I really hate it. To the point I don't want to play the game anymore, its a game breaker. In all strategy games I focus on research and in GC3 my custom human race their first priority is to research, its part of my strategy. Playing with "specializations" sucks... I exited the game immediately I can't stand this...
Looking in the xml files seems to be a nightmare to disable them someone needs to spend hours and hours to make a mod for tech to work properly.
Stardock, Frogboy and anyone there, please give us back the full tech tree I'm sure most players will agree with me. Tech tree has been shortened so much and cut lots of good stuff in the game.
At least make it an option when we start a game we choose free or specialized. Don't force this terrible limitation..
Personally this made me to stop playing the game I will not play untill this is fixed or there is a mod which seems very complex someone needs to rewrite the entire tech trees for all races!
I was so anxious to play the Beta 6 but not like this.. game breaker!
I don't understand the people who like this change, I understand the interesting/tough choices makes for a better game argument but I don't see how anyone still thinks that's right. Having more options makes for a more interesting choice not you can only have 1 of these options. Also all the people saying who keep saying it doesn't make sense to have cheaper, more powerful and smaller engines, because that is exactly what has happened with cars, phones, tv, powerplants, factories, etc. ad nauseam. This is exactly what you get with all technology.
PS Some of the specialisations, I wonder how they function/work
For instance in research I came upon a choice for a ruling party, which asked me to choose between more money/more influence / more manufacturing etc.
I choose one, but I also traded another with the Iconians +/- 40 turns after I had researched my own. So, what does this mean, I suddenly have two ruling parties now, and have the positive effects from both? And can even acquire a third one?
To be honest , I didn't see much change after I acquired this technology (choose +20% influence myself, acquired +20% manufacturing), and also I think this concept feels really odd.
I like the thought that exclusive techs lead to certain choices thereby forcing you to think twice about spending research points, and ways your empire grows. But I think it should indeed be an option, or perhaps something which could be setup through the faction design screen (f.i. very clever races can research all)?
But I also understand that this would have serious consequences for the tech tree, or the plan the team had for the tech tree.
* Tech tree should be distinctive between different civ's
* Certain exclusive options should lead to different game experiences
If you want to maintain this, certain techs should also not be able to be traded (like the example of the ruling party I mentioned), and I still think it is strange that certain tech tree elements can be traded, because they have a Mutual effect/ (probably also a Mutual pace in the general schematic of the tech tree) (f.i. the slavepits from the Drenghi), but you are not able to build the possible assets attached to them.
Seems that there are a lot of conflicting idea's and decisions at the moment.
I understand about penalizing two identical races as being wrong, but this is not instead you decide how your faction develops. The only reason your complaining is because you've seen it the other way. If this was a different game you would say that is how they do it. This is slightly tweaking a mechanic not totally rewiring the game like tropical 1 and 2.
If someone wants to research one of the thre he can and then invest in different tech ignoring the other two.
That is how it works in the real world. A lot of things don't get invented because the government prioritise something else. When you talk computers, you don't realize things could of went another way. Babbach could have invented computers earlier. We could be using ferret cores instead of microchips. Computers are only universal because of I.B.M. Software could be free. Computers could be cheaper, or more expensive. Dos could be the main operating system.
Why don't our government do that. Cheaper versus better is a argument they use all the time. F16 vs. F15. F22 vs. F15xx. F22 vs. F35. B52 vs. B58. B52 Vs B70. B52 vs. B1b.
For example today computers are faster, smaller and cheape
[/quote]
Well saving production by upgrading is always an improvement in my book plus this can help you if you can't afford it without wasting production. To bad you don't feel that way.
no borders any race can enter your empire and build a starbase or colonize a planet.
The game never had it. You mean stupid Ai.If Stardock wants to set some new rules fine but it doesn't mean anyone likes them.
Or what your trying to say not everyone likes them.
Personally I won't be playing GC3 anymore, but I will keep reading hoping things will change or there will be mods to allow me play the game in a more realistic way with no limitations.
So you are saying if everyone had different tech trees, they are limiting them. That is the same thing. Flexibility is limitation to you. It would be more constructive to write down how each tree is limiting you taking into account that you are specializing. Instead of not playing the game. Healp balance the new feature instead.
Technically the game always had a hard limit on this. That has not changed. All there saying if you focus your effort, and money in one direction, you can do more in one direction.
Actually this idea does exactly that.
more tech than you can possibly research in a single game.
Like the idea as long as it doesn't eliminate the other idea. Always down for more techs.Options are never bad.Removing them, on the other hand...[/quote]Or in this case adding them.
After playing a few games with them, I am against the specializations. Short and Sweet.
I've just released an experimental mod to re-enable specializations. Check it out if you want to.
https://forums.galciv3.com/463831/page/1
I've been suggesting mutually exclusive techs this whole time.The game really does need something to make choices more meaningful- not just for a few turns, but for the rest of your game. Civilizations make choices that effect their futures. So, again, in concept, this is a good thing.I think the problem is that, as it stands, there are too many specializations, effectively cutting out a decent chunk of the tech tree. Also some specializations, it would seem logical to be able to just invest more time and then figure it out rather than be unable to do so. However, I do think there should be researches that are mutually exclusive in order to make the choices matter.
I could see this for techs everyone needs no matter what the choice is.
"Having more options makes for a more interesting choice" - but you don't want choice (other than the trivial-by-comparison which one first?), you want everything!
A fully open tech tree with every technology available doesn't give you more strategic choices and decisions to make, it gives you less. You can have everything, whats to choose? Less choice equals less strategy.
You don't need every tech, you don't need every planet at 100%, you don't need every tile on every planet optimised and every ship upgraded to the nth degree, you just need to make the right choices and do the right things at the right time. Making the best of what you do have, rather than worrying about what you don't - or could have had - isn't that the essence of real strategy games?
Technological progression does not eliminate the possibility of design tradeoffs. In many ways, it opens the field for ever larger degrees of specialization. Relative to when the technology was introduced, yes, the average component is probably "smaller, cheaper, faster, more powerful" etc. However, relative to the market, you will generally not see one component which is simultaneously smaller, cheaper, more powerful, and just generally better than everything else on the market. This latter bit is where the specialization technologies fit in (or at least should fit); they're not global improvements from the maturation of the technology, but rather the benefits and penalties you get from the tradeoffs you chose to make.
To provide some concrete examples, let's take computers. There's a single-core 1GHz computer with 512MB RAM and 512MB flash memory (~= hard drive) currently on the market that sells for ~$150. There's an 80MHz single core computer with 512K flash and 128K RAM that sells for ~$100 (no, those numbers are not mistakes; I really do mean 80 megahertz, 512 kilobytes, and 128 kilobytes). Netbooks are available for ~$100+ and have capabilities seemingly superior to either of these. Decent laptops might cost several hundred dollars more. You know what the difference is? The tradeoffs made to get the end product. That 1GHz computer? It's smaller than my thumb, has 802.11G, Bluetooth, a MicroSD card slot, and several physical connections for other components (specifically, a camera and an expansion board), and it's lightweight and low power. That 80MHz computer? It's intended as a teaching and development tool, and has all kinds of peripheral connections you might normally see only one or two of on a normal embedded processor (and for that matter, embedded processors have a tendency to be even more limited in their capabilities, because you're trading off quite a bit of unnecessary capability to make them small, low-power, and cheap).
When talking about specialization, especially in the context of video games where you typically do not get to see everything else that should be going on, it makes plenty of sense for there to be cheap components, powerful components, and efficient components, but not cheap, powerful, and efficient components. It does not matter that cheap components in the year 2225 are smaller, more powerful, and cheaper than those which existed in the year 2200. That aspect of progression is covered by global improvements like Miniaturization technologies and generic industrial output bonus techs. Component specialization is about how you choose to apply your technology - you have a basic part, let's call it A. You can make some tradeoffs to make it smaller (A-I), or cheaper (A-II), or more efficient (A-III). Maybe 20 years from now, the technological descendent of part A (which I will call B ) will be all three of these things by comparison with part A, but you shouldn't be comparing B to A in this manner, what matters is how B-I, B-II, and B-III (the descendents of A-I, A-II, and A-III) compare, and all three of these are still likely to be trading between size, power, efficiency, cost, etc, when compared to their base form B, just like A-I, A-II, and A-III were in comparison to their base form A.
I disagree. It depends entirely on how many opponents you have, what setting you're on (difficulty and galaxy setup), how fast they research things, and how good you are at diplomacy. Those are all of the hard coded mechanics, it doesn't even get into how the player feels about using diplomacy. Or if they are far out in front. Or various other things.
Sure, on a 100 faction, 2000 planet death arena, it might not matter as much. Probably won't matter much at all. But on other settings, I can see this getting irksome in the extreme.
====
One solution could be... LET MINORS BE IMMUNE TO THE SPECIALIZATION MECHANIC. Or rather, have their tech trees not have specializations; just the techs in whatever order that makes sense.
Want a reason to keep minors around? Want a reason to maybe even given them planets/colony ships? Want a reason to keep them deep in to the game and boost their research as much as you can? Well, there is an excellent reason right there.
People have been asking to make the Minors "special" in someway for as long as I have been following Galactic Civilizations. Where here is something that makes them special and different. AND gives people a reason not to conquer them. Providing one can boost their research, that is.
My point is that as time goes by with technology a culture figures out how to make those things cheaper, smaller and better, just not all at the same time. Exactly like researching a tech, then moving to something else and in 10 turns or so coming back to the specialization and picking the first "specialization" then in another 10 or so turns coming back for a second because its easy to do now and a bit later deciding to pick up that last one.
In a video game you don't get the wide range of things in real life, your example of a good laptop that costs more is the new tech you just got, the $100 computer is the older tech that has all of the "specializations." This is why I keep saying the "specializations" ARE NOT specializations, they ARE optimizations/efficiencies. Optimizations are the natural progression of technology. You entire third paragraph is exactly my point, what is treated as specializations for each and every portion of the tech tree should be in their own line in the tech tree that applies to all components, miniaturization, manufacturing efficiency(cheaper), component efficiency(better) rather than "specializations" for each and every part of the tech tree.
The problem is as I pointed out in another post there really is not an even choice for these specializations. The three choices we are presented with for each of these techs are in no way equal. So for a human player we will most likely all ways pick the best option every time. Only the computer play may not. So other then giving us something to trade technologies for it only is a disappointment for players and a stumbling block if we accidentally select either of the lesser options.
Look at the specialization for Farms. We can get a +1 to production, a slight decrease in build cost or a small decrease in upkeep cost. Well unless you plan on building lots of farms or have a very poor production the lower cost to build is a one time bonus that is not worth the limited choice. The same with the reduction in upkeep. The reduction is so low that a single income building would cover the cost better even if you cover a whole planet with farms. The increase in farm out put mean more population and quicker to max population. Which in turn translates to more base science, income and production.
The real issue here is not that we are being forced to now choose at these "specializations" but that the choices are not at all equal. We can take the good tech or either of the two rather poor ones. That does not lead to any form of strategy or planning. We reach the point of having a choice and we make sure not to pick the crap techs. Every single game. No strategy. No choice. No added fun.
All we get in a "shortened" tech tree with no real thought put into it by Stardock. There needed to be a complete re-balance of the choices to make this a actual choice. So either this change is needed for the campaign we have yet to see or to address some form of complaint the tech tree was too "long". if it is the second then there are far more useless techs they would dump and keep the other options. Sadly it feels like they have gotten to the point where they are rushing to meet their launch date and making changes without thinking them through.
So then they just have to re-balance the choices. Maybe something like +1 Food, +1 Level to Farms (+0.5 Food per Farm), or +10% Food
The time frame you just gave is not a significant difference in two and half months. Matter of fact the longest estimate of time mentioned in years is.29 years or 1500 turns. were going from I think 2241 to 2270 for the longest estimated game in this thread. So lets say 2241-2250 is early game. 2251-2261 is midgame, and 2262+ is late game. The reason for dating is pointing out that this is not a huge time frame were talking about.
In a video game you don't get the wide range of things in real life, your example of a good laptop that costs more is the new tech you just got, the $100 computer is the older tech that has all of the "specializations." This is why I keep saying the "specializations" ARE NOT specializations, they ARE optimizations/efficiencies. Optimizations are the natural progression of technology. You entire third paragraph is exactly my point, what is treated as specializations for each and every portion of the tech tree should be in their own line in the tech tree that applies to all components, miniaturization, manufacturing efficiency(cheaper), component efficiency(better) rather than "specializations" for each and every part of the tech tr
ee.
Actually I get your point here is that specialization should be grouped by what kind of specie, or civilization you wan't. If this is what you are saying then yes this could be made better. lets not eliminate, but actually make these specializations. That doesn't fit the title. I would accept changing the direction of the post to this though.
Actually the point is valid. There needs to be a balancing act here. Sadly the only way to fix this is through trial, and error, multiplayer, posting, and patching. This is why I keep telling you guys to be more specific, so they can work on balancing this now. There probably needs to be a post for the specialization unbalanced points, so they can fix this; instead, of getting rid of this.
Another good point this is actually what it did in Dark Avatar. Hopefully the A.I. uses this tactic if you don't have factories. You forgot you need to add approval buildings to this.
Finally a valid point if we are going to be tech specialization then they need to be about equal. This can be done by having some strong, and weak points though. The hard part is that we need a A.I. that can handle tech specialization. This doesn't mean I flipped sides. That just means there needs to be a balance. Keep tech specialization.
Agree to that.
.
Firstly, I do like the concept that certain choices should be EXCLUSIONARY - picking one option should preclude you from *EVER* getting the others (whether via research or trading or bonus). It certainly makes the game more interesting, and more consequential.
That said, I agree with several of the points above, about many of the current "specializations" being either completely unbalanced between the choices, or for ones which one really shouldn't be an exclusive choice.
I would recommend the following change: Make TWO categories of "choice" techs: an Exclusive choice, and a Preference choice.
For the Exclusive choice, once you pick one, that's it. The others are permanently unobtainable. These choices should be carefully balanced, so that it really is a big bonus/pain to chose correctly. Of the current specialization techs, I'd make these Exclusive:
All the others should be a Preference choice, where all 3 options are available, but the 2nd choice is at DOUBLE the research cost of the first, and getting the 3rd option should be QUADRUPLE the cost of the 1st.
Other adjustments:
I'd also go on record as saying there should be a SHORT General Miniaturization branch in Engineering. I'd go with 3 techs, each at +10% capacity, one in each Age, rooted at the Orbital Specialization tech (i.e. having that as it's pre-req).
And, yeah, certain techs should be tied to Ideology steps, particularly the Invasion version. I'd go with a specific Ideology Step being required to unlock that tech. There should also be some consideration to making different subtrees in the Economics (Politics and Contracts) trees dependent on Ideology.
The Defensive Focus for invasion defenses should be a Preference (non-exclusive) choice, but it shouldn't confer immunity. I'd say something like 50% defensive bonus against that invasion form.
Edit: Oh, and the above used the Iridium Tech Tree for examples.
+1
Brilliant.
Kudos for a sane argument in the middle of a flame war.
Yep, very good, +1 from me too
Quoting Frogboy, reply 23Not happening. I am very very much against the idea of being able to pick all 3 specializations. They're supposed to be a CHOICE you're making at the exclusion of the others.
I love being able to only choose one specialization, precisely because it makes tech decisions that much more important and 4x games are about strategic decisions. I was really glad to see that Stardock did this.
That said, if extreme worlds are part of this (I don't know; some of us have to wait until weekends to play games), they should not be. It's the only part of the tech tree where players should be able to research all planet types. After all, isn't that the point of terraforming.
Quoting torklan, reply 61The problem is as I pointed out in another post there really is not an even choice for these specializations. The three choices we are presented with for each of these techs are in no way equal. So for a human player we will most likely all ways pick the best option every time.
Here's where I disagree: weapons, defense, and hull techs. Do you want longer range missiles, or smaller missiles so you can fit more but they'll be less accurate, or cheaper missiles so you can build ships faster than the other guy? Same for defenses and hulls. This mirrors real life. Do you want technologically superior capabilities or do you believe that quantity has a quality all its own? This becomes even more important for those who play multiplayer. You can even mix choices as you move up the tech tree to adapt to changing conditions in the game, such as longer range when researching Stinger missiles but smaller mass when researching Harpoons.
Granted, Stardock having just made the decision to limit specializations, some balancing is required, but I like it.
Bear in mind, you CAN trade other races for the tech too.
You can, if they choose a different one and you can trade with them at point. The game was shaping up well but just before release the devs have decided to add a bunch of arbitrary restrictions on game play.
I'm not happy about it but I was hoping that Stardock would keep a play how you like to play attitude rather than force players to mod the game to achieve that goal. When does the mod tool come out because I am really not thrilled with the prospect of modding every single tree in the xml files.
Oh, the nerd rage is strong in this post. OHZ MY GODS WHY CAN"T I HAVE ALL ZEE TECHS!!! I am actually enjoying this idea because it makes me make more difficult decisions based on each game. To each his own, but some of the comments on here are freaking hilarious.
I like the new tech tree. One has to specialize on certain issues more and improve one's tactics. If was too easy anyway to get all these cheap bonuses of "all three specializations". And where is the specialization if you don't have to?
Yes the nerd rage is strong because paying $50 for a game and having to mod it extensively to make it enjoyable was exactly what I wanted.
I'm advocating for making specializations actually special or an option to turn off collapsing specializations. Tech trading got an option to turn it off, why are non-special specializations so different that they must be part of the base game?
I think the game is way better with the new specialization system! It makes the techs more interesting and gives you some actual choices.
The real issues is of each specialization tech we are presented with two rather poor choices and one that actually is a real game changing bonus. So our choices are pick the one that helps us win or choice the ones that put us at a disadvantage over the other players.
Stardock did not do a rebalance before making this change in how we play the game. I do not remember this change being discussed on the forum or in the change notes before this last opt-in update.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
