Talk:Research

General
can confirm that unlocking an era requires research from the previous era only (i.e. 10 projects from era II to unlock era III) --Atonement (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2014 (PDT)

Era names
I think we should include these for the flavour! :) Does Era I have a flavoursome name? --Trithemius (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2014 (PDT)

Tech Layout
How does everyone want to handle the tech tree in the events of faction specific techs? Should each category be alphabetized and include a note for faction specific or how do you guys want to handle it? --Atonement (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2014 (PDT)
 * I vote for included in an alphabetical list with annotation - so people can find it most directly. We can also create a subpage for faction specific techs and/or a link from faction pages. --Trithemius (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2014 (PDT)


 * I will be in no way bothered if someone who is better at layout design wants to do an overhaul. The layout that I have set up is mostly to give it a bit of structure while I fill in all the different techs, which I will probably resume Saturday evening. The class used to structure the page code was made by Atonement; you need to see him if you want that changed. As for the Tech icons, I will probably only finish uploading the military and science/industry images until we decide on the final layout. If we decide to keep using them, at least for a while, it wouldn't take me to long to finish icons for the rest of the tree. -- AGodlessAmerican (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (PDT)


 * It is definitely not a difficult task to change the structure, I just changed it to a template so it can easily be changed and alter the entire page, rather than having to go through individually. just let me know how you guys want it to be done, or change the template (Template:Technology) yourself. Feel free to make examples and post them here --Atonement (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (PDT)


 * Great! Thanks for the link! -- AGodlessAmerican (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2014 (PDT)


 * Template is set up now so that if you leave the restrictions parameter blank, it won't appear. Should be no need for any of the others to be like that, I believe. --Atonement (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2014 (PDT)

Tech Tree Organization
Alright. Here is my grand thoughts for organizing techs here on the wiki. The issues: 1) Techs unlock different types of things, single improvements, units, multiple improvements, passive bonuses, etc. how do we handle this format-wise? 2) Some techs are faction-specific, and some are gained only through quests, so what is a common format that can be used across all pages. For instance, a faction-specific city improvement gained through a technology rewarded from their quest line should IMO be located on the Faction page, Research page, City Improvements page, and Quests page; but it would be a bitch editing 4 separate pages if something got changed in a future patch. I envision the following as a solution to these issues. The plan is to convert each technology and each city improvement into a template that could then inserted into every page where it is required. Any editing would only needed to be done upon the template.

I have not done a version for a tech that unlocks a unit. I see these types of techs either just giving a link to the unit page with no information given about that unit except maybe a picture (simple), or a full card devoted to the unit similar to what I have done here for city improvements (more difficult).

The final result would be something like below. Thoughts?

An example tech that unlocks 1 city improvement:


 * }

An example tech that provides an empire bonus:

An example tech that unlocks two city improvements:

{| border='2' style="background:#363634; color:#ffffff; width:980px;"
 * valign="top" style="width:240px;" |  Dust Filtration 

75 Industry
 * valign="top" style="width:110px;" | Costs:


 * Dust Filtration.png


 * align="center" | When ice melts and rivers and seas grow warmer in the summer season, a combination of magnetics and very fine filters can be used to harvest Dust directly from the waters.


 * colspan="4" valign="top" |
 * }
 * }
 * }

An example city improvement for the City Improvement page: {| border='2' style="background:#363634; color:#ffffff; width:1010px;"
 * valign="top" style="width:240px;" |  Dust Dredger 

75 Industry
 * valign="top" style="width:110px;" | Costs:


 * Dust Dredger.png


 * align="center" | Sifting with sophisticated nets in wells, rivers and floodplains helps isolate this precious magical resource, increasing city Dust production.


 * colspan="4" valign="top" |
 * colspan="4" valign="top" |


 * }

An example tech for a unit model:
 * }

---


 * I like these on the whole. A couple of points:
 * Is is possible to give the first three techs the border than you have on Dust Dredger at the bottom?
 * I think that the research that unlocks city improvements (i.e. aquapulvistics, public library) should say something to the effect of "Unlocks:" or "Unlocks for production:" so that it's not misconstrued that the improvements associated with the research are automatically instituted.
 * On Aquapulvistics, I believe it would look best to have the unlocked improvements extend to the same distance, even if it means one has more lines or more blank space (but pref. the former), of course this is just a rough take
 * I definitely like the template idea, makes things significantly easier.
 * Overall, looks very good. Atonement (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2014 (PDT)


 * Yes, done.
 * Good point, was confusing, done.
 * Not sure what you mean, both unlocked techs appear to extend to the same "distance" for me.
 * --Carolean7 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2014 (PDT)


 * Hmm, must be a screen size issue. http://puu.sh/cmbS0/17610a6bfd.jpg that picture hopefully shows what I mean. Dredger doesn't extend out as far as filtration. It doesn't look to me like there is any width set since it snaps to the length of the lore, so setting a px width seems succinct to fix it, unless you had another plan for it Atonement (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2014 (PDT)


 * Oh weird yeah, it's a screen size issue. Setting a fixed width is the only fix that I know of. I have done this. Also, added a tech for a unit. Not sure I like it yet, will still play around with it. If you have an idea, feel free to tinker. --Carolean7 (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2014 (PDT)


 * Alright, not the prettiest work I've ever produced but I've edited in a rough idea of what I think might be good. Mostly I'm thinking a link to the unit's page and the unit's base attribs. Not sure what to do about the fact that we really only have one picture of each unit... Atonement (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2014 (PDT)


 * That works. I made a couple changes. The problem of having the same art picture (and lore) for the tech and the unit is also going to be the same problem for the techs that unlock only a single improvement (like Public Library, and the majority of them). So if we are okay with that then we are okay with this. If we do it this way, with having these card templates for units similar to the template cards for techs and improvements, then the advantage is that they can be used for the Faction pages and Unit pages too. I'm really liking the idea, but not necessarily fully convinced. --Carolean7 (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2014 (PDT)


 * I'm definitely a fan of your rendition of the unit tech, looks great. I had forgotten that we'll have techs with the same problem as the units in terms of lore/pictures so I suppose that since its inherent to basically everything, I'm on board for just doubling down on that info. I think that the landscape unit template we have here would look good on the Faction pages (it would look nicer when there are multiple units in a row) but I'm more of a fan for portrait orientation on individual unit pages, like those already on unit pages. Unfortunately, having two templates would mean double edits if updates change something about them in the future (unless you have a way around that), but I think the aesthetic is more important. I'm really out of it right now so hope that all made sense ^^ Atonement (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (PDT)
 * Also, I greatly prefer the effects as it is now i.e. next to the text as opposed to above it. Atonement (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2014 (PDT)


 * Sounds like we are on the same page here. I'm not sure of an obvious or easy way to avoid the double editing of these landscape cards on the faction page, and the portrait cards on the individual unit pages. It will be the same issue for the city improvements too. It could be done, but it will be another level of abstraction (templates within templates... template Inception!) My current opinion is that setting this up will take a lot of time, is more confusing to edit for other people who don't know the format, and won't really save that much time. Pending any other suggestions to the formats we have established here. I feel it is about time to get these things set up. --Carolean7 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (PDT)


 * I'm comfortable with our current formats, then! I think we should include some copy-paste comment at the top of each template or whatever reminding users to edit the twin template if they edit data in one. Atonement (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2014 (PDT)