This is a bit off your topic, but it is related: Support barely gets better as you research it, and it gets bigger which makes it more inconvenient to fit with other components. By effect/mass ratio after environmental support, which is a sizable 50% increase over life support, the next 3 upgrades are 7%, 4%, and 3% better then their previous version. As a point of comparison, the first 3 sensor improvements are 33%, 20%, and 46% better then their predecessor and the first four beam upgrades are 82%, 38%, 38%, and 29% better. Right now it really doesn't make much sense to go down the support tech line.

EDIT: So after posting this I though, "Well support doesn't really get more space efficient as you go up the tree, maybe it gets more cost efficient." Nope. In fact, upgrading from environmental support to stellar support is the only one that doesn't make it more expensive in terms of maintenance cost/range.

Yeah, the specializations will help you, but I'm comparing it to other tech trees that also get similar bonuses. Environmental support is a major upgrade over life support but the rest are very minor upgrades. I guess having different sizes does help you hit your max mass exactly, but as a matter of opportunity cost, I think it's very hard to justify researching support over other tech lines.

I haven't found this a problem because I've played only on scattered or spiral Galaxy choices, but I can see how this is a problem with tight clustered choices, especially on the largest map settings which I believe a lot of us prefer despite needing more than 50-hours [and probably longer] play before you can even sniff the possibility of winning.

It also needs balancing because of the inconsistent upgrade values quoted, surely we should all be expecting a consistent upgrade value of 50% or more to make the game fun rather than realistic.

GO MARVIN GO!!!!

Change it and then post it so I can also do it!!!