Research Rates

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#16 Post by utilae »

I don't see the point in penalising research. Using 'future shock' or penalising morale is not necesary. When a new tech comes out people will not be depressed, they get excited. When a new gaming console comes out (PS2) everyone got excited, no future shock there. I think the morale would go up in such situations. Businesses are always eager for new techs, so is millitary, so are people who are after entertainment.

Further more the idea of having superior tech is to have an advantage. Trying to penalise big empires goes against the idea of being big. THe main problem is micomanagement. If everyone could do the equivilent of micormanagement in a macro method, then everyone would be even. We need to get to a point where micromanaging gains only as much of an advantage as macromanaging. So that which ever way you play, microing is not the defining way to win.

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#17 Post by iamrobk »

I could see FS affecting major military things, like new star drives and such. Maybe fear of it not working?

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#18 Post by skdiw »

So then we are in an agreement iamrobk, Defense>attack>growth. Or am I missing something?

I am with utilae about penalties on research for the reasons mentioned--I totally agree top to bottom. Rather than repeat, I'll add that the penalty sounded so like cultural backlash for Moo3. But I am reminded of KISS.

The research proposal is something like theory then development > refinement. It is assumed that the tech has prototypes built and tested to work so after you went through development, it's a tech you can use.
:mrgreen:

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#19 Post by iamrobk »

If basically you mean defending your worlds is a higher priority than attacking an enemy which is a higher priority than exploring, than yes for the most part.

Impaler
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA

#20 Post by Impaler »

I see it as a rock, Paper, Sicorrs thing

Rock is Defence (apropirate huu)
Paper is Growth
Scisoors is Offence

Scissors beets Paper - I rush as your directing all energy to growth. If I can keep this up all game its called Momentum play.

Rock beets Scisors - I get some Defences which by design are superior to an equal cost in attackers, thus I can spend less to stop an attack then the attacker spends to launch the attack, the money I save goes into Growth which ultimatly snowballs me ahead OR I make my own Pair of Scissors and counter attack you after you have lost your attack force (and if my attack fails I can fall back behind my defenses and reorganize)

Paper Beats Rock - I build up, you go defensive and fail to expand, I snowBall you late game with one arm tied behind my back (thus I continue to grow expidential even I crush your empire)


All strategy games operate on this princliple, the only real factors involved are the payback time on a growth investments, the ratio of effectivness in Offensice and Defensive Tecnology (Determined by costs and tecnology and the movment time between empires), and the amount that I can pillage (advantages for concoured territory, slaves, minerals, tecnology ect ect)

If Pillaging is high then it encourages Offence

If the bay back time for growth is low it encourages growth

If the cost ratio between Offence and Defence is high it encourages Defense

Research can be though of as the 4th option because it changes the first 3 quanties in a positive way for you, Late game pillaging grows easier, Economic Growth is accelerated and Defenses can be more potent vs a tecnologicaly bacwards oponent. (often though the cost ratio favors offense so that some one will eventualy win rather then a defensive stalemate defeloping).

Their is ofcorse a lot of subtle interplay between these factors (well their SHOULD be a subtle interplay, if it actualy feels like Rock, Paper, Scissors then the game is bombing). For any position an oponent takes their is an effective counter strategy, you need to know 1 - what their doing, 2 - what the effective counter strategy is 3 - Carry it out efficiently.
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#21 Post by iamrobk »

Really offense would be defense a lot, especially if you have luck on your side :D

Impaler
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA

#22 Post by Impaler »

Defense is by its nature Imobile (it cant sail off and blow up the enemy on a differnt star). Anything Modile is Offensive by nature. Early game defenseive structures are allways going to win vs an equal cost in attacking ships. Attack ships vs Attack ships is going to be an even match up. Scisors vs Scisors is going to be a draw.

Tecnicaly the Scissors can "defend" me but they are not inherantly a defensive strategy, you will need to spend just as much on your ships as your oponent, if your oponent has even the slightest size advantage over you and is spending a smaller percentage of his energies on Scissors then you are he is going to grow faster and faster and snowball you. To truly use a Defensive strategy you need to be building imobile things like Missle bases that "bleed" the enemy of his strength, thus forcing him to spend more on his war effort. Even if he is larger he cant crack your defenses, meanwial you try your best to get ahead in growth (so when your more powerfull and make agressive war make shure to either kill them quick or never let their growth rate exceed your own)
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#23 Post by skdiw »

I am just worried with our current design of starlanes and the way our maps are generated that playing defense is way too effective and boring. I mean, did we learn anything from moo3? It seems FO is heading that direction in a lot of respects.
Last edited by skdiw on Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:mrgreen:

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#24 Post by iamrobk »

What do the starlanes have to do with it? Is the design where they get less effective over time in place? IMO if it is, just not have it start until like turn 100 or so.

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#25 Post by skdiw »

Since this thread has been on a tangent, I thought I throw starlanes in. There is a starlane thread under game design. The current design is based on ratios between off-road and starlanes. When the ratio is high, starlane is the only way to travel so choke point becomes a valuable strategic point where you just stack up D and grow crazy in other colonies and win via research or culture or non-conquest means. When the ratio is low, you get early rushes being too powerful. There are plans to reduce this ratio as the game progress, but the ideas are complicated and violate KISS, imo. I like your starlane dissappearing idea.
:mrgreen:

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#26 Post by iamrobk »

Personally I think only LOTS of beta testing will give a good ratio. But system ships, maybe, could have all weapons power reduced by 15% compared to the same weapon on a starship.

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#27 Post by skdiw »

The most elegant way is just use a constant instead of ratio.

As for system ships, I think they are defensive ship so they should be more effective than starships. Perhaps the space for the lack of warp drive could be stacked with extra weapons.
:mrgreen:

iamrobk
Space Dragon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm

#28 Post by iamrobk »

Yeah, but considering how we need to balance defense against offense....

User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#29 Post by skdiw »

It's too hard to say right now because we haven't passed anything recently. I brought starlanes up, in part, because it was talked about for v.1. Balacing also depends on the techs, spying, government policy, racial attribute... and whole lot of other mechanics.
:mrgreen:

Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#30 Post by Ablaze »

Back on topic..

Utilae, I wouldn't think of techno shock as the difference between a Super NES and a Playstation II. I would think of it as the proliferation of computers now compared to what was available a couple of generations ago.

There is still a generation or two of people who hardly know how to turn a computer on, which limits the effectiveness of computers in general. Wait 20 years and that will be much less of an issue; the techno shock will have worn off.
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

Post Reply