Multiple RC Penalty to Tech Advancement

[Locklyn]

Eternus wrote:

I think the initial fear is:

 

"OMG those with SRPs will have Improvied ICs, Advanced Weaponry, Mk III Defenses, Super Drones, NTWDs, Industrial Sciences, Species Bonuses, Superior Engines and Everything else before I finish all my 2nd generation stuff!!!"

 

Of course I have such fears as I have no clue at all as to what my well rounded race can actually do!? Are the space combat bonuses I gained from building a strong race going to help against the mosquito race who bought Mk IV Heavy Missiles and Heavy Pulse Blast Cannons or am I toast?

 

Why would I trade items that would show what I have not researched defense wise?

 

And so on...

/Locklyn

[PhaseDragon]

I agree that the saved research points are a HUGE advantage. There should be some other use for saved points other than tech bonuses. I have gotten 3 breakthroughs in 12 turns without saving points. I am due to get a bunch all at the same time in a turn or two, but I am still WAY WAY FAR BEHIND in the tech race. Not really sure what would be a fair fix for this problem though so I guess we all just have to deal with it. Those that saved points will come knocking soon.

[EternusIV]

Locklyn

 

1) Exploration bonuses can help. I have a tradition steeped in Exploration, and it would be absolutely moronic of me to preclude exploration finds from my shipyards....

 

2) If someone has super weapons like that, that dont have a LOT of other things. Build a spreadsheet and plug in all that research data you guys have and figure it out yourself. Whats the best you can do in 30 turns WITH SRPs? Are you invincible relative to everyone else? Nope...not even close.

 

3) You make a good point in that we dont know how our racial bonuses will play out in space -- but I trust "Da Big Spreadsheet" that Pete designed putting everything on par *IF* we learn how to maximize our racial bonuses. Example: NOBODY can outbreed/colonize me. I'm confident of that. I have no other choice but to maximize my racial bonuses to the limit...focus on econ stuff and build CBs until the cows come home...you can uproot me at points A, B or C...but not points D, E, F, G through Z.

 

4) The faster tech becomes, the smaller the tech tree becomes....the smaller the tech tree becomes, the less diverse we become. I dont want a game where the tech is so streamlined where it reduces into a "I have more X-Wing Fighters than you do therfore I win" type of game.

 

5) You said it yourself, good chap....you can make it work by laying low and flying under the radar of the bullies with Mk 9K Super Weapons until your RBs kick in and you pool all those tons upon tons of exploration finds and other perks you manage to accumulate through smart game play.

 

Question: Have any of you even looked at the resources it takes to build a super fleet?

 

If you are building super fleets while I am building CBs and Exploration ships...you BETTER find me first...and FAST...or I will eventually: 1) outproduce you into the ground; 2) outexplore you into the ground and 3) counter your tech

 

What advantage is there in the well-rounded research tactic?

 

We can hold our own across the board until we find out what we actually NEED to win the match. The aggressor might bring ships with superior tech...but in my case, QUANTITY may overhwelm quality in the long run - or until I can figure out how to counter you.

 

So what if the bully has all those nice shiny Mk Killer Super Weapons.....they wont have Elite ground techs...or superior MDDs....you can't completely overwhelm someone with a few juicy torpedos. You still have to get me on the ground! And in my case...a THOUSAND grounds!

 

 

I've been known to be optimistic about tech pace on these boards. I think if the tech pace was faster, the SPACING issue would be initially 'solved'...and then MORE of a problem....

 

SPACING is more vital than tech pace. I think we will bump into each other a lot faster (the survival of this game depends on it) and when we do, I don't think us non-SRP races will be lit up into a thousand (or in the Gremloid/Spawn case - MILLION ) little pieces overnight.

[woolfe99]

I agree with Eternus' points about tech pacing for the most part. It's a huge tree, but the slow pace ensures that no one empire will ever acquire but a fraction of all available tech. This creates a diversity of positions that could end up being a lot of fun, BUT...

 

The larger problem is this total non-transparency of the rules system. Basically, you don't even know what the systems you research, design and build DO. And worse yet, because of vague battle reports you may not even have a general idea after your use them. The tech tree in this game is *intrinsically* facsinating. It's fun to look at all the techs and read their descriptions. The problem is the extrinsic value of the tech itself. If you never know what anything does, you never get a feel for those Mk XIII Galaxy Rippers you spent 100 turns patentialy researching. Regardless of the actual pacing of tech, this issue has got to be addressed in the long haul or people will start dropping like flies shortly after the serious battles begin. No one wants to spend years and loads of $'s building up to something that's totally anti-climactic.

 

- woolfe

[EternusIV]

Woolfe-

 

Thats a great point and from a GAMING perspective, its a perfect point.

 

Let me play devil's advocate though....

 

Vague battle reports and missing "data" also make the game more immersive. How can our beloved empire prepare for the likes of Gremloids, Dragons, Ferrets, Owls, Winged Monkeys, Psychobabblers or whatever other concoctions lie in wait?

 

We can't really.

 

Its tough. I think its fair to assume that Mk III > Mk II > Mk I and the basic notion that the higher up in the tech tree you are, the better off you are going to be. I like overall fleet ratings...I think its a perfect match. A ship is more than its components and a fleet is more than its collection of ships. Basic ratings work fine for me.

 

My tentative ship designs are pretty balanced. Large ships with good and varied defenses with diverse firepower. Once I know what I'm up against, the engineers earn their paychecks

 

I hope that the space combat results are ambiguous enough to retain the immersiveness, but informative enough to give us insights on how we won/lost. I know that it isn't YOUR RATING > MY RATING THEREFORE YOU WIN! I also hope that our battle report details are related to our sensory technology.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely...I'm just pointing out the immersive factors that make the current system stand out.

 

I have no idea how the weapon tree I'm exploring will match up against any aggressors that come my way. Realistically, nobody would until the conflict started. Win, or lose, I hope that I can learn the strengths/weaknesses of my tech path through trial and error -- rather than look at a flowchart and a couple of grids and say: "aaaaah, I need 4,234 more CIDS next time against those and I'll win"

 

On the flip side of everything I've said, you make a GREAT point -- I hope there is enough balance so that EVERY path is a viable path. If RTG can pull that off, they will have found the holy grail of gaming in my book.

[woolfe99]

Eternus:

 

I think you get my point, and I certainly get yours. What I want to know from the tech tree is generally speaking what each tech DOES. I don't want any formula. I want: "the primary role of sensors in battle is that they reduce the probability of enemy weapons hitting your ships." Certainly your engineers would know this. They designed the sensors for a purpose after all. How about: "computers are used primarily in weapons targetting and fire control." Or "the Chemical Munitions Torpedo has a low warhead yield, but tends to degrade the effectiveness of enemy ships by inflicting casualties on its crews." Take a look at the ANZ's for those techs. You get stuff like "computers effect a variety of ships systems." Sorry, but when I gain technologies, I want to imagine in what way they are benefitting me.

 

In a battle report, I want, round by round, an estimate of the percentage of each weapon type that hit, and a word description of the approximate damage done by each battery of weapons. I don't want, "round 1: you destroy 3 enemy behemoth dreadnoughts; you lose two imperial star cruisers to enemy weapons fire." If you're going to have 2000 techs on this tree and make people research for years to get some techs, people at least deserve to see how they operate.

 

I agree that you can make general assumptions about item functionality, design balanced ships with some of everything, and probably do alright. But my issue has only a little to do with success or failure in combat. It has more to do with having a "feel" for the stuff you're researching and building. If you can't imagine the specific role of your tech goodies, they all become "samey" and the game takes on a flat, 2-dimensional quality. This is a MAJOR fun factor issue for me, and in the long run if it isn't corrected it's a deal breaker.

 

 

- woolfe

[PhaseDragon]

I am in total agreement for more explanation as to what each system affects or doesn't affect. When designing ships with a specific purpose in mind you almost have to include everything that MIGHT have an influence on what you are trying to achieve in your design.

 

And Of course everyone loves flavorful descriptions of battle. It's what makes war glorious, victory triumphant, and defeat crushing.

[RTGPete]

Eternus:

 

I think you get my point, and I certainly get yours. What I want to know from the tech tree is generally speaking what each tech DOES. I don't want any formula. I want: "the primary role of sensors in battle is that they reduce the probability of enemy weapons hitting your ships." Certainly your engineers would know this. They designed the sensors for a purpose after all. How about: "computers are used primarily in weapons targetting and fire control." Or "the Chemical Munitions Torpedo has a low warhead yield, but tends to degrade the effectiveness of enemy ships by inflicting casualties on its crews." Take a look at the ANZ's for those techs. You get stuff like "computers effect a variety of ships systems." Sorry, but when I gain technologies, I want to imagine in what way they are benefitting me.

 

In a battle report, I want, round by round, an estimate of the percentage of each weapon type that hit, and a word description of the approximate damage done by each battery of weapons. I don't want, "round 1: you destroy 3 enemy behemoth dreadnoughts; you lose two imperial star cruisers to enemy weapons fire." If you're going to have 2000 techs on this tree and make people research for years to get some techs, people at least deserve to see how they operate.

 

I agree that you can make general assumptions about item functionality, design balanced ships with some of everything, and probably do alright. But my issue has only a little to do with success or failure in combat. It has more to do with having a "feel" for the stuff you're researching and building. If you can't imagine the specific role of your tech goodies, they all become "samey" and the game takes on a flat, 2-dimensional quality. This is a MAJOR fun factor issue for me, and in the long run if it isn't corrected it's a deal breaker.

 

 

- woolfe

Sensors are dual purpose items, useful strategically in certain cases (if the enemy has something like a "cloaking device", clearly you'll need sensors to try and spot him). They are also defensive systems, and like all other defensive systems in the game they most definitely "reduce the probability of enemy weapons hitting your ships." by degrading the effectiveness of those weapons.

 

"computers are used primarily in weapons targetting and fire control." is a true statement. Computers, sensors and other defensive system functionality is spelled out in detail in the naval combat primer.

 

I went into a lot of detail in the naval combat notes to describe the workings of various ship systems. This is a whole lot easier than going through thousands of tech items, modifying their descriptions, and then distributing those new descriptions to the appropriate empires.

 

The naval combat results can be beefed up with more and more detail - it just takes time, and learning what you guys want so that I can add it in. There will always be a healthy dose of mystery in the battle results, with ship-by-ship, blow-by-blow results not being possible. Weapon effectiveness versus defensive system analysis can be done. It should be noted that absolute, exacting details on every aspect of the Supernova II combat system led to drone and fighter strikes - and no other strategy. You either used fighters and drones, or you lost, and this was because everybody knew exactly how the point defense system worked and how ships were targeted in battle. There were lots of other weapons, but the dissemination of the combat details made it far too easy to exploit the system. This held true for computers and maneuverability as well - get them high enough, and your ships enjoyed the 5%/95% advantage in conventional combat. Mystery helps a lot to spice things up - otherwise the number crunchers tend to rule completely, much to the disappointment of the folks who enjoy a variety of weapons and other gear. Did anybody actually read the Supernova II combat results after they'd been in a few battles? Each ship firing on each other ship - great stuff...but it went on and on, with some battles running dozens or even hundreds of pages in length. It got to be a bit much.

 

I'll take a look at adding more detail to the space combat results - I'd like to get the weapon descriptions in, to let the other side know what he's being hit with. An analysis of the effectiveness of each side's weapons versus the enemy defensive systems sounds interesting as well.

[RTGPete]

It is a mystery to me why we cannot trade tech know how, sure it could get out of hand with an elder-younger race boost but instead of making it impossible why not just make it hard? Ie for example:

 

* Tech Trade could only happen on a world where both Empires have built a certain installation and have a Master Scientist or such stationed? Could be an expensive science complex or such

* You could trade 1 tech max per turn

* You could only trade techs that you have the prereq techs for, so as to prevent quick uplifting of a species by giving them the Mk VII Reality Ripper.

 

This would give much more incentive for trade and peaceful contact than trading weaponry and defensive parts for ships, which you only could do with someone you trusted completely or you would actually be telling the other guy exactly what paths you'd been going down and leaving yourself wide open.

 

Also I think there actually should be some sort of research bonus from building science colonies or other types of colonies outside your homesystem and placing scientists there, wow an alien system, a completly alien world, your scientific community would be wetting their pants while researching razor wire!

 

Research is sooo slow, scientist breaktrhoughs far between and if you have explored anything, you will be getting 6th gen stuff hits and such wich isn't that much use right now...

 

Now...where is my turn

These are good ideas, but the trading of item technology directly will not occur. It can be exploited mercilessly, and has a severe thinning effect on the tech tree. If you want to trade technology, just build the items and give/trade them off. This has the effect of minimizing the plague-like effect that direct trading of technology would have on the galaxy.

 

The inability of one empire to gain the technology of another empire is a major tool in the survival trait of every empire. A weak empire that holds something that cannot be taken from him grants him survival and trade possibilities. Even if he did not participate in technology trading, others would. He would become unimportant in the tech-trading economy....and would no longer have his ace-in-the-hole: his tech.

 

Research is slow on purpose. It doesn't matter if everybody has 2nd generation weapons or 4th. It's deliberately slow to spread things out and greatly decrease the obsolete-tech problem that many games of this nature face. Research Center progress dominates the equation, with everything else adding in small amounts. This is done to benefit the small empires who might not otherwise colonize everywhere. There is an advantage gained via construction, but still...Research Centers the centerpiece.

 

Working on turns today, in between answering messages

[EternusIV]

otherwise the number crunchers tend to rule completely, much to the disappointment of the folks who enjoy a variety of weapons and other gear.

 

Amen.

 

Knowing the exact function and value of every weapon/defensive system would completely ruin the game in my opinion.

 

Although I like Woolfe's suggestions. Rather than exacting details per space combat, it would be nice to know a general sense WHY weapons did not hit or systems failed etc etc etc.

 

I can put on my "number crucnher" hat as fiercely as anyone. I think percentages will lead to a number cruncher game (Boooooooooorrrrriiing ZZZZZZZZZZ -- hooray for the mathematically inclined - too bad for those who want a little intrigue and immersion? No thanks.) In fact, I know it will. Its bad enough that we need spreadsheets for the economy - but I finally concede that it is a necessary evil to preserve the unique system.

 

Perhaps something akin to the research progress descriptions?

 

I'm operating under the assumption that the whole fighters/drones thing has been properly balanced...otherwise the issue of detailed reporting is moot.

 

I think trading technology would devastate the game and glad that RTG won't allow it. Those were the arguments I was hoping to hear and am relieved that the tech tree is slow and big. Diversity is a wonderful thing in games like these. I don't want to be able to develop everything....because that means YOU can develop everything....which translates to: "My 10 Tanks beat your 9 Tanks" Whoopie.

 

I'm also glad to hear the implication that millions upon millions of EXPL results will not grant an overwhelming research advantage.

[DWillard]

Great thread!

 

I definitely find myself agreeing with most of the points brought up by WKE, Shadow, and Woolfe.

 

Here is a brief summary of the issues as I see them:

 

 

1. Diminishing returns - More severe that I expected.

 

2. Cost of items/technology in research points - Way More expensive than I expected.

 

3. Size of Tech Tree - Much more massive than I expected.

 

4. Hidden Tech Tree - Expected it to be hidden but not to be such a mystery of how to get from point A to point B. This ties in with #5. (WKE has some excellent comments about this earlier in the thread)

 

5. Lots of multiple pre-requisites - To me this seems to hinder specialization, especially when combined with #4.

 

6. Each empire fixed at 25 RC with no way to add more - Thought maybe you could add to this by conquering other homeworlds or taking in advanced neutrals but this does seem to be a good way to keep research from getting out of control.

 

7. Add here your personal pet peeves about the "slow" research aspects of the game. I know there are more but I'll stop here.

 

 

Any one of these can be argued (probably by Eternus) as to how they are actually good for the game. AND ACTUALLY I AGREE 100% . Any two, three, four, or five of these are good for the game and I think would accomplish what RTG intended.

 

I think where the problem comes in is that ALL of these (and more) have been applied to the game. It's not any single "problem" but the combination of all of them that has put a big damper on the game for me.

[Cargus10]

I can see both sides of the "number cruncher" debate. But what I can't reconcile is why I can't evaluate technologies I ALREADY HAVE against each other.

 

For example, I can build, say, Mk II Pursuit Missiles and Pulse Laser CIDS. I should be able to calculate how effective the PLCIDS are vs. the Mk II Pursuit Missiles, and so have an idea of how many to put on a given ship. Right now, it's anyone's guess as to how much point defense, sensors, armor, etc. you need. Granted, I may not know how my PLCIDS would stack up against Mk IV Heavy Missles, since I can't build those, but I CAN build the Mk II Pursuit Missiles, and I know their performance profiles.

 

The analogy is , say, the PAK-88 in WWII. Once the Germans decided to shoot at tanks with them (and not just aircraft), they had a good idea of how they would work based on what their PkzW III's could do. They'd not know how to guage effectivness against, say, a Leapord equivalent (except in general terms), but for same-generation armor, they sure knew they had a good system. We don't even know that!

[woolfe99]

I like the way this thread is going.

 

I do not want a weapon by weapon analysis, or even necessarily a ship by ship analysis. And I do not care about damage being expressed in hit points. What I'd like to see is each battery of a particular weapon type (meaning the total number of weapons of a like type in your fleet), with an indication of how many hit (or at least an approximation), and a semantic description of damage done (e.g. "slight damage" or "damage absorbed by enemy shields" or "massive damage".) I'd also like some indication of what weapons and defense systems the enemy has. That much information should allow me to roughly gauge the effectiveness of my ship components, and give me a better feel for the tech I gained.

 

Thanks for listening.

 

- Dave

[EternusIV]

DWillard / Cargus--

 

I'm not so psyched about the current system as to say its perfect and I expect tweaks here and there.

 

Here are two things you guys brought up (collectively) that I'd like to see:

 

1) Diminshing Returns lessened or removed....I mean....we each only have 25 RCs anyway, right? Who cares if I want to use al 25 toward a certain tech. They should count as 1 RC each. The tech tree progresses geometrically anyway. Hopefully the tech tree is big enough and the higher technology advancement slow enough that we dont need diminishing returns. Crap. I just reliazed thats the original topic. I'm going back on myself. But now that I think I have a feel for how huge this tree is...perhaps Diminishing REturns ARE too harsh. Only Pete and Russ know how this would affect tech pace and balance -- so to some degree we have to trust the makers.

 

2) Ratings or descriptions that better differentiate our existing technologies against each other. cargus explained it better. I suppose that ratings of "poor" "fair" "adequete" etc are handy - but perhaps an order than can generate a list or hierarchy of effectiveness of each item against each other.

 

Like: New Order EFF <Category>

 

"This order will sort your existing technologies in order of effectiveness per each category: Ground, Sensor, Point Defense etc."

 

Its a long shot. But something like that might be pretty cool and create a compromise between the advocates of the vague (which I am probably the sole member ) and the ones who seek a bit more objectivity for planning purposes (perfectly rational)

[woolfe99]

Eternus:

 

It should be noted that absolute, exacting details on every aspect of the Supernova II combat system led to drone and fighter strikes - and no other strategy. You either used fighters and drones, or you lost, and this was because everybody knew exactly how the point defense system worked and how ships were targeted in battle.

I never played SNII, but this sounds like a balance issue as much as it was rules transparency issue. If one weapon system is clearly better than all others because there is some kind of loophole, then you have a problem. A certain degree of non-transparency will help (without going overboard), but careful balance of your various combat formulae and weapon characteristics should solve the problem. I realize that in a game as complex as this, it's difficult to impossible to balance everything perfectly. But I assume you recognize whatever the problem was in SNII and have taken steps to rectify it. As a game designer myself, I recognize that perfecting a system is a long process frought with as much error as trial. To a certain extent though, you have to realize that if players can't understand anything about how things work, they're going to become frustrated and bored. At some point, you've got to be willing to part with enough information to make players feel like they can do real strategic planning, then hope your system turns out to be well balanced, with no major loopholes.

 

I for one have faith that this time you have avoided at least the major loopholes and can stand behind your design. And if you haven't, correct it in the code. We'll forgive you. We're a very forgiving lot.

 

- woolfe