Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Acharis

Research system idea

This topic is 1200 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I got this idea:

 

There are several fields (computers, energy, constructions, chemistry, etc). Your research points are divided between these.

 

BUT, you can't set percentages (like in older 4X games), since that was not working too well (it was always best to always put 100% in one field and then swich after it reached the "next level"). Instead you can only say which field is Primary (50%) and which is Secondary (20%), all the remaining fields would get like 5% each.

 

 

Questions:

- the usual, what you think, if it would work, if you can refine it, etc, etc

- I'm also worried, wouldn't such system make you switch the Primary/Secondary marker all the time to optimize the research (like mark as primary a non focused field when it get sufficient res.points accumulate to quickly finish it)?

- I'm especially open on the Primary/Secondary marker part (I just need it so the player can not focus 100% on one field, but it could be done different way I suppose)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Hmm... What about giving research paths a "momentum" value? This value would increase the longer a given path is assigned as "primary" (or increase at a rate proportional to the path's assigned percentage), and would reset to zero when one switches paths. The "momentum" value of a path would act as a multiplier for research: given two paths, each with an assigned percentage of one hundred percent, but one with a higher "momentum", the path with the higher "momentum" would progress the more quickly. Thus it becomes profitable to stick with a research path rather than chopping and changing.

 

However, I feel that it's also worth asking: what result are you aiming for in this mechanic? Are you trying to give players incentive to stick with a research path (as my above suggestion assumes), or something else? Additionally, why do you want to discourage the behaviour of assigning all of one's research points into one field, then switching when that reaches its next level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I feel that it's also worth asking: what result are you aiming for in this mechanic? Are you trying to give players incentive to stick with a research path (as my above suggestion assumes), or something else? Additionally, why do you want to discourage the behaviour of assigning all of one's research points into one field, then switching when that reaches its next level?

No... it's not like that... How to put it...

 

I don't care how the player uses it, my ONLY concern is micromanagement (the player being forced to jump around and adjust these over and over again in order of maximum efficiency).

 

why do you want to discourage the behaviour of assigning all of one's research points into one field

Well, it's obviously the optimal strategy smile.png If there is such option the player would do it (that's why the precentage system of Master of Orion 1 went extinct ages ago).

You remember the system? You had 100% to distribute and you set 30% to energy, 5% to constructions, 12% to computers, etc. Eventually you got smarter and always set 100% to exactly one field (total focus) since it yelds the fastest result in the end (less res.points tied up in "research in progress").

 

I was trying to "fix" it, to make a system where *each* field of research is progressing at least very slowly (some players like it, it has also some nice gameplay repercussions, like you will eventually reach "Sociology level 3" by the end of the game even if you never invested anything in sociology) yet you have a decision which should progress faster.

 

I have also seen a "fixed" systems where each field could not go below 5% (so you were not able to set these fully freely). But it was still annoying.

Edited by Acharis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Master of Orion IIs system? You could only research one thing at a time, but if you tried to tech up evenly across all the different fields you're almost guaranteed to lose on anything but the easiest difficulty level. And for most species builds you can only choose one technology from each field per level to research at all, so while you can choose the order of research you can never have everything. Pax Imperia II had a percentage allocation system, and I very rarely put all 100% into a single field because it's a worse option than a mix. 

 

The system you're describing, as I understand it, sounds really restrictive to me, and for not much of a reason. I don't think it would be a game breaker for me, but it would be annoying. What is the gameplay value of forcing me to research something I don't really want, even just a little, versus specialization? I would rather see a system that makes "total focus" impractical or suboptimal than one that forces me to play in a way that I don't want to, to no purpose other than satisfying the developer's arbitrary preference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people's strategy depends on how you implemented research points, if it is "diminishing returns" people try to optimize somehow by distributing, if "increasing returns" they choose one tech, if linear they do as they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I always found it frustrating to be limited to researching one topic at a time even if I have the research points to study a dozen low level techs. Especially as I might be concentrating on one or two things but still need all the other techs to have a decent empire.
Yeah, exactly. It's so annoying sometimes. I do want to focus *all* my efforts on weapons since that's my priority but at the same time I would like to designate some secondary research field, it should progress much slower but still it should progress. It's also way more realistic...

 


I like that research will progress whether or not the Emperor is personally involved. Private companies are going to want mass drivers and immortality vaccines and lots of other things; it's just that without your funding, research will go more slowly and not necessarily reflect your strategic priorities. But you can plunk down a big grant program (pay immediately) or maybe a bounty (pay at discovery), and researchers across the empire will scramble to discover what you've specified.
Hmmm, an interesting reasoning. Science is done by various universities, individual inventors, mad scientists, corporations research labs, and you as the Emperor can simply "boost" some field of research.

 

Pax Imperia II had a percentage allocation system, and I very rarely put all 100% into a single field because it's a worse option than a mix.
It does not make sense to me from mathgematical point of view (of course I don't deny players not always do what's optimal or mathematically correct :D)

Assuming you need 10 turns to research some tech:

If you spend 5 turns researching weapons and got it half done and 5 turns on propulsion and get it half done you still have nothing at the moment. If you spend 10 turns on weapons and 0 on propulsion you already have one working weapon tech (and you can start destroying the enemy now). In 20 turns you would get both weapons and propulsion tech no matter which route you went, but with 100% focus you get first benefits at turn 10 (instead of turn 20). Therefore 100% focus is clearly superior strategy, always, no exceptions.

 

to no purpose other than satisfying the developer's arbitrary preference
Thanks for reminding about it, I have dictatorial design tendencies :) Will try to keep it in mind.

 


Honestly, no--I don't really play strategy games, to be honest (hence my so seldom posting in your threads). ^^;
:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It does not make sense to me from mathgematical point of view (of course I don't deny players not always do what's optimal or mathematically correct )
Assuming you need 10 turns to research some tech:
If you spend 5 turns researching weapons and got it half done and 5 turns on propulsion and get it half done you still have nothing at the moment. If you spend 10 turns on weapons and 0 on propulsion you already have one working weapon tech (and you can start destroying the enemy now). In 20 turns you would get both weapons and propulsion tech no matter which route you went, but with 100% focus you get first benefits at turn 10 (instead of turn 20). Therefore 100% focus is clearly superior strategy, always, no exceptions.

 

Not really. I could see that being the case if all techs at a given level take the same amount of time to research, have zero cost to deploy, and produce instant benefits, but that doesn't come up too often. A game where you can assign research percentages but it is always a mistake to do so is one that has a poorly designed research tree.

 

I really like valrus' suggestion if you want to get away from that system altogether. Having research priorities like in the OP feels to me like a nerfed version of the research system you don't like, but valrus' is a new system that shouldn't chafe people who don't mind the "old", standard way for research in a 4x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!