Tech tree statistics and ingame tech tree.

[Sir Monster The Great]

Sure. I don't have that much attachment to them. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Aren't moral dualism and metaphysical dualism entirely unrelated though?

Not in the least. Yin-Yang applies to everything.

Pedia entry never should be reason to change name of tech.
Instead pedia entry should be changed.

Not sure - I think it might be on a case by case basis.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Good idea, especially that around 13% of techs were renamed.

@Sir Monster The Great can I revert your tech renames for now?

Will you be generating a google doc for us and sharing it here?

 

[raxo2222]

Sure. I don't have that much attachment to them. Thanks for the discussion.

Okay, I reverted your changes for now.

Will you be generating a google doc for us and sharing it here?

You have XML tech tree, so I can make new tab for renames here.

These need to be sorted by era though

 

[Thunderbrd]

You have XML tech tree, so I can make new tab for renames here.

These need to be sorted by era though

I had a google document from Kation that went over the changes... Which document are you referring to exactly? The tech sheet link in my sig line?

 

[raxo2222]

The tech sheet link in my sig line?

Yes, this one

I pasted sorted techs by era now.
Changes to hunting related tech names were already done by me earlier as you or someone suggested, so there was no need to include those.
Also there were some renames of renamed techs in fork.
I skipped those intermediary renames.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Yes, this one

I pasted sorted techs by era now.
Changes to hunting related tech names were already done by me earlier as you or someone suggested, so there was no need to include those.
Also there were some renames of renamed techs in fork.
I skipped those intermediary renames.

OK, cool... hopefully we can all post our takes on each in our own columns there and we can come to some consensus somehow. Pretty much just post what we want it to be on each I guess, for now.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I've now added all of my takes and am hoping we get a lot more than just mine and Monster's.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...yc2tnWfHO9r7MGb9qTxg/edit?pli=1#gid=793254223

 

[Blazenclaw]

It seems like it'd be worthwhile to come up with a short set of guidelines for tech names, rather than argue over all however-many-hundred individually? Granted there will be individual ones to be argued over regardless, but having a rubric will certainly help the overall picture if we're going over tech names anyway.

What got me started is me noticing Great Monster write in the doc "We already have many types of warfare in the tech tree (naval, siege, modern)". This seems like a useful way to organize sets of technologies, if we choose to codify it as such. Having a set for warfare, one for medicine, obviously the lifestyle ones, etc, could create a more unified theme throughout the tech tree. One one hand this is more of a gamification of the technologies in some sense, since the techs do represent distinct entities from each other, but it would nevertheless give a better sense of structure throughout the tree. The proposal for "Nocturnalism -> Ambush Tactics" for instance could fit into a hypothetical "X Tactics" set, etc. Obviously not all technologies would fit into a set, far from it, but it would provide for a good percentage of the techs to have fairly simple solutions for names, or at least narrow options down to those that fit in some set.

There is an argument to go entirely the opposite of that, and having as few generic 'X warfare' type technologies as possible, instead naming them by specifically what the discovery was to make each tech more unique. As it is right now, we have an odd mix of both, which is to my mind the worst of both worlds. I am slightly in favor of using the set method, but no strong feelings either way - so long as it is in fact one way or the other.

Other considerations; do we want to have the tech era as a prefix for many of the techs or not, ex: "Ballistics" vs "Ancient Ballistics". It seems redundant with the era name, and odd for some technologies to have the prefix and others not. "Ballistics" by itself does sound too modern, but fixing it by adding "Ancient" seems lazy; I'd argue for a guideline to state that techs to not have the era in the name (with the exception of the lifestyle techs, because they absolutely should stand out).

-----

So, maybe a guideline would look something like this (something something, you can help this list be expanding it):

1. Avoid having the name of the era in the technology title (excepting lifestyle technologies).
   • "Simple Machinery" > "Ancient Machinery"
2. Try for mirroring or matching of existing technologies where appropriate ('sets'), particularly if the unlocks follow a matching theme.
   • The presence of "Spear Fishing" implies "Line Fishing" and "Commercial Fishing", whereas "Spearfishing" stands more alone. Either have a set for fishing, or find more unique names for each
   • If "Equine Domestication" and "Equid Domestication" are similar enough, notice that "Camelid Domestication" mirrors better with "Equid Domestication", an argument in favor of Equid/Felid
3. More precise is better than less precise, so long as such precision does not imply implication of a set or mirrored technologies where none exist.
   • "Artillery" > "Breech-Loading Artillery", as we have no alternate artillery technologies to match the implication of breech-loading vs... what?
4. Avoid having techs whose names match that of the civics they unlock.
5. If in doubt, use noun for invention, gerund form for concept (?).
   • "Franchising" > "Franchises" (but this is not a hard rule; "Trade" vs "Trading")
   • Note: This rule in particular should be more clarified; I feel like there's a ton of back and forth between the different forms, but I'm at a loss for where to start
6. Avoid acronyms where possible; if the tech name would be too long without it, choose a different name.
   • "Wetware computers" > "DNA computing"
7. Avoid cultural-specific names or themes.
   • "Ancient Medicine" > "Hippocratic Medicine" (but see rule 1; a better name is still needed)

So, thoughts? What other guidelines could be added? How to best codify rule 5, since I know there's some way to describe it, but seems tough to nail down?

 

[Faustmouse]

Some of them are redundant (Mind Uploading and Whole Brain Emulation are synonyms)

Disagree here; at Whole Brain Emulation you managed to create a Simulation of a Brain inside a Computer. This for sure can also emulate a specifics persons brain. But Mind Uploading is actually transfering the Mind into a machine. If you only emulate a persons brain, it will behave like the person, but it will not acutally be the person.

 

[Sir Monster The Great]

The pedia entry says otherwise. It's taken from Wikipedias entry on mind uploading:

"Whole brain emulation (WBE), mind upload or brain upload (sometimes called "mind copying" or "mind transfer") is the hypothetical futuristic process of scanning the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") of a particular brain substrate and copying it to a computer. The computer could then run a simulation model of the brain's information processing, such that it would respond in essentially the same way as the original brain (i.e., indistinguishable from the brain for all relevant purposes) and experience having a conscious mind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

It's a synonym of Mind Uploading according to the source used in pedia entry. We need a new term (Cyberneruology, Cybernetic Neurology, Brain Synthesis, and/or Artificial Neurology are likely candidates).

 

[Thunderbrd]

I've been taking the tech to mean what Faustmouse stated. If it's meant to be one then it also does mean the other is possible as well though.

 

[Sir Monster The Great]

I think the pedia entries should at least be changed then as not to confuse the two techs. As of now, the pedia entry for both of them are pretty much the same.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think the pedia entries should at least be changed then as not to confuse the two techs. As of now, the pedia entry for both of them are pretty much the same.

So there are two techs for this then? (I'm only somewhat familiar and growing more familiar daily with the late game tech tree, at least with the techs I didn't make myself.) If one of them is for full absolute AI replication, then yes, it should be differentiated.

What would be wrong with making it simply Mind Uploading then? If that's what this tech is for, I'm good to call it as point blank what it is.

 

[Sir Monster The Great]

Mind Uploading and Whole Brain Emulation are two separate techs as of now. If we wanted to, we can simply merge the techs, if so they're similar to one another. If they're going to be sperate techs, should at least have different names and/or pedia entries

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well that's interesting. Something I had somewhat overlooked up to now.

As for the original Whole Brain Emulation concept of an absolute AI replica of a functioning human brain in full - not a copy but one that fully operates in the same manner - all functioning has been achieved... can you point to another tech that states that this has been achieved?

It strikes me that Mind Uploading should probably require Whole Brain Emulation but I can see how if you don't have it yet certain things could be simply saved or put aside until that's available.

 

[Sir Monster The Great]

The closest tech I could think of is either Sytnihc Sentience in Nanotech, which is about creating Artificial consciousness, not physical brain matter. I still would like to call Whole Brain Emulation Artificial Neurology or Cyberneurology if we want to be a sperate tech like you imply.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The closest tech I could think of is either Sytnihc Sentience in Nanotech, which is about creating Artificial consciousness, not physical brain matter. I still would like to call Whole Brain Emulation Artificial Neurology or Cyberneurology if we want to be a sperate tech like you imply.

Well, the tech is meant to imply exactly what the tech is named, that the whole brain functioning has finally been completely replicated. Perhaps something else can say that as clearly? Artificial Neurology would seem to mean just a neuron has been replicated, rather than every brain module and all its interactions, including with biochemistry hormone releases and so on. Cyberneurology much the same. Artificial Brains maybe?

Clearly, in this particular case, the tech's intended meaning is still more captured by its name and its pedia entry has failed it. So the pedia should be rewritten for sure either way.

 

[Sir Monster The Great]

Cyberneurobiology or Cyberneuroscience?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Cyberneurobiology or Cyberneuroscience?

All sounds a bit redundant since making the connection between artificial neurons and biological brain matter is already established. Neither of these actually states that we can finally replicate every part of the brain, and in fact all of it at once, artificially.