for "Rush A" and I am able to successfully pull of "Safe Play B" (in terms of my build order and my execution), then I have a counter to "Rush A". The thing is that "Safe Play B" also has a counter. If everyone is going "Rush A" then that rush is going to be very strong until everyone starts using "Safe Play B" to counter it. At that point, it will be possible to develop "Greedy Opening C" to counter "Safe Play B". The thing with "Greedy Opening C" is that either loses to "Rush A" or it perhaps loses to "Rush D" which is a different rush from "Rush A" but it remains a rush.

This is over-simplified but hopefully the point comes across. If the game is balanced and well designed, this is a way that the meta-game may evolve. You'll notice that you won't ever see the development of "Greedy Opening C" if "Rush A" hadn't brought up "Safe Play B". There is your replay value. A successful RTS player will have strong game knowledge (he scouts and he knows about strategies A, B, C and D), strong execution (he will be able to execute any of those strategies). The truly best players are the one who will develop the new strategies.

So what does this have to do with un-paired techs? It's quite simple: if you have access to a large variety of tools in the form of upgrades (Blacksmith upgrades, Storehouse upgrades), you have more tools to work with to develop strategies. If you pair upgrades like it was done before A17, you limit the different strategies that people can use or invent. See the slinger rush example I talked about earlier in the thread. There will be no reason for me to attempt a slinger rush supplemented with the stone gathering upgrade if I'm going to penalize myself down the line by not being able to obtain the metal gathering upgrade. Yes, it's a "choice" to research the stone gathering upgrade. However that "choice" is fairly one-dimensional: if you choose to use a build that will hamper your strength down the line, it means that build is limited to being an all-in instead of a rush or pressure build, so your transition is weaker. If people figure out how to hold off slinger rushes, then the slinger rush becomes obsolete since it has no transition.

Again, it's a very simple example, but you get the gist of it.

Edited October 26, 2014 by iNcog

[Stan`]

We might still be in the Alpha stage, but a lot of things in the main game are at the stage where we really shouldn't add too many things to them at this point, so there's less room for completely new and game-changing things (re-adding paired techs with more relevant pairs is not what I'm talking about, rather the kind of completely game-changing new features some people have suggested). It's perfectly fine for people to implement them in mods though so they can be tried and tested, and if people like them included in part 2. When they can be a part of the game design from the start.

As for things which actually can go in the game, I think the route of modding might be good here too. Because if something is implemented in a mod and works well -- then it's proven that it works well and can be added to the game. That's far better than arguing and not getting anywhere -- a mod to show how things work in practice is a lot more compelling than arguments alone

I agree with you on that. But only for this purpose splitting for better reunification is good. Now splitting because you can't get to something in the middle is bad. Therefore everyone should try to add what they think, usings charts and stuff like that, to make it productive =)

[Zeta1127]

I invite you to read through all the posts in this thread.

Just in case you don't: realize that time is also a resource in an RTS game. You are required to specialize in certain techs even if you can research them all: you don't have time to research them all unless the match goes to the late game. Specialization is there even if techs aren't paired up. You actually have more specialization since you can make the choice to get a lot of tech early on (to the detriment of your economy or your military spending, meaning you have to play defensive) or you can choose not to invest into a lot of tech to get a quick military lead (meaning you have more units -> you use those units to try to get a lead by doing damage).

It may not seem like it, but I am actually saying much of the same thing you are, hence my "as they see fit" comment. The choice of technology vs. military still applies to tech pairs, so I don't see how that is a case against tech pairs.

[niektb]

I agree with Stan here. In this thread were not talking about adding new features (to which applies what feneur says) but about the current implementation of a (very) important aspect of an RTS game. We shouldn't diverge here and end up with 10 (just a number) different technology mods!!!

Mind if I do a small analysis on technologies?

DISCLAIMER: This analysis assumes that the paired technologies are related to each other, could logically exist independently from each other (trade-off stats technologies is not what I'm talking about here, these technologies should always be in pairs) and are equally powerful (this depends on the player's strategy though). Also the cost wouldn't be different whether standalone or in pairs.

There are a couple of things we need to consider when talking about technologies. Resources, time and choice (+results of that choice). The paired technologies will be refered to as AB (either technology A or B ). The standalone technologies as YN (Yes or no (or at least not right now)).

A / B-technologies;

The nature of paired technologies is that researching of one means a hard exclusion of the other. This means that the player needs to choose which technology of the two suits his strategy best. And not only that, he also needs to estimate whether the desired paired technology is worth the cost.

Y / N-technologies:

When it comes to amount of choices YN offers 2 cost-estimating choices compared to 1 cost-estimation and 1 A/B (one or the other, which suits best?) choice. This means that (it comes to making choices solely) the amount is equal, the nature of these choices is however different. With YN the immediate result of the choice to research it is largely dependend on the opposing player. What has he done with his resources (and the time to obtain these)? Has he been idling around (for example), it would mean that the negative impact is nullifiable. The opposite would mean that the research created a certain kind of 'disadvantage' (that is in the longer run being compensated by the bonus the tech gave). Player skill and the amount of resources is the determining factor here.

AB has a more definite character. Without too much fantasy a player could become his own worst enemy by making ill-decisions that do not suit his playing style. This requires more care to the player when choosing technologies to research. With YN poor choices are still possible but they can be equalized (by researching the other tech) at the expense of some more resources (and time to obtain these).

Technically this narrows the problem down to one question: To what extend should the player be penalized for poor decision-taking?

This question is not as black and white as it might seem. There are a couple of things that need to be taken into account when answering this question. What does it for example mean for the strategic freedom? What we should avoid at all cost is forcing the players down to a predefined set of playing strategies. Therefore hard branching of the technologies (economy vs military and that kind of stuff) is no good idea.

---END of the analysis---

As you might have noticed I tried to be as much objective as possible in the analysis so everyone can read the facts and make his/her own conclusion. I would however do some final (personal) words (my conclusion):

I personally like a mix of the various types described above. I think there shouldn't be solely paired techs or solely standalone techs. I think however that a pure AB-choice is too unforgiving against poor decision-taking and limits strategic freedom too much (the chance is quite high that it forces players down to fixed strategies as some early game strategies and unbeneficial in the long run, unless the pairs are extremely well thought out), I therefore would like to see them in tiers. (With every tier level becoming available with the next phase, summing up to 3 levels) That way they can be (partially?) compensated but it needs more time to do so (till next phase + the time to gather the required amount of resources). SIDENOTE: I would like to see icons that show a tier number.

Edited October 27, 2014 by niektb

[mimo]

Why do you say that the pair A/B would be a hard exclusion of one of them ? we can also think of duplication of pairs: for example a same pair would be available in phase 1 and 3 (with increased cost in the later phase). Thus you have a strategic choice to do for your start game development, but are not fully tied by this initial choice as the other tech will be available again later.

In addition, this kind of pair would have some "realistic" aspect: different civs may invest in different techs, but because of spying or trade, all tech start to propagate to every civs.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

SIDENOTE: I would like to see icons that show a tier number.

I agree, this would be nice. Looking at the technology files for my mod I see maybe the possibility of a "iconPhase" part for the file?

[niektb]

Mimo: in that case you would combine multiple AB's. With one AB my point is still valid.

[mimo]

yeah, but then it becomes purely rethorical :-)

my point was that we can imagine ways to have pairs without being tied up to the end of the game by our early choice.

[niektb]

The main thing I wanted to express with that phrase (and I repeated it later on) is that you make a decision that cannot be altered afterwards and hence that decision needs to be taken carefully.

[iNcog]

The main thing I wanted to express with that phrase (and I repeated it later on) is that you make a decision that cannot be altered afterwards and hence that decision needs to be taken carefully.

The decision you're describing is the kind that's made before the game even starts.

Once you start realizing that a decision is bad (e.g. getting stone upgrade instead of metal upgrade for an early game rush, when metal is a more important resource), you just won't make it anymore.

[Stan`]

@iNcog not making an obvious research is not always making your doom. If you use a strategy that makes the enemy player think that you will rush him, he wil waste resources on stuff he doesn't need and hence give you back your advantage. It appears to me that their should be a nearly unlimited choice.

On a side note I agree with niektb and I think we could also have a A/B giving different Y/N when choosing B or A.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The decision you're describing is the kind that's made before the game even starts.

Once you start realizing that a decision is bad (e.g. getting stone upgrade instead of metal upgrade for an early game rush, when metal is a more important resource), you just won't make it anymore.

What is bad with that? With the pairs, the player chooses a tree that is to her advantage for the strategy she has chosen (same for the civ, she would choose the civ that best suits her play style, is this bad? Choosing a civ is not reversible in the middle of a game either). If she wants to do a different strategy next game, then she would probably use a different tree that she has found through trial and error best suits her new strategy.

Edited October 28, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[zzippy]

This has been answered already, but especially for you, again:

Sometimes you have to change your strategy in the game... paired techs do not allow this.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Your argument also is an argument to prevent civs from being unique. I also remember that there were multiple tiers of paired techs that allowed me to switch my focus later.