Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taricus]

Administrative/Sentient AI research, Materialist unique building and ensuring you have good scientists directing research.

[Liction]

edicts also help as you get a net gain and can focus on a field.

[Sirbug]

Historically speaking, in real world population numbers didn't convert into research speed this well.

Some kind of measure to counter early landgrab snowballing into complete technological dominance is needed.

[LoSboccacc]

Historically speaking, in real world population numbers didn't convert into research speed this well.

Some kind of measure to counter early landgrab snowballing into complete technological dominance is needed.

> Historically speaking
wat

do we even live on the same world?

tru there needs to be a door open to let empires falling back a comeback, but the rubber banding as it stands now it's just ridiculous.

[Sergarr]

Yes, at large population sizes, you start having diminished returns. The key thing here is that they'll still be positive, i.e. adding more people would not decrease your actual research speed. It may decrease the implementation speed, but that's much better simulated by requiring you to construct special buildings to be able to gain actual advantages from technologies (as it's usually done in Civilization series).

A square root function would work out quite nicely here, I think.

[BFEL]

Am I the only one who also wants a way for empires to LOSE technology? I'm not sure what the best way to implement it would be, possibly through events but that leaves things stupidly random. Though a Y2K style Crisis event would be kinda interesting, where all the tech storage databases in the galaxy basically fuck up all at once, leaving everyone with shitty tech again in the mid/late game.
Still, that could also be very shitty and unfun.

Mostly I want to see things where Fallen Empires actually y'know...FALL. Like just collapse on their own instead of being super leet megaempires the whole game.

[ZeroGravitas]

Am I the only one who also wants a way for empires to LOSE technology?

probably not, but most players would hate the feeling of technology being subtracted.

[LoSboccacc]

Am I the only one who also wants a way for empires to LOSE technology? I'm not sure what the best way to implement it would be, possibly through events but that leaves things stupidly random. Though a Y2K style Crisis event would be kinda interesting, where all the tech storage databases in the galaxy basically fuck up all at once, leaving everyone with shitty tech again in the mid/late game.
Still, that could also be very shitty and unfun.

Mostly I want to see things where Fallen Empires actually y'know...FALL. Like just collapse on their own instead of being super leet megaempires the whole game.

it'd be interesting, you bomb enough of a planet and if a science building gets busted you have a % chance of losing a level in a random field, based on the total number of research centers in the bombed empire, so you could literally bomb people into stone age

[IronyOwl]

It does however, allow you to have some scientists working on propulsion, and some on guns, and so forth. There would be problems in logistics, but you're balancing that by being able to tackle more areas/avenues of research simultaneously. Yes, Stellaris groups it all into three parts, but the whole thing was about it being somehow faster to research with less resources. I agree that there are diminishing returns, and that distribution and standardization would be resource consuming, but if you've got a two world empire it's not going to be faster in the long term than a 20 world empire full of thriving metropolises all putting out different ideas and avenues of research.

Yes, at large population sizes, you start having diminished returns. The key thing here is that they'll still be positive, i.e. adding more people would not decrease your actual research speed. It may decrease the implementation speed, but that's much better simulated by requiring you to construct special buildings to be able to gain actual advantages from technologies (as it's usually done in Civilization series).

A square root function would work out quite nicely here, I think.

It might. Modern pharmaceutical research, for instance, is heavily, heavily gated by a number of agencies, policies, agendas, and so on. The idea that colonizing Mars would actually slow us down on that front really isn't hard to believe.

Am I the only one who also wants a way for empires to LOSE technology?

probably not, but most players would hate the feeling of technology being subtracted.

I'd like a more fluid game on paper, but even I have to admit a 4X where you're constantly losing half your empire would be hard to make satisfying. And let's face it, Stellaris is having enough trouble being itself without trying to do a ballerina dance on top of that.

[LoSboccacc]

It might. Modern pharmaceutical research, for instance, is heavily, heavily gated by a number of agencies, policies, agendas, and so on. The idea that colonizing Mars would actually slow us down on that front really isn't hard to believe.

but that doesn't mean smaller countries with less string attached to research advance any faster

[Sheb]

What if you had to 'research' tech twice, oncee to discover them, and once on each planet (at a tiny fraction of the cost) to implement them there? Basically, like building buildings, but with a cost in research point?

[Neonivek]

What if you had to 'research' tech twice, oncee to discover them, and once on each planet (at a tiny fraction of the cost) to implement them there? Basically, like building buildings, but with a cost in research point?

A lot of techs lack a social cost anyway.

[ZeroGravitas]

What if you had to 'research' tech twice, oncee to discover them, and once on each planet (at a tiny fraction of the cost) to implement them there? Basically, like building buildings, but with a cost in research point?

This could make sense if it applied to types of worlds and world modifiers instead. Running a power planet on an arid world probably presents different challenges than running a power plant on an ocean world. Similarly a planet with heavy gravity or unstable tectonics presents different mining challenges than a "normal" planet.

Then again most of our planets for most of the game will be exactly the same types, so maybe it mostly wouldn't matter.

When it comes to ships, I think implementing a Hearts of Iron-type system of production runs would have been better. Especially if repeated builds unlocked MoO2-style weapon variants, like PD/heavy/etc variants of weapons techs.

[Sheb]

Well, it would represent the cost of training the planet in the use of the new tech.

[ZeroGravitas]

Well, it would represent the cost of training the planet in the use of the new tech.

Maybe that's money or influence... more research points is thematically the wrong cost.