Key to Success = Avoid Bad Technologies

I've played this game a lot, but only now did this just occur to me. In retrospect, it's very obvious and I'm surprised I didn't realise it earlier. What I'm getting at is probably a bit more complex than what the thread title brings to mind, so let me elaborate on it a bit.

Technology costs increase incrementally for every technology you've discovered. I don't know the exact value of the increase, but it is significant. If you start a game and research Social Psych, Biogenetics and Secrets of the Brain, then your research cost for Centauri Ecology will be much higher than if you had just gone for it first.

This is very significant, and probably often overlooked. It means that getting any superfluous technologies, even for free (through unity pods, for instance), can significantly slow down your acquiring of useful technologies. Therefore, the best strategy is to completely avoid technologies that you do not need. It's not enough to simply ignore them, you have to go out of your way to avoid acquiring them. Otherwise they can hinder your progress.

Most of the early to mid game technologies I have pegged as useful are the ones that lift resource caps and the ones that come with technology or economy modifiers. Those technologies, and their prerequisites, are the most important ones for developing in the early game. Therefore, when I play I beeline for those, while ignoring clutter like Secrets of the Human Brain (which, despite the free technology that comes with it, will slow down your technology progression more than speed it up). This strategy has done me well, as I now no longer find myself getting stuck in stagnant periods, where my tech growth has lagged behind my production capacity.

I thought I'd share this revelation, because I have no doubt that there are lots of players who're ignorantly crippling themselves by trading for all of the techs the AI will give them, cashing every alien artifact they come across, and rushing to Secrets of the Brain. Those deliterious acts shall hinder you no longer, now that you know this strategy of tech avoidance I have taught you. Use it well, Padawans.

Usually I play with blind research on, which makes it impossible to avoid Progenitor psych and other less-desirable techs. Without blind research I usually go for formers -> crawlers -> gene splicing, eco engineering and environmental economics.

Blind research expands the influence of luck. Since you are given to crawler spam, which is micro management intensive, and therefore not the sort of thing a casual player would be doing, I can tell that you play a more competitive style. So, why would you play with blind research on, why would you introduce a random factor into something you're at least mildly competitive about.

Because directed research is also a little micromanage intensive and the initial learning curve is higher?

My observations of single player forum threads:

1. Beginners use the Blind Research because they're not sure of what they're doing.
2. Intermediates use Directed Research for crawlers etc.
3. Advanced players use Blind Research for the challenge.
4. Experts play Darsan's Scenarios!

Don't know of a technology that is bad. It all depends on your faction and agenda. What has been discussed in depth is the value of certain Secret Projects.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I'm pretty sure I saw the formula for the % increase per Tech. I think it was in Vel.'s guide. I'll do a search & get back.

Edit2: Also, if you have +4 Economy, this has a great impact on your technology goals.

Edit3: (I'm going for the Guiness Record for edits) Lastly, There are techs that are useless to you, you may be able to trade them or use them diplomatically.

Droom said:

My observations of single player forum threads:

1. Beginners use the Blind Research because they're not sure of what they're doing.
2. Intermediates use Directed Research for crawlers etc.
3. Advanced players use Blind Research for the challenge.
4. Experts play Darsan's Scenarios!

Click to expand...

The supposed challenge of blind research is that it limits the player's ability to strategically navigate the tech tree, putting him close to parity with the AI, which essentially researches blind as a matter of course. There is no challenge to beating the AI, however. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge can do it on any difficulty level, with blind research on or off. So the added challenge is rendered moot.

What blind research does do is introduce an additional element of chance, which is inimical to competition. A player who is competing against himself -- such as by determining the highest score he can achieve -- is only confounding his efforts by turning blind research on. The game becomes less about the strategy he employs and more about random elements; for the order he researches technology is very important and, now, largely randomised.

The notion that blind research increases one's challenge is just worthless. Perhaps people think it does, and perhaps that's why people turn it on, but no sort of logic supports that idea. It's arbitrary.

Don't know of a technology that is bad. It all depends on your faction and agenda. What has been discussed in depth is the value of certain Secret Projects.

Click to expand...

Bad is a subjective quality and that is why I used it.

Edit3: (I'm going for the Guiness Record for edits) Lastly, There are techs that are useless to you, you may be able to trade them or use them diplomatically.

Click to expand...

While I don't consider myself the authority on this game, I have to say that in my experience this is just completely untrue. The A.I. never researches any important technology before me, and as far as diplomacy is concerned they are like psychotic wolves, or something. They become quite disagreeable once my faction outstrips theirs's to a certain extent; universal war at that point is unavoidable. So technology cannot be traded for significant material benefit, nor can it be used to placate the unwashed mass of faction leaders. It is just useless to bargain with.

This feels like a troll:

The supposed challenge of blind research is that it limits the player's ability to strategically navigate the tech tree, putting him close to parity with the AI, which essentially researches blind as a matter of course.

...Maybe a smilie when you say that?...

I feel like a troll huh.

Well the replies I'm getting feel like they're being composed by some script. They just have nothing to do with anything.

@attackfighter,

I agree with your basic point to avoid researching or trading for techs that are off your beeline. My usual builder beeline is formers, crawlers, and resource restriction lifting (as was noted upthread). However, the mechanics of tech availability sometimes force you into researching less-desired choices. If so, I will actually head up the SotHB line. Not with the idea of obtaining a free tech (I'm usually too late for that), but because it's on the path to Bioengineering and clean reactors. In fact, I prefer to get BioEng before EnvEcon so I can build a huge force of clean formers and clean garrison units.

In MP I can see this has at least some merit, but.. which techs do you actively try ad avoid? All techs either are useful or lead to useful techs. Even the basically useless on its own Progen Psych is vital for the PEG project, which is a huge deal.

I will admit there are some techs on the SMAX tree that are not exciting. While they are prereqs for other things, they just do not "give" you anything cool.

Yes, Prog Psych is definitely one of them. The aquafarms are ony good if you are aquatic.

I personally think Optical Computers is far more "filler" than Prog Psych. Optical Computers literally gives you nothing.

attackfighter said:

The supposed challenge of blind research is that it limits the player's ability to strategically navigate the tech tree, putting him close to parity with the AI, which essentially researches blind as a matter of course. There is no challenge to beating the AI, however. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge can do it on any difficulty level, with blind research on or off. So the added challenge is rendered moot.

What blind research does do is introduce an additional element of chance, which is inimical to competition. A player who is competing against himself -- such as by determining the highest score he can achieve -- is only confounding his efforts by turning blind research on. The game becomes less about the strategy he employs and more about random elements; for the order he researches technology is very important and, now, largely randomised.

The notion that blind research increases one's challenge is just worthless. Perhaps people think it does, and perhaps that's why people turn it on, but no sort of logic supports that idea. It's arbitrary.

Click to expand...

I think everyone have their own logic. For me, I like blind research because as in real life, I can't simply beeline thing, I just improving my lab output and wait for it. There are still strategic planning. For me, simply beeline it kills the fun for me. For that point, I am willing to "uselessly and pointlessly crippled" myself.

Ordinarily I exert so much effort to control key projects that the blind research thing only adds a slight possibility of losing one and otherwise does not seriously affect my basic strategy in any way. Because if I am not able to buy, research, probe steal or coerce the techs I need I am losing badly by my standards.

Well, i prefer blind research, and it does not have as much randomness to it

On turn 1 ALWAYS go for explore, it invariably gives you formers 100%

After that,it gets a little tricky but thats the fun.I usually go discover:50% for rec tanks

Then conquer all the way to police state. lack of command center might be a problem
(also note that police state is the absolute last C2 you will discover, nonlinear math,high energy chem, both get priority ALWAYS)

After that i'm not sure what to do. I guess i would go explore to fossil fuels, then conquer for air power.