Yes there is tech inflation. It is very bad at the 3 point choice branches. For example if you get Desert Planet specialization the next one say Ocean specialization is EXPENSIVE and then if you try to get Barren, well you might as well shut down  your war machine and focus all your production points into research because its twice as long as Ocean. 

It is working as intended, yet it seems like a gate in front of player choice ( to me at least). 

I agree with Buck, if we had a numerical value there I could determine how much tech is needed over how many turns. This would be a HUGE help. 

There's no dev posts on a lot of threads.   I'm not reading anything into it one way or another.  Especially since they are probably very busy on the lead up to Beta 5.

Besides, as I said before, IF production overflow isn't working as intented in Beta 5 I will submit a ticket on it.

For some reason I think that will get more results than people talking about it here.  

Well let's wait and see...

That's what I like about Paul; he's such an optimist.

Paul saying "it's fixed", promises everything or nil, keeps its promise and says nothing at all. Enjoy

http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/618457398957768649/

Doesn't appear to be an archive, sadly.  At the link Paul mentioned that he was thinking about, if all goes well, doing another test stream tomorrow (Thr).

EDITED:::: The "Broadcasts" link for GC III over at Steam is here: http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/broadcasts

As I said before, doesn't appear to be an archive.  No idea if one is, or even can be, planned.

Well a bug for one person can be a feature to another.

Another problem i noticed is that however you divied up your points it seems to just add to overall production to be devided up accordingly. What i would  rather see is a seperate thing for budget and research, and production. Instead of  adding everything,  and deviding production. Instead production being devided from  bc being made. Then the different points made by buildings should be added aftrrwards. I myself wonder how big a deal this is,  but i understand that the game could have some better mechanics to it. Things could always be better.

First, we're going off of one person's word (Tooonz) that Paul said this. He could just be trolling us

Second, assuming Paul actually did say this, I hope Paul's right, but I'm not holding my breath. I know someday it will be fixed so I'm not going to get upset. I just want the devs to know that I will not be helping them with feedback until they fix it, so hopefully they get the clue that this is important to a lot of us. It's a boycott of sorts.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with expressing hope that something has been fixed.  

In the end, as a wise sage once said, "I'd rather be happy than right."

Tested, new post posted

Clearly it seems petty to you. But you seem to have missed the point entirely. For months the devs have been saying in the dev stream that 1-turn overflow was working despite numerous beta testers telling them otherwise. That implies a problem with their QA and beta feedback processes, which is NOT a minor issue. So I didn't boycott because the bug existed, I boycotted because they weren't listening to feedback, which is the entire point of their beta process! Now that it's fixed I'm done boycotting. I would have also ceased my boycott had they at least acknowledged the bug, or had they claimed the mechanic was intended, instead of constantly claiming it was fixed.