Feedback very much appreciated, Josh. As long as you're aware of these notions, I'm happy.

On the plus side, at least you're not trying to build a multiplayer game that hopes to satisfy these interests (and others) in one game simultaneously.

JoshParnell wrote:'[A]pplied technology' can be thought of as the leaves of a research tree, and 'theoretical' technologies are the internal nodes (because they lead to other technologies). Internal nodes yield other technologies, while leaf nodes yield blueprints!
...
So now you don't actually have to choose whether to design or research, you just choose which tech you want to research, with the understanding that only some fields are capable of yielding blueprints.
...
Practical people will want to drill down quickly to applied tech and just keep grinding out blueprints with it, while explorative people will want to pump the theoretical fields to try to find new areas of the tech tree. Some of the tech tree will be hand-specified, but some will be procedural, so there'll always be more room to explore.
...
As for mixing technologies, it's perfectly natural under this scheme: if you've selected multiple nodes for research, there's a chance that you'll uncover a new technology which is the combination of the active ones. If that technology happens to be an applied tech, then you'll be able to get a blueprint out of it!

This blended model is very close to one that can satisfy multiple interests and just be flat-out fun to play with. Very nice design work!

An interesting aspect of this is that it sounds like it's not entirely random, but not entirely predictable, either. If I'm reading it correctly, players would be able to choose "input" areas of research, so that any new theoretical fields and new applied techs (and blueprints) produced would be related in some way to the inputs. But there's still some randomness in the results -- you may know the approximate kind of thing that will be generated, but you never know if you're going to get something OK, or something awfully good, or something just awful. (Bell curve?)

Presumably once you have a blueprint, you can use that to produce perfect copies of the applied tech. That supports the economic game of dominating commercial fields with large quantities of desirable products.

It also suggests the possibility of player specialization as either a kind of R & D center, or a production powerhouse (in addition to the other ways of playing LT). Who wins: a modest-sized fleet with high-tech equipment? Or a large fleet well-equipped with average gear?

Which brings me back to civilizations. If a "civilization" is treated as an AI with large-scale interests, then one with more interest in discovery might produce that first kind of high-tech fleet, while a civ that's more interested in security-through-accumulating-things might tend to build ships with only average tech but lots of them. So this becomes a kind of stand-in for "technology level" -- civs with more interest in discovery than production would tend to have explored more of the theoretical branches of their local version of the tech tree.

I could definitely get behind that as a system design for Limit Theory, if in fact that's the latest idea.

JoshParnell wrote:My take on it is that the "achiever" will either limit his resource allocation to research, or will strictly use research to improve existing technology.
...
The exploratory type, on the other hand, I imagine will have a strong foothold on research and will enjoy the varied and surprising results that come from mixing unusual inspirational sources, or engaging in research from first principles - with no inspiration at all.

My guess is that the achiever does both because research to get better stuff (and win!) can be progressing while you are out grabbing more tech.

In lieu of having an actual original thought, I decided to resurrect one of my first "theorycrafting" posts on this forum.

The latter bit about research styles is interesting, but what I'd like to get a new read on is what people think about civilizations in Limit Theory having different levels of technology.

The original piece suggested that large factions could have a specific "tech level" designation. As Cornflakes pointed out, though, that's a bit game-y -- with multiple kinds of technologies, a faction's tech level would actually be more shades of gray.

Even so, it might be possible to write an algorithm that could scan through all the practical and/or research techs available to a faction and generate from them a single overall assessment of that faction's technological progress.

Is that a thing anyone besides me would find interesting?

What about mechanical gameplay effects? What should it mean for a faction with a high tech level to meet one at a relatively much lower level? Is power everything? Or should there be some rules about how high-tech factions can interact with lower-tech factions? (Not necessarily a "Prime Directive," but in that area.)

Should there be planets with "colonies" that have not yet achieved spaceflight? How should starfaring factions (or individual explorers) interact with such cultures?

Overall, based on all the features that Josh has described since 2013 when I originally introduced these questions, do (generated) tech levels and gameplay activities that are based on differences between tech levels look more useful/fun/possible? Or less?

for pre-spaceflight civilisations we could use an arbitary point syst based on the technologies you've outlined in your OP.

Like fission reactors are worth 10 points, fusion reactors 20, streets are worth 15 or whatnot

And the "techlevel" is defined by the sum of all technology "points".



On a related topic:

For now theres no "fundamental research" in lt and its not planned to be introduced.

But i had an idea how to introduce "fundamentally new" technology.

Everyone has some "theorethical" knowledge on all the possible techs, but theres no equipment that would be feasible/useful to build.

And on top of that knowledge they can perform blueprint/object based research, creating usable variations of that technology.

So for example:
Jumpgate technology is known from the beginning.

But nobody can build an actually useful gate, because one that could transport a single fighter a very short distance would be like a small moon.

Technology marches on, research gets done
Jumpgates get to an usable state, comparable in size/capability to freelancer.
effective enough to be used on a regular basis, but too big for building jumpships.

Next stage: big dedicated jumpships

Next stage: common, independent, universal jump capable capitals

Common medium sized jumpships

Etc.


So you can have "progress" with "new" technologies, without the conceptual headaches of fundamental research.

but then we are back at the power escalation thingy which could break the game :/

on the plus side is that this could be used for universes/civilisations having different technological capacities.

Like in one playthrough one could play in an universe that has a relatively short ptregenerated history, not even jumpgates are available.

Or another universe where capital ship jumpdrives are the big thing

Or another where fighters jump around at will.

A whole bandwith of universes without having to change anything in the game.


To come back on the original topic:
The technology level of a starfaring civilisation could be determined by assigning "checkpoints" on the different technologies, which behave like i outlined above, and get point counts which you can compare for a "technology level".

Just an idea

Flatfingers wrote:1) What I'd like to get a new read on is what people think about civilizations in Limit Theory having different levels of technology.

The original piece suggested that large factions could have a specific "tech level" designation. As Cornflakes pointed out, though, that's a bit game-y -- with multiple kinds of technologies, a faction's tech level would actually be more shades of gray.

Even so, it might be possible to write an algorithm that could scan through all the practical and/or research techs available to a faction and generate from them a single overall assessment of that faction's technological progress.

2) Is that a thing anyone besides me would find interesting?

3) What about mechanical gameplay effects? What should it mean for a faction with a high tech level to meet one at a relatively much lower level? Is power everything? Or should there be some rules about how high-tech factions can interact with lower-tech factions? (Not necessarily a "Prime Directive," but in that area.)

4) Should there be planets with "colonies" that have not yet achieved spaceflight? How should star-faring factions (or individual explorers) interact with such cultures?

5) Overall, based on all the features that Josh has described since 2013 when I originally introduced these questions, do (generated) tech levels and gameplay activities that are based on differences between tech levels look more useful/fun/possible? Or less?

1) I'm fine with different civilizations in LT having different levels of tech. It may get ugly if one nation is several hundred years more advanced than another, but it is survival of the fittest when it is all said and done.

2) I would be fine with a tech level designation as long as it is always reduced down to the lowest common denominator. In other words if all known systems are somewhere between level 20 and 40 after universe generation then the tech level should really be 0 to 20 because everyone has advanced past a certain minimum value.

3) Power isn't everything, the Death Star was destroyed by a single well placed shot, In Independence Day the computer that shielded the alien vessels was taken out by a computer virus, in War of the Worlds the aliens were defeated by a biological agent. Advanced cultures may have weaknesses because they don't account for a particular variable.

4) If a colony has not achieved space flight then the colony may be easy to influence and control. Perhaps these colonies can be convinced to align themselves with the first external culture to achieve space flight and generate more wealth for their people.

5) Until I see more information and interaction of different factions at different tech levels I'm not going to be able to say that these differences between tech levels look useful or not.

BFett wrote: 3) Power isn't everything, the Death Star was destroyed by a single well placed shot, In Independence Day the computer that shielded the alien vessels was taken out by a computer virus, in War of the Worlds the aliens were defeated by a biological agent. Advanced cultures may have weaknesses because they don't account for a particular variable.

And none of your examples make even sense in their own universe.

A human written computer virus infecting alien military computer tech just so?

They arent doing that with human tech whichs functioning they understand, its even less likely with alien tech they have no idea of how its working and which is human computer tech a thousand years ahead.

Give an hacker from the eighties a modern computer to hack and he will be completely lost, now do that times thousand and the logic upon which the code is built on is literally conpletely alien.

Its not impossible, but far removed from the time you have available when kilometre sized parasite ships are nuking you to hell.


War of the worlds also completely relies on suspension of disbelief.
I mean, we can do better today, a war force which travels interplanetary could very likely do much better.

The alien creeper plant getting infected is at least possible, but its very unlikely that our microorganisms could do anything with the alien biochemistry.
Same for the aliens themself.


From the death star power core, which has the output of a few smaller stars, even able to be damaged by a single warhead detonating somewhere in military hardened, likely quadruple redundant hardware spread over dozends of cubic kilometres i wont even start of.


Those things make nice narrative devices where the underdogs must win over the superior forces.

But in a game which has to be free of situational mcguffins like lt, those things make simply no sense

You are right, I was just trying to come up with some ideas that others have used. But like so many theories that Hollywood comes up with, the majority of them are simply false.

I don't even think there was a time in recorded history where a less technologically advanced force beats a superior force. Superior tactics is one thing, superior technology is something else.

Best thing I can think of would be cloaking technology in Star Trek.

I think having different technology levels will help seed conflict in the universe. We had a pretty interesting debate regarding how factions interact and determine illegality of goods, and I think something like this would be complimentary to it as well.

BFett wrote:I don't even think there was a time in recorded history where a less technologically advanced force beats a superior force. Superior tactics is one thing, superior technology is something else.

Korea and Vietnam?
Superior technology does not guarantee victory.

Gazz wrote:

BFett wrote:I don't even think there was a time in recorded history where a less technologically advanced force beats a superior force. Superior tactics is one thing, superior technology is something else.

Korea and Vietnam?
Superior technology does not guarantee victory.

That is sort of true Gazz, except for one thing, they were not allowed to bring to bear the full force of that tech. If the generals had run things instead of the politicians, it may have been a bit different. Having the tech, but only using it in a limited way, sort of hamstrings the whole thing.

Poet1960 wrote:

Gazz wrote:

BFett wrote:I don't even think there was a time in recorded history where a less technologically advanced force beats a superior force. Superior tactics is one thing, superior technology is something else.

Korea and Vietnam?
Superior technology does not guarantee victory.

That is sort of true Gazz, except for one thing, they were not allowed to bring to bear the full force of that tech. If the generals had run things instead of the politicians, it may have been a bit different. Having the tech, but only using it in a limited way, sort of hamstrings the whole thing.

So I guess a better statement would be about politics instead of technology levels.

Poet1960 wrote:That is sort of true Gazz, except for one thing, they were not allowed to bring to bear the full force of that tech. If the generals had run things instead of the politicians, it may have been a bit different. Having the tech, but only using it in a limited way, sort of hamstrings the whole thing.

So what you're saying is that having the best technology is irrelevant. =P

Gazz wrote:So what you're saying is that having the best technology is irrelevant. =P

Not irrelevant - if your civilisation is run by the military, having the best technology makes you the winner.

But it's certainly politics first. Bloody politics.

Gazz wrote:

Poet1960 wrote:That is sort of true Gazz, except for one thing, they were not allowed to bring to bear the full force of that tech. If the generals had run things instead of the politicians, it may have been a bit different. Having the tech, but only using it in a limited way, sort of hamstrings the whole thing.

So what you're saying is that having the best technology is irrelevant. =P

LOL. No, I'm saying, there is a difference between having the tech, and actually using it.

EDIT:

DigitalDuck wrote:

Gazz wrote:So what you're saying is that having the best technology is irrelevant. =P

Not irrelevant - if your civilisation is run by the military, having the best technology makes you the winner.

But it's certainly politics first. Bloody politics.

Your civ doesn't HAVE to be run by the military to get the most out of tech. It's like this. Your politicians/the people decide to declare war. Once that happens, the military then uses it's full capability to prosecute the war to a winning conclusion without further interference from politicians within reason, excepting of course possible diplomatic solutions and such.