Design: Tech tree

[Killertomato]

I hope that you don't mind me taking the liberty of starting this thread BTAxis.  :wink:

Excerpt from my other post:

a) Upgrades for sensors, weaponry, armor plating(later shields), propulsion for interceptors.
b) Upgrades for base radar, weaponry, shields to avoid base invasion. If successfully repelled -> crashed ufo mission.
Better base radar should enable to discover stealthed ufos sent to establish bases or such, and enlarge radar radius (these radiuses should definitely be displayed on the world map, btw.).
Later radars could be good enough to detect established alien bases.

[BTAxis]

Heh. It's not like I'm in CHARGE of anything.

I think, however, that a tech tree cannot be designed before we have a fixed list of equipment, aliens, UFO types, facility types, craft, and a general storyline. You're kind of stating the obvious. Once we know WHAT to research, we can start putting it in a tree structure (any ides on how to represent this, by the way? A text file is going to be awkward, but we need something cross-platform).

[Hoehrer]

What about using the openoffice (or a similar open office suite) graphical application for designing the tech tree? (you can do flowcharts etc... easily with that kind of app.)

if i find some time (probably monday or tuesday) i'll put the existing techtree in a nice form to show how it would look.

Werner

[Killertomato]

I think, however, that a tech tree cannot be designed before we have a fixed list of equipment, ...

That's why I posted this list of research item. To pool what should be in this list.

You're kind of stating the obvious.

Well, if it's taht obvious - all the better.
I just tried to make sure that these things are not overlooked...

[Hoehrer]

Ok, i've oplaoded and openoffice drawing of the techtree. It mostly consists of the stuff that is already in the game and some minor additions.

http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.cgi/ufoai/ufoai/trunk/src/docs/techtree.odg?view=log

Mind you that displaying e.g the alien-autopsies here is not a good idea, because they are basically reverse-researched....
e.g to be able to research the antigrav technology you need to research the hovernet(-corpse) first. To get plasma weapons you need to get a thing based on it first, research the plasma techology and then you can research the weapons/items based on it.

Werner

[Hoehrer]

Technology descriptions for public comment

MOVED TO SVN.
See trunk/src/docs/

Werner

[overridetzx]

The wikipedia ion thruster article mentions that C60 would create more efficient drives. As C60 is linked to nanotechnology in many ways, perhaps we could offer a refined class of the Phoenix UGV called the Phoenix Nano UGV that offered greater range per turn because of the more efficient use of fuel over the course of the whole mission. And it would have the Phoenix UGV and Nanotech as its two research prerequisites.

[Hoehrer]

The wikipedia ion thruster article mentions that C60 would create more efficient drives. As C60 is linked to nanotechnology in many ways, perhaps we could offer a refined class of the Phoenix UGV called the Phoenix Nano UGV that offered greater range per turn because of the more efficient use of fuel over the course of the whole mission. And it would have the Phoenix UGV and Nanotech as its two research prerequisites.

Hmm, nice catch, haven't seen that C60 was mentioned there
But i think we should not create a duplicate of something just for the sake of being 'more efficient'.
Since better armor (Advanced Armor Fabrics=AAF) also depends on the nano-technology (using fullerenes similar to C60 for more robust and lightweight armor platings) i think doing a combined 'upgrade' is the better way. Something like:

Apocalypse UGV

Using nanotechnology <nano-already indirectly over AAF required> to not only increase fuel effectiveness (i.e using C60 and similar fullerenes as fuel for the ion drive), but also to improve the armor plating <AAF> our scientists have made the design of the Phoenic UGV even better.
Now equipped with dual plasmaguns <plasma-already provided by phoenix> its destructive power is a perfect support for our soldiers against the strongest enemies. No wonder out troops are referring to it as 'Apocalypse' already ... the name stuck and became the official one.

But that may not be a good idea at all ... we'll see how it turns out. We could even replace the phoenix-design with this one completly, so you do not get an uber-UGV like the Phoenix too early in the game (of course this also depends on research-time)


Werner

[BTAxis]

I agree that having a stronger version of the same thing isn't much fun. Can we get away from the UGV term, by the way? Acronyms in games are always icky. It gets overdone all too easily. Take one look at Derek Smart's worthless Battlecruiser games and you'll see what I mean. I think just calling them "tanks" would be better, if less technically correct.

[Hoehrer]

I agree that having a stronger version of the same thing isn't much fun. Can we get away from the UGV term, by the way? Acronyms in games are always icky. It gets overdone all too easily. Take one look at Derek Smart's worthless Battlecruiser games and you'll see what I mean. I think just calling them "tanks" would be better, if less technically correct.

Um, i only use acronyms if they do already exist and have a defined meaning like LASER, UGV, MTHEL (where MTHEL is used only once int he LASER description, and the others have the full names described) .. they all have a real-life origin (see the links) and are commonly used by persons referring to the technologies they describe. As long as we do not use every possible acronym and even create new ones that do not exist already i see no problem there.. To make this clear: I don't really care if we use other/simpler terms, but as you say, it's less correct

Werner

PS: And for that matter.. that's what the ufopedia is for ... explaining what the hell things are and do

[BTAxis]

It's not about them being defined. It's about gameplay. That's why I pointed to Battlecruiser - the IFF and CSP and FTL and PDD and whatnot are just too annoying. They're all in the manual, but you can't keep track of them all the same. The point is that I don't want to spam the player with technical explanations and terminology - in short, an interesting lie is better than a dull truth. By the same token, don't copy too much from wikipedia into the UFOpaedia - it's a good explanation of things, but it's not a fun read.

Laser is kind of an exception; it's used as a word, not an acronym. Some acronyms are like that (AWACS, NASA, Modem, etc).

[Hoehrer]

It's not about them being defined. It's about gameplay. That's why I pointed to Battlecruiser - the IFF and CSP and FTL and PDD and whatnot are just too annoying. They're all in the manual, but you can't keep track of them all the same.

But where do they come from.
If these are technical terms (and not siome acronyms invented by the designers) i can identify at least two of them from memory because they are _very_ common like IFF (identification friend foe) and FTL (faster than light travel) which we btw already use in the techtree and storyline  somewhere

The point is that I don't want to spam the player with technical explanations and terminology - in short, an interesting lie is better than a dull truth.

Gimme a good term for the weapon platforms and we'll stick to them. If possible not 'tank', that's even more irritating than an acronym if you ask me.

We could even leave the second term out and just call them "Triax" and "Phoenix" ... even shorter and players will have no problems memorizing/identifying them.

By the same token, don't copy too much from wikipedia into the UFOpaedia - it's a good explanation of things, but it's not a fun read.

I took exactly two sentences (that were heaviely modified by me to make them more player-friendly) from wikipedia [1]. The rest of the links i just provided as reference for others. No word copied for these, everything new.

Laser is kind of an exception; it's used as a word, not an acronym. Some acronyms are like that (AWACS, NASA, Modem, etc).

No, the are no exception, the are still used as acronyms, but since they are more popular and most people do not _know_ the real meaning of the words and that they are acronyms. But that's just a matter of definition

Werner

[1] I'm just required by the wikipedia license to put a reference there if i use modified text from them.

[BTAxis]

But where do they come from.
If these are technical terms (and not siome acronyms invented by the designers) i can identify at least two of them from memory because they are _very_ common like IFF (identification friend foe) and FTL (faster than light travel) which we btw already use in the techtree and storyline  somewhere

That's true, and I think we should get rid of that, too. I'm not saying looking into technology is a waste of time. On the contrary. It's a good thing if you know what you're talking about. But you need to dumb it down, turn it into something cool and sci-fi-ey. Just look at Star Trek. Part of why it's so popular is because of it's technobabble. It doesn't matter if it's incomplete, backwards or just completely made up. As long as it uses some cool advanced-sounding words (not too many!) and people end in a conclusion everyone understands ("So in short, we can blow them to bits"), it's all good.

Gimme a good term for the weapon platforms and we'll stick to them. If possible not 'tank', that's even more irritating than an acronym if you ask me.

We could even leave the second term out and just call them "Triax" and "Phoenix" ... even shorter and players will have no problems memorizing/identifying them.

Yeah. That sounds good.

No, the are no exception, the are still used as acronyms, but since they are more popular and most people do not _know_ the real meaning of the words and that they are acronyms. But that's just a matter of definition

Well, I disagree, especially in the case of LASER (though my other examples may not have been the best in this discussion). When the evil overlord says "fire the laser cannon", he does not mean "fire the light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation cannon". He means fire this big ass scary weapon with a cool name we have, who cares how it works.

[overridetzx]

I agree that just saying Triax, Phoenix, etc is easier. And probably just filing them under "Weapons Platforms" (a bit abstract) or possibly even "Micro Tanks" (a variation on a well known theme) may be easier to understand.

Some acronyms are no problem if they're already popular e.g. Laser and Nasa (side note - odd English rules dictate that you do say "the Laser" but you don't say "the Nasa"  :roll: I haven't a clue who decides these things! )

I reckon some technobabble is fine and draws people in, and I can't see any harm in doing a bit of background research so that on the surface at least it all seems to fit together nicely and allows for logical progression. For example, you'd probably want to convey in the UFOpedia some vague sense of how one class of technology makes more powerful weapons than the prevous one, so that players buy into that as an idea of how to progress through research or acquisition of more advanced tech. Equally, too much and you'll put all but the most ardent technobabble fans right off, because players' heads will explode with acronyms and minutae. Star Trek is fun, but please, PLEASE don't explain all the different starships to me - I'll just fall asleep

[BTAxis]

Some acronyms are no problem if they're already popular e.g. Laser and Nasa (side note - odd English rules dictate that you do say "the Laser" but you don't say "the Nasa"  :roll: I haven't a clue who decides these things! )

It sort-of makes sense when you consider that "laser" not only serves as an acronym, but also as a noun. The meaning of the noun is "a device that emits a laser beam". Similarly, NASA is not only an acronym but also a company name. The reason why that happened (IMO) is that you can pronounce NASA easily, unlike, say, CIA.