Shores of Hazeron - again! a free deep galactic MMO space game [Servers have been permanently shut - Games

Tech trees are a bad idea. You shouldn't get high tech and then never have to worry about it again; tech should be a constant process of accumulation and distribution of tech resources - spend more money and effort on research and you get more to use. Do you want two tech 5 ships or one tech 10 ships? We don't need a ladder to climb, we need industrial and scientific potential. The limiting factor on your tech level shouldn't be whether or not you have the tech yet, but how much you have to use. Black and white is fucking boring. Empires need to be shades of gray. Quantity vs Quality. Cost vs Performance. Cutting edge vs Reliability. Remember this is an open world MMO, not a 4x or RTS game. A tech tree is simply not applicable. If it is just a temporary divider between the noobs and the veterans it is a pointless delaying mechanism and wasted effort. A much better way to limit people to get that feeling of progression is through economic means; your first spacecraft were powered by rockets and fission generators because you couldn't possibly afford or manage to construct anything more elaborate. Plus we need to be encouraging ongoing trade and interaction.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42484601]Tech trees are a bad idea. You shouldn't get high tech and then never have to worry about it again; tech should be a constant process of accumulation and distribution of tech resources - spend more money and effort on research and you get more to use. Do you want two tech 5 ships or one tech 10 ships? We don't need a ladder to climb, we need industrial and scientific potential. The limiting factor on your tech level shouldn't be whether or not you have the tech yet, but how much you have to use. Black and white is fucking boring. Empires need to be shades of gray. Quantity vs Quality. Cost vs Performance. Cutting edge vs Reliability. Remember this is an open world MMO, not a 4x or RTS game. A tech tree is simply not applicable. If it is just a temporary divider between the noobs and the veterans it is a pointless delaying mechanism and wasted effort. A much better way to limit people to get that feeling of progression is through economic means; your first spacecraft were powered by rockets and fission generators because you couldn't possibly afford or manage to construct anything more elaborate. Plus we need to be encouraging ongoing trade and interaction.[/QUOTE] Well my thoughts were just that you would be able to still be powered by fission and rocket drives for your first ship. The way i was going is that the tech tree is just a more elaborate way to manage tech research from what you have now. Instead of just throwing money at a university until it shits out better tech, you can pick what type of tech it shits out. Obviously it will need some tweaking before it works like an improvement rather than an overhaul. Perhaps have it so that you have to research a certain amount of tech before being able to advance to the next tech level? It would encourage the trade aspect in that rather than just buying straight up "make building x level" disks, you can just buy disks for what you feel like you need right away, with the rest being able to be focused on. Another solution could be that each disk has only one use per building per day if the system switches to the tech tree mode. You will have to keep throwing money at universities to maintain your tech level, which could also encourage trade by lower tech empires having to buy tech constantly to maintain their tech until they can make it on their own. My point is that I didn't intend for you to think that uograding something on the tree means the whole empire has it.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42484601]Tech trees are a bad idea. You shouldn't get high tech and then never have to worry about it again; tech should be a constant process of accumulation and distribution of tech resources - spend more money and effort on research and you get more to use. Do you want two tech 5 ships or one tech 10 ships? We don't need a ladder to climb, we need industrial and scientific potential. The limiting factor on your tech level shouldn't be whether or not you have the tech yet, but how much you have to use. Black and white is fucking boring. Empires need to be shades of gray. Quantity vs Quality. Cost vs Performance. Cutting edge vs Reliability. Remember this is an open world MMO, not a 4x or RTS game. A tech tree is simply not applicable. If it is just a temporary divider between the noobs and the veterans it is a pointless delaying mechanism and wasted effort. A much better way to limit people to get that feeling of progression is through economic means; your first spacecraft were powered by rockets and fission generators because you couldn't possibly afford or manage to construct anything more elaborate. Plus we need to be encouraging ongoing trade and interaction.[/QUOTE] Stuff like this would work better if there was a better economy, but there isn't so I don't know how well it would work.

i disagree with hazeron not being a 4X style game, explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate describes it very well. and haxus [I][B]"eventually"[/B][/I] wants to make hazeron into a profitable game. unnecessary tedium and complexity go directly against what makes games fun and profitable. decay, temporary tech and things disappearing without good reason would not add anything meaningful to hazeron and only add frustration. eve online manages progression very well. your "tech level" is always safe unless you forget to update your clone(scrub) but nothing you own is sacred. maybe instead of tech being expendable, have it be tangible. maybe add a tech library to archive all your advancements, but it is vulnerable to attack and capture. shipborne tech archives could be captured as well. these would need to be limited availability items/places. maybe similar to how officers work such as 1 librarian per sector but for every one you own the requirement for the next would increase exponentially. 1st for your first home world but the second would require you to own 10 worlds, then 10 sectors and so on. coincidentally this would put a damper on undeclared empires as they could not own tech at all. and in a 4X style game, progression always needs to be vertical. time and effort should have great reward and advancements always need to put you ahead of your peers. id even venture to say TL improvements need to be 10% instead of 5%.

[QUOTE=Gnomical;42484781]Stuff like this would work better if there was a better economy, but there isn't so I don't know how well it would work.[/QUOTE] How do you implement trade in a game like Hazeron though? It's got nearly infinite resources and they're not that hard to gather.

I'd say Hazeron is a MMOFP4X.

[QUOTE=DVH;42485323]I'd say Hazeron is a MMOFP4X.[/QUOTE] The most importantly it is an MMO, not a 4X, therefore, tech trees simply don't work because Hazeron is not round based. If Hazeron universe reset every 6 months I'd say, sure, go for a tech tree; but since it isn't supposed to reset when everything is working fine, merely suggesting a tech tree is silly. [QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42485052]i disagree with hazeron not being a 4X style game, explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate describes it very well. and haxus [I][B]"eventually"[/B][/I] wants to make hazeron into a profitable game. unnecessary tedium and complexity go directly against what makes games fun and profitable. decay, temporary tech and things disappearing without good reason would not add anything meaningful to hazeron and only add frustration. eve online manages progression very well. your "tech level" is always safe unless you forget to update your clone(scrub) but nothing you own is sacred. maybe instead of tech being expendable, have it be tangible. maybe add a tech library to archive all your advancements, but it is vulnerable to attack and capture. shipborne tech archives could be captured as well. these would need to be limited availability items/places. maybe similar to how officers work such as 1 librarian per sector but for every one you own the requirement for the next would increase exponentially. 1st for your first home world but the second would require you to own 10 worlds, then 10 sectors and so on. coincidentally this would put a damper on undeclared empires as they could not own tech at all. and in a 4X style game, progression always needs to be vertical. time and effort should have great reward and advancements always need to put you ahead of your peers. id even venture to say TL improvements need to be 10% instead of 5%.[/QUOTE] It doesn't need to be tedious or complex, it just needs to be a soft limit instead of a hard limit. That is the key. Decay and removal of abandoned cities/ships is necessary to stop the game getting clogged up as it grinds on. That "tedium" is necessary. The current Hard limits don't work in Hazeron. The fact that empires are at difference stages of technology is not a good thing, because it means some people are simply uncompetitive, vulnerable, and they can't really interact meaningfully with major empires until they reach the top of the ladder. Another problem is that once a tech tree is complete it is no longer valid; basically you put development effort into a tech tree, make it difficult for new players and then make it irrelevant late game. That is a pointless system that benefits no body and simply breaks up and divides the game community for no good reason. You can't get ahead of anyone with a tech tree in hazeron. You are talking about this like it is a 4X that can be completed and restarted - hazeron is a constantly running universe and needs to be treated as such. You also talk about eve "tech level". Actual Tech levels (I/II/III) in eve are limited by manufacturing capability, as they should be in hazeron. What we need is a system where cities, research, missions and exploration generate units of data crystals, which can then be used to manufacture and maintain high tech ships and equipment. These ships and equipment should also be a lot more expensive to maintain so that using lower tech items is actually a consideration for your empire. You forget that in Hazeron tech considerations need to be for the duration of the game, not just the weeks after a reset. Eventually the plan is for the game to never reset, at which point a tech tree will be entirely useless and serve only to alienate people for years to come after the universe is life. A system where research crystals are used to manufacture and maintain high tech ships means that empires have a limit to how much high tech an empire can have. Additionally, having tech as a consumable resource also allows regular trade between empires. It needs to be a soft cap where virtually all empires can get a taste of high tech, but no empire can afford to use the highest tech as standard for their fleets. Do you understand what I'm saying? [QUOTE=Gnomical;42484781]Stuff like this would work better if there was a better economy, but there isn't so I don't know how well it would work.[/QUOTE] The economy needs to be improved anyway. Right now it is simply and flatly [I]broken[/I] and [I]non-functioning[/I] therefore it needs a revamp and will receive one at some point.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42485591]The most importantly it is an MMO, not a 4X, therefore, tech trees simply don't work because Hazeron is not round based. [/QUOTE] there are quite alot of 4X games out there that arent round/turn based. the X series is a good one. [QUOTE=SeamanStains;42485591]Decay and removal of abandoned cities/ships is necessary to stop the game getting clogged up as it grinds on. That "tedium" is necessary.[/QUOTE] no, it is not. you could just have cities go dormant and unload if left alone for long enough. ships could get drydocked until the emporer logs in and nothing has to be processed until something happens upon it. [QUOTE=SeamanStains;42485591]The current Hard limits don't work in Hazeron. The fact that empires are at difference stages of technology is not a good thing, because it means some people are simply uncompetitive, vulnerable, and they can't really interact meaningfully with major empires until they reach the top of the ladder. Another problem is that once a tech tree is complete it is no longer valid; basically you put development effort into a tech tree, make it difficult for new players and then make it irrelevant late game. That is a pointless system that benefits no body and simply breaks up and divides the game community for no good reason.[/QUOTE] everyone being the same and competitive would be just as bad for the game or worse. i do like your indefinite progression though, thats a great idea. it would force specialization in a tree by causing people to choose what to research. like eve, the first 4 levels are generally quick and have good returns per times spent, but level 5 takes a good while, still gives a boost but the time to reward isnt as good. [QUOTE=SeamanStains;42485591]You also talk about eve "tech level". Actual Tech levels (I/II/III) in eve are limited by manufacturing capability, as they should be in hazeron.[/QUOTE] i was more leaning towards skillpoints not manufacturing. [QUOTE=SeamanStains;42485591]What we need is a system where cities, missions and surveyed anomalies generated items such as data crystals, which can then be used to manufacture and maintain high tech ships and equipment. These ships and equipment should also be a lot more expensive to maintain so that using lower tech items is actually a consideration for your empire. You forget that in Hazeron tech considerations need to be for the duration of the game, not just the weeks after a reset. Eventually the plan is for the game to never reset, at which point a tech tree will be entirely useless and serve only to alienate people for years to come after the universe is life. A system where research crystals, tokens, disks or whatever commodity you want to call it is used to manufacture and maintain high tech items means that an empire has a limit to the tech they can have.[/QUOTE] research through effort is good but that research shouldn't have to be used to maintain your ships. you already know how to make them, they would you need to learn more to continue to?? [QUOTE=SeamanStains;42485591]The economy needs to be improved anyway. Right now it is simply and flatly [i]broken[/i] and [i]non-functioning[/i] therefore it needs a revamp and will receive one at some point.[/QUOTE] this is 100% correct.

[QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42485810]there are quite alot of 4X games out there that arent round/turn based. the X series is a good one.[/quote] I wasn't aware the X series had a tech tree. Pretty sure it doesn't. [QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42485810]no, it is not. you could just have cities go dormant and unload if left alone for long enough. ships could get drydocked until the emporer logs in and nothing has to be processed until something happens upon it.[/QUOTE] Cities going dormant and unloading if left alone? You mean how the game already works? The game is tedious right now but your identical method is not tedious? Ships need to magically teleported to dry dock to wait until the city decays? What? [QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42485810]everyone being the same and competitive would be just as bad for the game or worse. i do like your indefinite progression though, thats a great idea. it would force specialization in a tree by causing people to choose what to research. like eve, the first 4 levels are generally quick and have good returns per times spent, but level 5 takes a good while, still gives a boost but the time to reward isnt as good.[/QUOTE] Specialization would happen under a system without tech trees. If you insist that your ships must have the highest tech sensors possible, you'll divert your limited tech resources to that area preferentially. [QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42485810]i was more leaning towards skillpoints not manufacturing.[/QUOTE] "Skillpoints" are coming in the future. ;) [QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42485810]research through effort is good but that research shouldn't have to be used to maintain your ships. you already know how to make them, they would you need to learn more to continue to??[/QUOTE] Certainly money should have to be used, and high tech equipment should be more expensive to maintain. You might as well also throw tech crystals into that maintenance basket too so that they don't stockpile forever. Gameplay - the only valid reason. If you want a reason outside gameplay, call it the distribution of academic minds within your empire or culture. Unfortunately in Hazeron we can't simply add new weapons and equipment endlessly to represent your civilisations continuing journey into the mysteries of the universe.

[url]http://pastebin.com/s2hB8VEx[/url] fun times.

[QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42486227][url]http://pastebin.com/s2hB8VEx[/url] fun times.[/QUOTE] Geez, get a room you two.

erm, ok

Well the thing is you two, the tech tree system i proposed could work like in eve. If you rush through your tech tree to get to the biggest guns and fastest speeds, what are you going to do when you are being shot? Duct tape your pathetic armor back on? Tech trees allow you to specialize in certain areas, and the tech only gives you an edge, not a guaranteed victory. Tactics are an important thing. If you bumrush a massive supertech godship into a group of well-trained, wel specialized undermenscht ships, you will obviously die. Same thing as the case in eve, if you bumrush a bigass marauder loaded with officer grade modules but have no idea what you are doing, into a group of frigates with named modules but know their shit, you just gave them some delicious loot. Another thing staines, evrry game has progression, and without progression we would have no games. The way you seem to be putting it is that you want a wormy noob empire to be able to defeat something like syndicate on day 1 simply because syndicate cant have a standing navy of more than a few supergodtech ships? Those who have managed to progress to endgame tech should be rewarded with endgame tech, not be punished by a system that limits them to a few endgame ships. In eve, titans are supposed to be the hardest things to build ever, only a few will be built, and should only be used as a last resort in combat, or at least thats what CCP thought. Nowadays alliances are lousy with titans and capital ships, yet even though some alliances may have a superior number of titans, that doesn't mean that they win.

[QUOTE=Turkey Sandvich;42487420]Well the thing is you two, the tech tree system i proposed could work like in eve. If you rush through your tech tree to get to the biggest guns and fastest speeds, what are you going to do when you are being shot? Duct tape your pathetic armor back on? Tech trees allow you to specialize in certain areas, and the tech only gives you an edge, not a guaranteed victory. Tactics are an important thing. If you bumrush a massive supertech godship into a group of well-trained, wel specialized undermenscht ships, you will obviously die. Same thing as the case in eve, if you bumrush a bigass marauder loaded with officer grade modules but have no idea what you are doing, into a group of frigates with named modules but know their shit, you just gave them some delicious loot.[/QUOTE] Eve? If you mean skillpoints, hazeron is getting a separate character skillpoints later. It has nothing to do with tech. As for Tech tree and specialisation; How long? When do you complete it? When the tree is complete it is invalid; further more, every empire that hasn't completed the tree is invalid as an entity in the galaxy until it has completed it. All a tech tree does is needlessly separate the noobs from the veterans like oil and water for months. One of the last major battles we had was over 60 TL27 enemy ships vs 8 our of TL32 ships. We lost no ships to enemy fire, one significantly damaged. They lost virtually every ship over the course of two battles. Right now the tech disparity is too much. Unless you are tip-top high tech, you simply aren't a valid galactic entity as far as space battles go. [QUOTE=Turkey Sandvich;42487420]Another thing staines, evrry game has progression, and without progression we would have no games. The way you seem to be putting it is that you want a wormy noob empire to be able to defeat something like syndicate on day 1 simply because syndicate cant have a standing navy of more than a few supergodtech ships? Those who have managed to progress to endgame tech should be rewarded with endgame tech, not be punished by a system that limits them to a few endgame ships. In eve, titans are supposed to be the hardest things to build ever, only a few will be built, and should only be used as a last resort in combat, or at least thats what CCP thought. Nowadays alliances are lousy with titans and capital ships, yet even though some alliances may have a superior number of titans, that doesn't mean that they win.[/QUOTE] I want progression, yes, but it is very important that the progression is based on industry and economy rather than purely being time based. I want two empires of equal size and skill to be able to fight on an equal battlefield without one having the techtree/time progression advantage over the other. Most of all I want new empires to be competitive and I don't believe older empires should be rewarded purely for being older empires. I'm the founder of Syndicate, if you weren't aware, so believe me I'm saying this out of experience, knowledge and genuine belief that it will make the game better than it is. Progression based on industrial capability means that a new empire would be forced to build low tech, radioactive powered, rocket propelled tinfoil cans because they don't have the scientific, industrial or economic capacity to construct and buy anything more substantial yet, not because they haven't waited an arbitrary and artificial delaying mechanism. It also means that even minor empire can get a small taste of high tech ships mixed in with their standard, low tech ships rather than having to wait for months to suddenly convert their junk to the only valid spacefighting vehicles in the galaxy, TL32 warships. I can count with my fingers the number of empires in the galaxy that are actually worth counting as anything more than primitive savages. You can't interact with such primitives unless you elevate or enslave them.

[QUOTE=dracotonisamond;42486227][url]http://pastebin.com/s2hB8VEx[/url] fun times.[/QUOTE] I do these debates with strains all the time.

That makes no sense. So if two empires (with one lower tech than the other) you're saying it should be completely evenly matched? That seems rather dumb. That's like saying the US Military in World War I would have a shot at winning against the modern US Military. (It wouldn't. Period.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;42494266]That makes no sense. So if two empires (with one lower tech than the other) you're saying it should be completely evenly matched? That seems rather dumb. That's like saying the US Military in World War I would have a shot at winning against the modern US Military. (It wouldn't. Period.[/QUOTE] Size = Tech availability Two empires of the same size would be able to produce the same amount of tech. Say your empire has 10,000 tech crystals in order to build ships with. do you want a TL10 ship, two TL5 ships or ten TL1 ships. It's a choice. Smaller empires can still get high tech, just less of it. Larger empires can get more high tech, but still have to balance quality vs quantity. and real world examples of tech don't matter. this is a game, games are meant to be played. I realise, of course, the rift in tech that exists in real life, but being an iraqi during desert storm isn't fun when you want to win. Skill shouldn't be made irrelevant due to some pointless arbitrary advantage.

Myself and 2 others dropped 6 stations and sundived 10 ships in a single system without firing a shot, our ship was TL 18, everything in that system was TL26+ At the same time though I've taken 2 TL32 ships and hovered over the capital city of an uppity little empire who thought they were tough shit, and we turret'd them until they surrendered, got in an ark ship, and flew the other direction. Their ships didn't stand a single chance, they got pasted before their moorings even came off. TL gives a [I]statistical[/i] advantage, it doesn't always give a tactical or a strategic advantage.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42494356]Size = Tech availability Two empires of the same size would be able to produce the same amount of tech. Say your empire has 10,000 tech crystals in order to build ships with. do you want a TL10 ship, two TL5 ships or ten TL1 ships. It's a choice. Smaller empires can still get high tech, just less of it. Larger empires can get more high tech, but still have to balance quality vs quantity. and real world examples of tech don't matter. this is a game, games are meant to be played. I realise, of course, the rift in tech that exists in real life, but being an iraqi during desert storm isn't fun when you want to win. Skill shouldn't be made irrelevant due to some pointless arbitrary advantage.[/QUOTE] But in an MMO with progression, it should be. Look at WoW, it has progression, and it's one of the most successful mmo's in history. By your logic a level 1 player should be fairly matched against a level 80 player. The way you're saying this makes tech sound rather pointless.

[QUOTE=Usernameztaken;42495538]But in an MMO with progression, it should be. Look at WoW, it has progression, and it's one of the most successful mmo's in history. By your logic a level 1 player should be fairly matched against a level 80 player. The way you're saying this makes tech sound rather pointless.[/QUOTE] WoW, really? I'm done with this subject anyway. I don't believe most of you are qualified to comment yet and it is a waste of time. The cloest analogy is eve, and eve had to change the skill/trait system many times because it kept becoming unsuitable to the game. Further debate can be done by demonstration rather than discussion.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42495771]WoW, really? I'm done with this subject anyway. I don't believe most of you are qualified to comment yet and it is a waste of time. The cloest analogy is eve, and eve had to change the skill/trait system many times because it kept becoming unsuitable to the game. Further debate can be done by demonstration rather than discussion.[/QUOTE] except with eve, everyone is useful even if they are low sp. just like you want. i love this image [t]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3261/3085332145_2c63f5e08f_z.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42495771]WoW, really? I'm done with this subject anyway. I don't believe most of you are qualified to comment yet and it is a waste of time. The cloest analogy is eve, and eve had to change the skill/trait system many times because it kept becoming unsuitable to the game. Further debate can be done by demonstration rather than discussion.[/QUOTE] Poorly worded Staines. Personal perspective: Tech-tree already exists, it's just so obscure and poorly visualized to the player it seems like there is no tech-tree. Get rid of the cap on TLs, make them exponentially hard to research, and make qualities (Q) refinable, using polynomial growth rate amounts of time.

except they had to make big changes to the skill system at least 3 times to lower the gap between new players and old players because they were uncompetitive and had to wait for too long to really get into the action. If you are going to cite games as evidence you should cite stuff that supports your position.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42495771]WoW, really? I'm done with this subject anyway.[B] I don't believe most of you are qualified to comment yet and it is a waste of time.[/B] The cloest analogy is eve, and eve had to change the skill/trait system many times because it kept becoming unsuitable to the game. Further debate can be done by demonstration rather than discussion.[/QUOTE] Woman I've been here longer than you have by at least a year.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42497030]Woman I've been here longer than you have by at least a year.[/QUOTE] I'm one of the newer players in syndicate. i did say most though

Its still disrespectful as hell. and I still disagree with you.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42497055]Its still disrespectful as hell. and I still disagree with you.[/QUOTE] I owe no respect to people who haven't displayed that they are deserving of respect. What is your opinion on tech then?

You guys should settle it over a badass TL32 Warbarge 1vs1 fight. Tell us the time and place and I'll bring my popcorn. Shit's gonna be cash. [editline]13th October 2013[/editline] The winner atmo-dives into the nearest planet for that final "wow" moment. Just way for the spectators to go planetside and then crash on us.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;42506751]You guys should settle it over a badass TL32 Warbarge 1vs1 fight. Tell us the time and place and I'll bring my popcorn. Shit's gonna be cash. [editline]13th October 2013[/editline] The winner atmo-dives into the nearest planet for that final "wow" moment. Just way for the spectators to go planetside and then crash on us.[/QUOTE] Intergalactic Fight Club?

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42497119]I owe no respect to people who haven't displayed that they are deserving of respect.[/QUOTE] *Disagrees with this method of thinking*