SETI Advanced Strategy 1: Tech

I. Introduction

I've recently played more SETI, experiencing some games with scores over 300. This has given me new insights into the game mechanics. This article provides an analysis of the tech aspects that SETI players are concerned with, including the overall tech strategy and individual tech evaluations. My thoughts are still evolving, so this article is more of a starting point for discussion. Your thoughts are welcome.

Key points to clarify:

The tech routes in SETI is not complex and can even be somewhat formulaic.
The "non-formulaic" aspect of tech choice mainly lies in the tech's backside bonus, which significantly influence decision-making.

II. Tech Route

In the late game (R4 and R5), the strongest strategy in SETI is the Scanning Strategy. The core engine includes:

2nd Purple Tech (spend publicity to scan signal from sector of Mercury)

1
 -> 
 (Mercury)

4th Purple Tech (1 Energy Launch or Move One Step)

1
 / 1
 ->

Other effective components are:

2nd Orange Tech (Ignore Asteroids, Visit Asteroid +1 Publicity)
Blue Tech (credit, Energy, Publicity)

Once this engine is built, each Scan action yields considerable returns, allowing for efficient resource cycling in the late game. If multiple players go for scan, it can result in a pseudo-perpetual scoring loop.

However, this leads to a concern for players who prefer diverse strategies, as they may find the game formulaic.

While I don't disagree the concern above, but here are some alternative perspectives:

Having a strongest late-game engine doesn't mean everyone can achieve it, and the routes to this engine vary. The game's appeal lies in how quickly and efficiently players can build this setup. Card asymmetry, endgame tiles, game meta, and tech instant bonus all influence decisions. Although this engine is strong late-game, it's unremarkable early on, scan without good techs and economy may lead to failure.
SETI encourages a balanced development rather than an all-in strategy. All players chasing for the same goal may lead to lose-lose situation.

Let's analyze each tech.

III. Orange Tech

Orange Tech acts as a lubricant. The game is playable without it, but having it makes the gameplay smoother. The main consideration is the reward: Energy > Cards > Others. Publicity and 3 points have their merits but are less desirable.

3.1 Orange Tech 1 (Launch Capacity + 1)

Rating: A-

+ 1

This tech has an opening setup: double orbit. With additional data, it can even reach 3 additional tucked incomes in round 1 (double orbit + 4 data), making it a strong starting. However, while income is powerful, it requires card support. Players tend to tuck credit income, but it's hard to get so many credit income cards at the start. If you tuck many card incomes, the rhythm suffers, as aliens likely provide alien cards in round 2.

This tech with energy bonus is a popular starting tech and is often picked. If you lack credit, supplementing with it is also good, and it synergizes with Orange Tech 2 for more publicity.

3.2 Orange Tech 2 (Ignore Asteroids)

Rating: S

1
 Ignore Asteroid Limitation.

When you visit Asteroid, gain 1
 .

Asteroid Tech is universally loved and irreplaceable late-game. Once acquired, you'll want to exploit every asteroid. Some players might want to start with it as a Publicity strategy, as more Publicity allows for more tech purchases. If you can make probes effectively gain Publicity, it's even better.

However, consider if you really need this tech before acquiring it. Its power relies on having surplus probes and movement methods. If it's just to bypass a blocked path, consider other options.

Overall, this tech is very strong, universally useful late-game, but not necessarily early on.

3.3 Orange Tech 3 (Landing Costs 1 Less Energy)

Rating: A+


 : - 1

A visibly beneficial tech, generally yielding 4-5 energy in a game. Right...?

Not necessarily. Some planets may not have orbits, leading to energy loss, making landing not always optimal and devaluing this tech. Additionally, aliens have 6/10 landing cards, Oumuamua has 2, and humans have 3, which can be awkward if landing cards appear.

Moreover, orbiting isn't necessarily weaker than landing. Uranus and Neptune's orbits are very strong but often overlooked by beginners. Mid-game experimentation is advised.

I usually wait until I've opened the first alien before considering this tech, for more options.

Nonetheless, this tech is still valuable, breaking even after 2 landings and profiting after 3.

3.4 Orange Tech 4 (Moon Landing)

Rating: B


 on Moons

This is one of the most debated techs, if not the most. Some players favor Moon starts, revering landing on Phobos and Deimos. Others dismiss it, considering it only when tech is full.

Two main questions to discuss:

Which Moons are strong?
Is the Moon start worthwhile?

For the first question, beginners often notice the unbeatable 25/26 points. However, directly landing on Neptune offers 3 data, 10 points, and a yellow trace. Except for the game's final move, the 3 data's operational importance is much higher, and the yellow trace might yield more than 3 points.

In terms of value, some notable Moons are:

10 points, 4 energy: The strongest energy-reversing Moon, increasingly valuable late-game, the best fuel for scanning engines.
7 points, 2 any trace: Decent around the second alien opening.
8 points, 2 income: A fast start with Europa ignoring tech is one of the strongest starts, with explosive model returns.
13 points, 4 data: Once seemed strong, but now feels weaker than Neptune's 10 points, 5 data orbit?
Most others aren't highly contested, go if you like.

Moon value is decent, and mid-to-late game supplementing with a Moon tech is reasonable, as main planets might be fully landed, leaving nowhere else to go.

Now, is a Moon start advisable? This boils down to whether it's worth taking Moon tech for a Phobos start, as other planets don't offer such dramatic early returns and have less endgame variance.

My view is it's not worth it, except for . Reasons:

Phobos's inherent value is lower than theoretical value. Limited card count and uncertain card quality make energy tuck mediocre, and lack of cards forces card tuck. A Phobos start means round 2 must be a card round, or else multiple disadvantages (discussed later) can't be mitigated. Without sufficient credit income, the rhythm can be bleak. For dual income, double orbit or orbit + 4 data might be better.
High landing prerequisites. Moon tech implies no energy-saving landing tech, adding +1 to landing costs. Moreover, orbiting conditions for landing aren't guaranteed, as players usually won't help others save 1 energy. This leads to delays, and Phobos players lack the cards to wait, typically requiring 3 energy for landing.
Unbalanced development, reliant on subsequent card draws. SETI isn't a traditional engine-building game; its cards provide immediate and mission effects, not continuous income. Even without considering high landing costs, post-landing issues arise:
1. No data: A core issue, data is essential for early operations, affecting income and blue traces.
2. No subsequent tech: Moon tech is mostly unused in round 2. Ideally, landing a 2-trace spot is nice, but perfect map scenarios are rare, often still needing 3 energy to land.
3. No traces, no trace competition potential. Round 2 aliens introduce new mechanics while you're still playing human cards. If aiming to land another Moon for traces, resources might be insufficient for landing, and even if successful, cards can't be played due to resource constraints, still lacking data.
4. Falling behind in scores, missing endgame tiles. Other players will outpace Phobos starters in scoring, as early scoring relies on landing and traces, while Phobos offers only income. The 7 bonus points are insufficient. If others focus on orbit development, Phobos might compete, but that's a player environment issue, not universal.
One card can lead to last place: #12 Europa Clipper. Although just one card, calculate the probability of drawing a specific card from 132 (full expansion 140 - your 5 cards - 3 in card row) in 15 draws, it's 11.36%. If others start with card income, the probability increases. An 89% chance of a normal outcome but an 11% chance of last place makes risk-averse players hesitant. Another 4-cost card poses potential risk if acquired before you.
Main planets might not be worse than Moons. Main planets provide data, and even if a Moon is accessible, you might prioritize the first main planet, making Moon tech a loss.

In summary, Moons aren't suitable for starting. Mid-to-late game supplementing with one is fine, as main planets might be full. However, don't prioritize 25/26 points.

IV. Purple Tech

As mentioned in the basic model, a Purple Tech's value is around 0.5, and stacking two results in profitable scanning. Therefore, scanning becomes a necessary route, as lacking it results in missing many points and Publicity.

Strategically, scanning should be decisive. Scan when the timing is right, even without tech. Don't wait to start scanning until Purple and Blue Techs are maxed; by then, you might miss a red trace window.

4.1 Purple Tech 1

Rating: A


 on Earth or adjacent sectors

Some players love starting with Purple 1, as its 2 data allows for stable 4 data income tuck in round 1. Its effect isn't useless, providing flexibility when scanning sectors. Actually it's quite good in 2P since players will completing for the same sector.

Overall, it's a transitional tech, not highly profitable, occupying an early tech slot.

4.2 Purple Tech 2 (Mercury Scan)

Rating: S

1
 -> 
 (Mercury)

A scanning tech, modeled as 0.5 for 1, netting 0.5. Since Publicity below 6 has little impact, this tech exploits the time gap, and completing a sector replenishes Publicity, reducing actual costs.

Usually, everyone takes it, but timing matters. Acquiring it too early without others scanning may delay sector Publicity, disrupting tech gaining meta. Late-game, it has almost no downsides.

4.3 Purple Tech 3 (Discard Card Scan)

Rating: B

Playing scanning strategy reveals a major limiting factor: cards, specifically for income tuck.

Discard Card Scan's main issue is its strict 0.5 cost (1 card opportunity cost). If late-game cards run out, drawing to discard means a 1-for-1 exchange.

However, it's crucial for securing first in sectors, factoring in potential red trace benefits, so don't underestimate it. Late-game, once the scanning system matures, adding this tech is feasible.

Overall, this tech is more for early first-in-sector competition, later becoming a simple data supplement, almost a 1 card for 1 data exchange, occasionally snagging 2 points.

4.4 Purple Tech 4 (Launch Move)

Rating: S

1
 / 1
 ->

This tech isn't the scanning system's core but is the game's operational core, a key to pseudo-perpetual motion.

As mentioned in the basic model, minimize energy use for movement. Discard card movement breaks even, but is there a simpler, stronger movement method?

Yes, the optimal solution is Purple 4. Ideally, launch costs 1 energy, movement relies on Purple 4, and with Orange 3, 1 energy lands, effectively 2 resources for landing. If reaching a 10-point, 4-energy magic spot, it's a net gain of 2 energy for 10 points, with extra points supporting scanning.

Purple 4's strength lies in the scanning system's maturity, requiring a solid economic foundation. Starting with Purple 4 requires careful consideration.

I personally avoid scanning before round 2 unless someone offers 2 data for sector first. As mentioned, without two Purple Techs, scanning isn't cost-effective. Starting with Purple 4 might lead to severe energy shortages. Late-game scanning isn't due to high energy income but due to scanning cards allowing credit-based scanning, optimizing resource usage.

A big-picture approach is to conserve energy early, build the scanning framework, then scan aggressively, using probes for Publicity and timely landings.

A small caveat: Using Purple 4 to move probes is slow, risking being preempted. I've experienced moving 3 steps towards Mercury, only to be beaten by another player moving 4 steps, a frustrating experience 😭.

V. Blue Tech

Rating: A to S

Early game (R1)

Later game (R5)

Players' perception of Blue Tech often evolves: from dismissing it to loving it and maxing it out, then finding a balance.

Blue Tech is central to the data system and a significant source of points and resources. Typically, the first-place player often has at least 3 Blue Techs.

However, early-game, Blue Tech can slow data flow, affecting 4 data income and blue traces. Excessive Blue Tech may be counterproductive. I advocate for a single Blue Tech start (usually 1 credit or 2 Publicity), adding a second mid-game and the rest later. The shift from 6 to 7 data per round is manageable, but 6 to 8 significantly increases data acquisition pressure, and early Blue Tech often means no Purple Tech slots. It's akin to currency circulation; less can be more, worth experiencing in practice. Quantitative analysis could be insightful.

Blue Tech's model is balanced, so no specific ratings are needed. Generally, prioritize resources, with energy first. A credit-giving Blue Tech with energy is almost always a top tech choice. Publicity suits early game, cards suit mid-to-late game, and credit and energy are essential throughout, each with its strengths.

As for placement, there's some strategy. Placing credit first is optimal, even covering 2 fewer points if data is full before acquiring Blue Tech. This allows the extra three data to immediately grant 2 credit (one this round, then use 2 more to get one after blue trace), boosting current-round operations.

Choosing between energy and cards for the second slot is debated. I lean towards cards, selecting income as needed. Later energy perfectly aligns with blue trace, a seamless sequence. This ideal setup rarely materializes; early differences are minor, but late-game resource waste is possible.

5.1 Tech Starting Points

Finally, let's discuss tech acquisition. The optimal method is probe drifting, using Orange 2 as a Publicity starting point. Post-mid-game, completing sectors provides Publicity, and Purple 4 with Orange 2 enables efficient tech growth.

Another straightforward method is relying on 2-Publicity Blue Tech as a starting point, a viable but less potent option.

A better approach is cards, highlighting why tech cards (and credit income) are essential. Tech is closely tied to rhythm, often not waiting for natural Publicity accumulation. Tech cards' solar system rotation holds strategic importance.

I rarely max out tech, possibly due to my inexperience with spaceship drifting. However, empirically, games scoring over 300 typically have maxed tech.

VI. Conclusion

The analysis of tech routes and individual benefits is complete. Overall, tech strength differences are minor. Some techs are strong late-game but useless early, while others are transitional. Late-game tech engine is broadly similar, but early choices vary, primarily driven by tech rewards. Good rewards are contested, while poor ones are left for others to pick first.