Tech Tree Discussion

What do you mean? None had an OR they all had ANDs.

Earth Oven:
</Flavors>
<AndPreReqs>
<PrereqTech>TECH_COOKED_FOOD</PrereqTech>
<PrereqTech>TECH_DRYING</PrereqTech>
<PrereqTech>TECH_THE_FIRE</PrereqTech>
</AndPreReqs>

Stuff like this.
 
I'm still not sure where the complaints about too much gold are. I save up 30,000 but when I went to upgrade my watchmen to guards it completely disappeared and only 2/3rds of them were upgraded. I'm not going to have the cash to upgrade my swordsman, axeman or archers.
 
Basically, I want to make a focused argument to improve the way we approach the tech-tree and game play of C2C.

C2C (and Civ) is All About exploring history.

Why should a technology be fixed in a single position in the C2C Tech-Tree?
I thought that I would revisit the hype cycle of technology with the point of suggesting how we could improve both the approximate progression and significance of pursuing technologies, as well as anticipating why we should place them in their position.
as the mod team is thinking of updating certain technologies.

vzxlIJQ.gif

Gartner's 2012 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2124315

cg7E1eJ.gif


In creating a deeper techtree for C2C (as time and development progresses), I would argue that there are different trigger points and trends for the significance and discovery of technologies and that certain ones are more influential in the progress of human history than others.
Changing one simple thing can completely alter the course of history.

zT5rCy1.jpg

http://www.datavis.ca/gallery/timelines.php
dvc1JbS.jpg

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/13/timelines.php
Different Civilizations have different timelines and progressions into eras.

BILcpTy.jpg

And different technologies follow degrees of discovery, awareness, and significance as well as trends.

For instance - Robotics and Mechanical Automata were developed much earlier than historically imagined.
http://www.historyofinformation.com/index.php?category=Robotics+/+Automata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaton
http://www.mechanical-toys.com/History page.htm

tfHbiBE.jpg

From Water Clocks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_clock
to
E4KGPcJ.png

Ancient Steam Engines
http://a2reskilling.com/2013/02/02/ancient-and-modern-steam-power/
http://history.stackexchange.com/qu...velop-steam-engines-prior-to-the-17th-century
to
QHvGxlU.jpg

Ancient Computers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
yes it existed, and could have triggered much more.

to the Steampunk Era triggering possibilities like the Difference Engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
"Charles Babbage, FRS (26 December 1791 &#8211; 18 October 1871) was an English mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer. Considered a "father of the computer", Babbage is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer that eventually led to more complex designs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Difference_Engine

"The entire conceit of the book, and steampunk in general (usually) is that, in the history posited by the book, some technological change happened far in advance of when it really happened. In The Difference Engine the difference is that Babbage perfected his mechanical "difference engine", which brought about a mechanized computer revolution a hundred years or so before the electronic one that really happened. The entire book is set in the period of that mechanical computer revolution (late 1800s if I recall correctly), so, in short, yes, the anachronisms are intentional. In fact, it seems to me that the zepplins are more advanced than they actually were at the time, probably due to computer-aided design and engineering."

History could have turned out very differently. Sometimes breakthroughs happen, sometimes a civilization makes a leap ahead, instead of a step. And can't that be fun?

http://io9.com/5554053/five-ancient-technologies-that-were-ahead-of-their-times
http://jalopnik.com/5888188/the-greeks-had-the-technology-to-build-a-car-in-60-ad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism

So far C2C is an exploration of the most plausible and historically significant technologies that we have evidence of.

Certainly developing the future (and the prehistoric) eras further will require speculation and exploration of the trends, patterns, and possibilities of the technologies that we are not yet sure of.

The game of Civilization itself is characterized as an exploration of history,

So please bear with me and let me revisit several things:

1. Civilization (series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(series)
Spoiler :

'Civilization is a series of turn-based strategy, 4X video games..'

'All titles in the series share similar gameplay, centered around building a civilization on a macro-scale from prehistory up to the near future. Each turn allows the player to move his or her units on the map, build or improve new cities and units, and initiate negotiations with the computer-controlled players. In between turns, computer players can do the same. The player will also choose technologies to research. These reflect the cultural, intellectual, and technical sophistication of the civilization, and usually allow the player to build new units or to improve their cities with new structures. In most games in the series, one may win by military conquest, achieving a certain level of culture, building an interstellar space ship, or achieving the highest score, among other means.'

'... centered around building a civilization on a macro-scale from prehistory up to the near future..'
'The player will also choose technologies to research' ... 'and usually allow the player to build new units or to improve their cities with new structures.'

2. 4X games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X
'4X games are a genre of strategy video game in which players control an empire and "explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate"

'4X games are noted for their deep, complex gameplay. Emphasis is placed upon economic and technological development, as well as a range of non-military routes to supremacy. Games can take a long time to complete since the amount of micromanagement needed to sustain an empire scales as the empire grows. 4X games are sometimes criticized for becoming tedious for these reasons, and several games have attempted to address these concerns by limiting micromanagement with varying degrees of success.'

Spoiler :

Complexity

4X games are known for their complex gameplay and strategic depth.[30] Gameplay usually takes priority over polished graphics.[19][31] Whereas other strategy games focus on combat, 4X games also offer more detailed control over diplomacy, economics, and research;[1][8] creating opportunities for diverse strategies.[32] This also challenges the player to manage several strategies simultaneously, and plan for long-term objectives.[33]

To experience a detailed model of a large empire, 4X games are designed with a complex set of game rules.[12] For example, the player's productivity may be limited by pollution.[34][35] Players may need to balance a budget, such as managing debt,[36] or paying down maintenance costs.[37] 4X games often model political challenges such as civil disorder,[25][34] or a senate that can oust the player's political party or force them to make peace.[34][38]
FreeCol is typical of 4X games where there is a separate interface for managing each settlement.

Such complexity requires players to manage a larger amount of information than other strategy games.[39] Game designers often organize empire management into different interface screens and modes,[8] such as a separate screen for diplomacy,[40] managing individual settlements, and managing battle tactics.[26][27] Sometimes systems are intricate enough to resemble a minigame.[33][41] This is in contrast to most real-time strategy games. Dune II, which arguably established the conventions for the real-time strategy genre, was fundamentally designed to be a "flat interface", with no additional screens.[21]
Absorbing gameplay

Since 4X games involve managing a large, detailed empire, game sessions usually last longer than other strategy games.[8] Game sessions may require several hours of play-time, which can be particularly problematic for multiplayer matches.[42] For example, a small-scale game in Sins of a Solar Empire can last for over 12 hours.[12] However, fans of the genre sometimes expect and embrace these long game sessions.[43] Turn-based 4X games typically divide these sessions into hundreds of turns of gameplay.[33][44]

Because of repetitive actions and long-playing times, 4X games have been criticized for excessive micromanagement. In early stages of a game this is usually not a problem, but later in a game directing an empire's numerous settlements can demand several minutes to play a single turn. This increases playing-times, which are a particular burden in multiplayer games.[42] 4X games began to offer AI governors that automate the micromanagement of a colony's build orders, but players criticized these governors for making bad decisions. In response, developers have tried other approaches to reduce micromanagement,[45] and some approaches have been more well received than others. Commentators generally agree that Galactic Civilizations succeeds, which GamingNexus.com attributes to the game's use of programmable governors.[46] Sins of a Solar Empire was designed to reduce the incentives for micromanagement,[47] and reviewers found that the game's interface made empire management more elegant.[39][48] On the other hand, Master of Orion III reduced micromanagement by limiting complete player control over their empire.

(I would argue that Civ 5, (and SimCity 5) constrained and simplified it too much). Exploring and directing the realistic detail of that living world as much and as fun as possible is what make the Civ game series so revolutionary. It's a dynamic sandbox of interactivity.

3. Rise of Mankind - Zappara - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=243168
This mod is my attempt to enhance Civilization 4 to a whole new level.

Ever since Civilization 1 I've liked this series a lot but during Civ 3 I found mods Double Your Pleasure and bit later Rise and Rule which made the game be so much more fun than before that when finally Civ 4 was released, I felt slightly disappointed as it didn't offer as much as did DYP or RAR. Civ 4 had some great new elements like religion and civic system (like in Alpha Centauri) but I wanted more techs, more units, more complexicity so I began working on my own mod. I started by going through most of the popular mods and check what's been done already and then by using those mods loosely as my guide, I created this mod.
Ever wonder why ROM was so popular?

4. AND - A New Dawn - Afforess - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=344525

45°38'N-13°47'E;8693676 said:
Civilization 4; Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn picks up where the Rise of Mankind mod left off. It is a realistic mod, simulating the rise of civilizations from the immemorial times, past the current era, and far into the future.
The Trademark Feature of Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn is that you choose the new features. Every single addition is completely customizable, and can be enabled or disabled, to suit the user. You could choose to only take the speed optimizations and AI enhancements and leave all the new content. Or decide to use all the new content. Or anywhere in-between.

Amongst the new Features are:
Advanced and Realistic Diplomacy.
Spoiler :
Players can once again trade contact with other civilizations, establish embassies, trade for rights of passage, and sell their excess workers and military units. The AI will initiate it's own trades, and often attempt to instigate or calm wars, using all of it's means at it's disposal. Expect to have to manage diplomacy much more to gain a foothold in the world. Fail to understand the AI's demands and expect to have to face "aggressive negotiations." Realistic Diplomacy offers more forgiving AI, but harder to please AI. Over time, the AI will begin to forgive and forget past diplomatic events, good or bad. While this means your nuclear holocausts won't devastate diplomacy for all time, it also means simple gifts of technology will not keep others placated for long. Only a true kinship among nations will truly stand the test of time.

Multiple Production and Research!
Spoiler :
Players will be able to, if they have excess resources, produce or research multiple buildings, units or technologies each turn. Expand your research and production capabilities to new heights! Your Capital city will never again waste turns constructing one missile each turn, now it could churn out five, ten, or hundreds, all depending on your production capabilities.

Larger Cities!
Spoiler :
Cities, as they expand in culture, do not stagnate after reaching their second size! They can grow again, after reaching an "Influential" level of culture, allowing them to work an incredible 37 tiles and produce more than ever before. While this seems extravagant, healthiness and happiness will become a real problem as your city expands; plaguing you like never before. Fail to counter this, and expect to suffer.

Peaks, Mountains, and Climbing, oh my!
Spoiler :
Mountain tiles now produce production, can have resources on them, and present unique benefits to your civilizations. Learn to climb them first, and your civilization will have a distinct military advantage and commercial advantage. Give your Generals the ability to cross them early, before anyone else, and the battlefield is yours to command. Build cities on Mountains, and unlock rare and specialized buildings that can only be built on peaks. Neglect them, and the AI will use them to crush your armies, cities, and civilization.

Fixed Cultural Borders.
Spoiler :

A New Game Option for players when they customize a map is Fixed Cultural Borders. Under certain civics, a player's borders become "Fixed" and are no longer affected by other nation's culture. When a player has fixed borders, they can claim territory outside of their borders. If the territory is unowned, they gain it next turn; if the territory is owned by another player, they must be at war to claim it. This grants players a unique way of expanding their borders, their conquest or exploration. In addition to this, Forts will also give off a small amount of culture. This allows players to use forts to claim future cities sites early. The AI has been fully taught this feature; expect to see them use it against you!

Ruthless AI: Ruthless AI is a step above Aggressive AI. The AI have no restrictions on how often they can trade with each other. Ruthless AI removes the Psuedo-Emotion Firaxis gave leaders, enabling them to become much sneaker and vicious. The AI will never warn you of an impending attack by poor diplomatic gestures, and will attack the best target, regardless of the relationship. Ruthless AI does NOT give the AI any handicaps, it merely makes them more human and less forgiving.

More Content!
Spoiler :

New technologies for various sciences and historical aspects of humanity have been added. No longer can you neglect the entertainment of your cities, or ignore your economy. Civic choices will drastically affect military output, and a failure to prioritize your production will lead to your downfall. Ignore the Weather, and expect to be defeated by those who can predict, and ultimately, control it! Learn to terraform land to your will! Build sea tunnels underneath continents to span vast oceans and connect far flung cities. But be wary, the AI will too!

Speed Optimizations!

As a modder, I've read and been told countless times that "kitchen-sink" or "total conversion" mods are bad (or not as fun of a) mod. Other times, I've seen slogans such as "Content for Content's Sake" slandered, or made out to be a poor practice. I can't emphasize how wrong this kind of thinking is. "Kitchen-Sink" mods are often on the cutting edge of modding, innovating, creating new, creative, and original content. They are the best kind of mod. Sure, we could always try to deviate as little as possible from the original game. We could settle for only a few new technologies, units and buildings. We could be like everyone else. We could, but that would ultimately only hurt the player. Nobody ever comes up with creative and cutting edge ideas by thinking inside the box. It's only when you've discarded the standard rules of Civilization that you suddenly wonder... "What If?"

and why was AND so popular as well?

5. C2C - Caveman2Cosmos - Strategy Only, Hydromancerx, Dancing Hoskuld, Koshling, AI-Andy and much more
'One Mod to Rule them All.'
C2C was built off of AND and spun off by the modders when Afforess decided to complete AND and focus his vision.
It's main philosophy was to include 'More' of what makes Civ great, and to take it to an even greater level of improvement by including mods cut out of AND!
Spoiler :

By expanding into the Prehistoric and Galactic Eras and creating Multi-Maps and including the Final Frontier+ mod it will truly take it to the Next Next level sometime this year.
With alternative timelines, reworked AI, Georealism, Living world elements, expanded history and gameplay, Completely new major features, ideas from other strategy and 4x games, Community involvement, newly involved mod luminaries, inclusion of great mods and explored mod ideas, and the creation of limitless new ones, as well as focus to improve the existing ones, Caveman2Cosmos, with bi-monthly expansions, is posed to explode past the vision of what Civ 6 could be and beyond!

C2C is simply the free exploration of the limits of what the Civilization game could become, a complete exploration of the possibilities of history, gameplay, a living world history simulation, and to the possibilities beyond!

The reason I went over these things is to explore the reasons for C2C, and expanding the tech-tree. I wanted to touch on them because the complete exploration of existing, plausible, remixed, and possible history is what C2C can become if we expand our thinking, conversation, experimentation, and willingness to consider what else we can collectively do.

I think C2C is about exploring what we know about history, in a fun simulation of history, and deviating beyond that to explore what is possible, and what-if different things happened.
I think the tech-tree should be as historically plausible as possible, but as free to explore as can be implemented (in degrees that make sense).

So I propose 2 things:
1. We actually look up(google, stumbleupon, phyorg.com, scidaily.com, etc.) the recent timing and significance of events based on recent science and speculative positioning using multiple sources, and ongoing arguments(open community discussion on improving these things.) And we need to keep an easy to navigate ongoing editable list and outline (of those things) for ongoing development (as it comes) AND Discussion(if you force me I'll have to make one).
I am frustrated on making good suggestions, based on article evidence, that get overlooked, forgotten, or ignored. This is a solution to prevent that.
We need better editable and searchable lists and organization/ coordination of plans.

So here are a few examples of notable techs that could be in C2C:

Homeric Epics Were Written in 762 BCE, Give or Take, New Study Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130227183320.htm
I think this is a good example of a worthy point, (maybe it isn't ready for fitting into the timeline, but it is probably worth noting for the future(past) revisit and potential ongoing conversation).

If I make a post, unless someone comments on it, or immediately implemented, it becomes lost in the thread.

Here are a few more worthy examples:
Japan extracts 'fire ice' gas from seabed
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-japan-ice-gas-seabed.html
Probably worthy of a technology at some point, good for the transhuman era, and true today, but would it be discussed or remembered?

and for my coup-de-grace of just currently linked articles that could be useful for C2C, that I've found, (just this week!)
A Dangerous Fixation
Synthetic nitrogen was born 100 years ago; it&#8217;s why half of us are alive.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...dern_agriculture_needs_to_use_fertilizer.html
'It was an impressive technical feat that helped earn Bosch the Nobel Prize in 1931. His fellow chemist Fritz Haber had pioneered and patented the process for &#8220;fixing&#8221; inert nitrogen (the gas that makes up 78 percent of the atmosphere) into a usable, reactive form. Bosch figured out how to do it economically and on a large scale.'
Stuff we have overlooked the significance of.

My point is that we are overlooking some technologies, stories, evidence, that are relatively easy to find, and search for (using google) and other easily accessible tools, and that with other easy to access ind and group collaborative tools, you can easily play around with their positioning and open up greater discussion on how to improve them, as people think of them.

You could plop any idea, down on a flexible timeline in outline form, and then fit in ideas, and make adjustments as people follow their train of thought. You could have color coordinated tags with proposed vs existing positioning, and compare timelines easily from other video games, images of proposed timelines from google images, and sources from science, the future, and science fiction, and other speculative and evidential sources.

for instance, we really need a collaborative working outline document for speculative ideas as well as existing content, like
Workflowy
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...that_changed_the_way_i_organize_my_life_.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CSmbnaPZVHE
https://workflowy.com/
This would be perfect for timelines, and collections of nested info for the team, and any part of suggested development.
(I have at least 3 other equally powerful collaborative tools to consider, that would solve this problem with C2C:)
&#8216;Subtask&#8217; combines Mind Mapping with Task Management and Cloud-Based Team Collaboration
http://www.freewaregenius.com/subta...anagement-and-cloud-based-team-collaboration/
Collaborate in real time and track projects, with KanBanFlow
http://www.freewaregenius.com/collaborate-in-real-time-and-track-projects-with-kanbanflow/

We are limited by what we openly encourage as ongoing discussions as a community, as well as what we can organize /visualize as a team; individually, collaboratively, and collectively.
'You can't hit a target you don't aim for', or define and discuss well enough to be able to find more simple solution. The progress of C2C is as limited as much by what the community can simply discuss and imagine/visualize, as well as what the individuals of the modteam choose to focus on.
You don't know what problems you can simply solve until you lay them out (visually) for others to think on (out loud). Complexity can be simplified through organization.

2. Simply making certain eras and technologies, selectively playable out of the normal fixed timeline. Or why can't we work towards being able to play certain technologies being discovered early (or out of time?).

Who is to really say when we should have developed fire, gunpowder, machinery, computers, lasers, space travel, space /sea colonization , or sci-fi/ future possibilities with greatly differering potential development dates: Strong AI could have been discovered/figured out in the 1980's, tomorrow, or 200 years in the future, interstellar space travel may be discovered tomorrow (see all the recent news) while the Apollo Program (interplantary space travel development) was left stagnant for 45 years, and who knows if time travel is possible, or when it could be developed.
Ex Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. (I've argued that we explore this many times)
I would like to know what people think about the idea. Being able to develop one of these technologies 100 years early would simply be a world of fun, and it helps to open up the more fun possibilities of the future, like playing an alternate earth where world war II was fought with lasers, or we develop near future (or far) Robot Warfare.

The possibilities of remixing technology and history just a little are endless. And it shouldn't be too hard to start discussion on how to create of out of place technologies and eras.
Why can't we consider creating alternate eras and deep gameplay out of more dynamic tech-tree variations. If we could just research a single technology way early, or have a dynamic dark/golden age move a civ more than 1 step forward(or backward) then we really open up C2C to a lot of potential alternate history scenarios, and potentially dynamic themed based eras that can be triggered at any time. With a tweak, C2C gameplay could leap forward.

Note:
I understand that it takes a lot of discussion, time, and individual choice to rework these eras, timelines, and technologies, and that it an act of will, and serious effort to focus collectively and individually on them. I just hope to inspire, and open up a lot more ongoing discussion on what we can do to improve them, outside of the immediate field of view, for the purpose of exploring the vast potential of exploring history, outside of direct development. For the sake of moving development eventually forward, and simplifying/organizing our collective pursuit of exploring it.

History just isn't Just a linear progression of possibilities.
Trends, patterns, setbacks, breakthroughs, starts and stops, revisits, and complete jumps forward make C2C history a much more interesting(and dynamically challenging) potential place to visit.

kd3DqhP.png

http://hyperstudio.mit.edu/blog/vis...f-and-incomplete-teleological-history-part-2/
Spoiler :

'Minard was a French civil engineer, known today almost entirely for his Carte figurative des pertes successives en hommes de l&#8217;Armée Française dans la campagne de Russie 1812-1813 (1869). Perhaps the first flow map ever produced, this elegant yet simple graphic visualizes human movement across time and space, correlating the number of troops and their location to temperature, represented by the line at the bottom of the chart.'

'It&#8217;s perhaps not surprising that today thinkers like Edward Tufte, who describes the Carte as perhaps &#8220;the best statistical graphic ever drawn&#8221; (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 40), are returning to Minard for inspiration. Much like the information visualizations now being developed for multimodal, multimedia digital environments, Minard&#8217;s Carte uses space to map multiple variables, thereby transforming the two-dimensional axis of Priestley&#8217;s charts into a gestalt field whose meaning emerges through a network of relationships rather than one-to-one correspondences. In an essay that echoes the motives and concerns of most digital humanists today'


It's not just the path, but controlling the direction.
It is also about how far you are allowed to explore.

So maybe we should focus on the significance on how specific events and technologies can alter the course of history and make for more interesting gameplay and possibilities.
It is in controlling that direction, of a complete personalized civilization, and it's believable details, in a living, breathing world of realistic possibilities, that makes a game fun (and epic).
The final point being can we start discussing how to do this today?

So to Summarize:
Technology Development is more than a linear progression
There are a lot of easy to find sources about possible technologies more easily,
That we could document and discussed in greater detail, as people think of things,
in ongoing discussions involving the greater community,
while development could be planned out in a smoother and more organized fashion as people wished, so that problems are solved over time, as well as when people decide to collaborate.
and it would be fun to explore those technologies in a less directly linear order.
Since the point of expanding and improving upon Civ is not just to have a fixed set of gameplay, but to explore the possibilities of playing history.
and that is what has led us all here and beyond.
so why not discuss and explore the limits of what we can do?

That is why all this relevant wandering conversation gets to a worthwhile point, discussion of key pivotal and significant technologies and trends, (which can spawn entire eras), can easily alter the direction of history and C2C gameplay, without, severely involved development. so why not having an ongoing discussion of that with the community?
The focus on making key technologies more dynamic, the open exploration of that discussion, and the collaborative organization of those ideas, can radically expand the possibilities of C2C gameplay.
This is how and why C2C can be greater than Civ IV, ROM, AND, and itself so far, it can expand into the universe, and the possibilities of history, not just what we see before us.
 
I am frustrated on making good suggestions, based on article evidence, that get overlooked, forgotten, or ignored.

I know many things get buried but not all get forgotten. Each modder has their favorite stuff to work on and that has been more or less how things have progressed. Unlike Zappra or Afforess which were mostly limited to what they could put together (which is insane to think they did most if it themselves) we have many working together make something bigger than we could make individually. And although some members have left us others have joined as well.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. Every contributor to the mod not matter if it has just been an idea or suggestion has made it what it is today and will be in the future. Rather than trying to herd us like a sheepdog or posting explosions of information in bites that are just too huge to swallow at once why don't you start that YouTube Vlog we talked about in January? Get the fan base motivated about the mod and what's in it. Discuss all these things you have been ranting about for months. I mean you are the one in charge of word and promoting our mod.

We have our motivation, now you just need to get others that have never heard of C2C to get excited about it too.
 
Thanks Hydro,
We only have so much time to focus on things, right now.
I've made some more attentive promotional efforts lately, and I see some noticable blips in traffic here as a result.
I will organize myself professionally, instead of randomly wandering around a sleep-deprived train of thought at a distance.
I simply underestimate the severity of my sleep apnea caused delirium, and tend to deeply and unconsciously wander around and seek unnecessary feedback as a result.
It is a lesson of making my words (and efforts) count..more.

If I'm so passionate about C2C; I just need to step up and do my part, not just talk about it.
That vlog would definitely help C2C, and I'm currently working up to that angle with my friend, as he would multiply my video efforts by a size-able amount.
It would be nice to have some of the contributors make some bite-sized feature highlights of C2C, with supporting gameplay video as well. (Works strongly for League of Legends I see)
(snag-it has a 30-day free trial and appears to be the most popular screen capture video software)
http://www.techsmith.com/download/snagit/default.asp)
and it's not hard to find a webcam, or other free software to do a decent job.
(I think there are some decent desktop, skype, and teamviewer capture solutions as well.)

My most productive focus is on organized promotion, not verbose ranting, though a little passionate discussion can't be a bad thing, around enough productive progress.
You have to show, as you go.

That Gource video that Sargon created will make a great supporting graphic, if the resolution can be improved.
Would be interesting to show tracked forum content from here if possible, as well. Please keep me apprised of any relevant content you all find.
With enough I'll have an excellent promotional video for C2C. Maybe if we can generate some more in-house commentary, and screen-captured content; I'll have enough to work with.

To make a specific and relevant point to cap this:
Some encouragement from everyone is greatly appreciated,
Challenge, Mastery, and Making a Notable Contribution are primary motivators of inspiring everyone, including myself and you guys, to greater action.
This is the key to all of our continued involvement, and progression, including motivating and finding new players and contributors to C2C.
This is why we have the quality but not the quantity of contribution. C2C is not lacking in the quality department.
This point could be useful in game design philosophy for C2C as well -
People continue to play what they are motivated to want to: Adaptable, Deep, and Responsive Challenge, Developing Significant Progress towards Eventual Mastery, and Being Empowered to making a Notable Contribution. Not to forget Transcendent Purpose. This will produce exciting and improving momentum. This is the power of engagement.
Most everything else is just spinning the wheel, do too much of that and they/we get bored and slack off.
(This moderately quick video illustrates why taking that time is important to all of us. Check out from 8:40 especially)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Back to the Tech-Tree topic, I'll just make some concretely brief but developed C2C tech suggestions here, as they come, if they are significantly notable (and On topic).
And I'll invest my time where I'm sure it would count the most. Just keep me pointed in the right direction.

Thanks for the quick observation and support.
 
All I can say, RF, is you'd get a lot more response if you tried to make one point at a time. I know I can post overly long posts but usually when I do its in an effort to work out a major detail or give an official introduction to a project design. But I can only maintain focus through about 1/4 of some of the posts you make (like the one 3 posts before this one). Unable to make it through what you have to say, I usually don't know what to give feedback on exactly.
 
Thanks gentlemen. I will try to keep it brief.

Start a blog (see the AXXXE blog for example) for really meaty stuff would be my recommendation, and reference the blog from here rather than posting essay-length stuff directly here.
 
@rightfuture

You should talk to Quill18, Gnarlo, 12padams, tegual and/or MahDryBread. All of them have done some sort of Let's Play C2C video. Perhaps you can send them questions about their experience playing the game and thus have an interview. Or even better chatting with them live. They should not have problems giving you some sort of audio response since all are very nice people and do gaming videos regularly.
 
OK, I have tried many ways of making a dead end tech not appear in the tech tree if its module is not in the game. The only way that works is if you put the tech definition in the module. There is actually another ay but it is worse as the tech definition is then in two places, the main tech tree where the x,y coordinates are set to negative so it does not appear and in the module where it just contains the real x,y coordinates. The reason we have them all in the one file is to make it easier for the modders but then we loose the ability to have optional mods based on optional techs.
 
OK, I have tried many ways of making a dead end tech not appear in the tech tree if its module is not in the game. The only way that works is if you put the tech definition in the module. There is actually another ay but it is worse as the tech definition is then in two places, the main tech tree where the x,y coordinates are set to negative so it does not appear and in the module where it just contains the real x,y coordinates. The reason we have them all in the one file is to make it easier for the modders but then we loose the ability to have optional mods based on optional techs.

This reminds me though... I'd like to ask AIAndy to see if there's a better way to setup a conditional appearance in the game for all gameobjects, including techs. Thus, by game option, modder option, player option, or even other effects, (not sure what limits we could have there) we could make certain game objects, like those mentioned techs dependent.

I know we have some solutions for this on most game objects, but so far my experience in seeing what he's capable of suggests that he'd have the ability to create a far more powerful and appropriate method for this.
 
This reminds me though... I'd like to ask AIAndy to see if there's a better way to setup a conditional appearance in the game for all gameobjects, including techs. Thus, by game option, modder option, player option, or even other effects, (not sure what limits we could have there) we could make certain game objects, like those mentioned techs dependent.

I know we have some solutions for this on most game objects, but so far my experience in seeing what he's capable of suggests that he'd have the ability to create a far more powerful and appropriate method for this.
The problem is the way that the code iterates over info classes. It expects that there are info classes with indices from 0 to number - 1 for each info type. At the same time that index is used as ID to reference the specific info classes.
So that has to remain fitting which means that either every such iteration loop has to know that some infos are to be ignored (that is what the current specific solutions for some info types do) or every reference ID has to be remapped. That kind of code exists for the game objects (in the savegame code) but not for the info classes.

So any general solution would need to change a LOT of code. Not feasible imo. Better stay with the workarounds that exist for some classes.
Well, of course we could add the information if something should be active or not to all but most infos would simply ignore it until more specific measures are used.
 
OK, makes sense. I had a thought though... in some ways we actually have this now don't we? By using Option Edits we can replace with pretty much a moot blank entry, can't we? So for example, if DH wants to work with a Game Option (or set of Game Options) that turns on or off the Alternative Timelines, and wishes the dead-end techs that are a part of those options to be fully dependent on those options, he could make the core be basically a blank tech entry, and create a replacement that fills it out (including its place on the tech tree) when the option(s) are on.

This could work couldn't it?
 
OK, makes sense. I had a thought though... in some ways we actually have this now don't we? By using Option Edits we can replace with pretty much a moot blank entry, can't we? So for example, if DH wants to work with a Game Option (or set of Game Options) that turns on or off the Alternative Timelines, and wishes the dead-end techs that are a part of those options to be fully dependent on those options, he could make the core be basically a blank tech entry, and create a replacement that fills it out (including its place on the tech tree) when the option(s) are on.

This could work couldn't it?
For many info classes there is no such thing as a blank entry.
 
Unfortunately by the time you get to the Game Options it has already loaded the information. That is why we use the Modular Loading Control (or MLF) system to turn modules on or off.
 
Unfortunately by the time you get to the Game Options it has already loaded the information. That is why we use the Modular Loading Control (or MLF) system to turn modules on or off.

What we could (and probably should) make a program that one can run that lists the MLF options heirarchally and gives simple checkbox options to turn them on or off. Warnings could be over folders that are more necessary than others.
 
What we could (and probably should) make a program that one can run that lists the MLF options heirarchally and gives simple checkbox options to turn them on or off. Warnings could be over folders that are more necessary than others.

There is one, somewhere in the RoM forum or subforums iirc. We just need to tell it which you can't turn off eg the Hydro modules can't be turned off.
 
Back
Top Bottom