Multiple RC Penalty to Tech Advancement

[woolfe99]

On the tech trading issue, I am for the most part in agreement with Pete and Eternus. Even a somewhat restricted tech trade system would get out of hand rapidly. If I could trade with another empires for even 1 tech a turn that I have the prereq for, I'd go all out to find as many empires as possible, as quickly as possible. The research system in this game is designed so that, at least after you acquire the first tier of tech, each tech you gain is kind of a big deal. Tech trading would cheapen that, and create the obvious strategy - those who explore most aggressively and are *lucky* enough to find more empires will do substantially better than those who explore less or are less lucky.

 

That said, a seriously restricted tech trade would be fine. You could restrict it to trading 1 tech with each empire per game for example. Or you could permit tech trading with only advanced neutrals, and only 1 tech per neutral, that you must have the prereq for, and must successfully dip the neutral, and you have no control over what tech you receive. As between a seriously restricted tech trade like that and no tech trade at all, I guess I marginally prefer allowing a small amount of it to add some spice to the game. But I can go either way. I don't consider a bar on tech trading to be a defect in the game, and I would consider unrestriced or even somewhat restricted tech trade to be a major defect.

 

I wouldn't mind giving a player 1 new RC for every player homeworld they conquer, but that ain't going to happen in this game, so I'll let it go.

 

- woolfe

[Hiver]

___________________________________

 

MAN, it's hard to keep this thread on the original topic!!

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Thanks, Eternus, for bringing us back to the subject - the Diminishing Returns of Multiple RC's.

 

My point was - why is it SO harsh? There's already an inherent penalty if someone decides to use all 25 RC's in pursuit of only one technology, because it means he has 24 RC's that are NOT being spent in OTHER technologies. I understand that we don't want people to get critical techs too early, but even if they do, that's all they'll be getting early. Everything else will be coming in later than normal. To me, that only adds to specialization and diversity between races. As many people have pointed out here, it looks like the tech tree is sufficiently broad enough to handle research bonuses of any kind, because no one could possibly EVER research it all. And having unknown pre-requisites for many techs further bolsters the tech tree's robustness.

 

I see no game-unbalancing reason why any race should ever find itself paying five times the research cost for half the tech (as I did, for a while.)

 

As this poll stands now, almost 50% of respondents feel the penalty is (at least) heavier than it should be, while 50% seem to like it. At the very least, this seems to be a very divisive issue that perhaps our GM's might want to take a closer look at.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's another opinion (completely my own)...I like the fact that tech advances are slower than expected and that the tech tree is huge and diverse. I think that Pete and Russ have done an awesome job in balancing technological advance in such a way that nobody is ever likely to rule the universe by lording supertechnology over everyone else. But I think that same tech balance has rendered research-bonus based races impotent. Since 99% of our technology advance is based solely on our allocation of research centers, our research bonuses really mean very little. I think the research bonus racial advantage has been sacrificed almost completely (and maybe rightly so, I don't know) in the name of game balance. In hindsight, colonization bonuses would have been a much smarter investment for a starting race. Perhaps research bonuses should be made much less expensive during race creation...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DWillard]

___________________________________

 

MAN, it's hard to keep this thread on the original topic!!

-------------------------------------------------------

It's difficult to keep this thread on the original topic because, quite frankly, it's nearly impossible to discuss any one aspect of research without including the impact of all areas of research.

 

Take a look at your last post for example. In addition to diminishing returns, you bring up that the tech pace is slow, the tech tree is huge and diverse, game balance concerning research, research bonuses from racial design, and colonization. Why? The same reason everone else did -- they are all critically intertwined.

 

 

So.......back on topic, I'm right there with you. I think the diminishing returns are too severe. I started out using multiple research centers for the sole purpose of figuring out the formula and I don't think it was worth it. Even though I only did it for a few short turns, it shocked me how much research I "lost" and it really didn't help me get those techs that much faster. Not fast enough to make it worth while.

[Laserwolf]

How about this Pete?

 

LFE <fleet 1> <fleet 2> = a self initiated battle

[Cargus10]

I'd think that tech trading could get horribly out of hand, yes. But there are ways to allow it but limit it. In specific, each tech has a point value that one has to overcome to R&D it. Further, if you are given something totally, you could harldy figure it out yourself without *some* effort. So, how about this - to trade some tech from Empire 1 to Empire 2, Empire 2 must have all the pre-reqs allready. Further, they would have to have co-located colonies with an Imperial Science Complex each. In that case, Empire 1 could give 1 "point" worth of a tech per turn to Empire 2 if empire 2 were already devoting at least 1 RC to that tech. Further, there would have to be a scientist character from each race at the location.

I don't think that would be horribly unbalancing, actually. A lot of effort to do it, and it would provide an R&D bonus, but not an outright gift.

 

Would be a way to "trade" ground technologies, horizon techs, etc.

 

Just a suggestion

[hobknob]

Here is one back on the origianl topic-

 

As I see it, if you did not have a diminishing return on research you would drill down to anything you wanted and be done with it. Then the race would be for the best path to go down. The biggest best organized group of players would quickly make the necessary scrifices to drill down to anything that seemed important and quickly figure out what you need to seriously out class anybody else. This doesn't work.

 

If the multiple research penalty is reduced ANY then it also cheapens high researh bonuses. Anybody who chose serious disadvantages to get a high RB would then feel cheated as the RB value will have been reduced just so those folks who didn't choose high research bonuses could get some tech faster.

 

There a some who regret their lifeform choices and others who are happy. I found the original descriptions and my expectations did not reflect what actually happens in the game. If I could do it over I would likely change a few things. If you find yourself lamenting the fact that you don't have any SRP's spend or that research is taking too long then do somethng about it, redesign and start over or go for the species engineering option.

 

The answer to the tech dilemma that some face is not to be found in reducing the multiple RC penalty as this thread has suggested. It is there for a reason and on this topic I stand firmly behing RTG.

 

I don't see the perceived slowness of tech advances to be the real problem anyway. I believe the real problem is just in not knowing enough about what you have and there being no way to get any more factual information.

 

That is another topic altogether though.

 

enjoy

[RTGPete]

As this poll stands now, almost 50% of respondents feel the penalty is (at least) heavier than it should be, while 50% seem to like it. At the very least, this seems to be a very divisive issue that perhaps our GM's might want to take a closer look at.

 

Here's another opinion (completely my own)...I like the fact that tech advances are slower than expected and that the tech tree is huge and diverse. I think that Pete and Russ have done an awesome job in balancing technological advance in such a way that nobody is ever likely to rule the universe by lording supertechnology over everyone else. But I think that same tech balance has rendered research-bonus based races impotent. Since 99% of our technology advance is based solely on our allocation of research centers, our research bonuses really mean very little. I think the research bonus racial advantage has been sacrificed almost completely (and maybe rightly so, I don't know) in the name of game balance. In hindsight, colonization bonuses would have been a much smarter investment for a starting race. Perhaps research bonuses should be made much less expensive during race creation...

Faster research would just mean everybody would get higher-technology items faster. Some players want to get to the higher levels as fast as possible, while others are more interested in building what they have without worrying about the fast-research-means-many-obsolete-items issue. Can't please everybody

 

The racial research bonus is extremely expensive, but it has a gigantic payoff: if gaining items is deemed important, the racial bonus is an outstanding way to boost the limited research center output.

 

I run several test empires, and I'll say right out that one of them has 18 centers on a single item right now. It wants to get a particular advance, and it wants it bad. Since it's just a test empire, it cannot interact with other players to gain any high-tech items: it has to develop everything on its own. Once that item is finished, it will switch those centers to something else. Sure, it's inefficient. But inefficiency doesn't mean anything: if I put 1 center on that item, it would take too long...that empire wants bigger and better things along that particular tech tree. The choice is hard but there it is: get up that tech branch fast, or go up it slow. The Emperor and his advisors determined that efficiency was less important that the item in question. The scientists who argued against the Plan, desiring to put 1 or 2 centers on each of their pet projects, have mysteriously disappeared....

[DWillard]

I'm not so sure I like the idea of trading techs. Regardless of restrictions I think it would be a bad idea. At least I havn't heard any restrictions strict enough.

 

And on a side note, if you already have the pre-reqs then why not just research it yourself. I mean, your going down that branch of the tree anyway. I'm not trying to knock down any suggestions, just batting some ideas back and forth.

 

 

...........And now back to our regularly scheduled topic - Diminishing Returns and how it affects you.

 

Hobknob, I'm not 100% sure on the math on this but I don't think lessening the diminishing returns penalty is more detrimental to those with a higher research bonus.

 

As an example, lets say if you put 3 RC into one item it actually generates the equivalent of 1 RC. An empire with no Research Bonus (RB) would then generate 1 pt. plus no bonus = 1 pt. An empire with a 30% RB would generate 1 pt. plus 30% = 1.3 pts. The higer RB empire generated 0.3 pts. more.

 

Now lets take away the penalty altogether so that 3 RC in one item generates 3 pts. rather than 1 pt. The empire with no RB would generate 3 pts. plus no bonus = 3 pts. The other empire would generate 3 pts plus 30% = 3.9 pts., or 0.9 pts more than the no RB empire. By eliminating the diminishing returns, the higher RB empire increased its lead from 0.3 in the first example to 0.9 in the second example.

 

If this is correct, then the diminishing returns penalty actually diminishes the value of the extremely expensive RB.

 

I could very well be missing something so if anyone sees any flaws in the math, ect., please speak up.

 

Let me also say that I'm not advocating doing away with the penalty completely, that just worked easily in an example.

[WKE235]

I run several test empires, and I'll say right out that one of them has 18 centers on a single item right now. It wants to get a particular advance, and it wants it bad. Since it's just a test empire, it cannot interact with other players to gain any high-tech items: it has to develop everything on its own. Once that item is finished, it will switch those centers to something else. Sure, it's inefficient. But inefficiency doesn't mean anything: if I put 1 center on that item, it would take too long...that empire wants bigger and better things along that particular tech tree.

Pete -- please note that for your test empire, you have one advantage for your experimentation we do not. You know the tech tree. So when you start researching for bigger and better things along a particular tech tree, you know what is out there. You know that tree may prove interesting. We players on the other hand are completely in the dark. Items on the tree do not open up unless all the pre-requisites are known. We do not know they exist until we through luck hit the right combination.

 

A good example is the recent news on the Nuclear Transwarp Drive. Researching Improved Fuel seemed to do nothing, so people were avoiding advanced fuel. But with no advance in that tech, NTWD does not show up as a research item.

 

What I think would work better would be if completing a tech gave us a list of new items opened for research, and, a list of potential items for the future if we achieve other advances. And we could analyze them to locate the pre-reqs and then better direct out research. For example, if when I completed Mk I Force Shields I was told that NTWD was a potential future tech (still missing some pre-reqs), I would have analyzed (getting the scientists thoughts on what is required) and then adjusted research to get advanced fuel.

[WKE235]

Dwillard / Hobknob -- I think the math should be more like this.

 

Player 1 - No RB - 1RC spent = 1RC value gained.

Player 2 - 30% RB - 1RC spent = 1.3 RC value gained

 

Now, lets use 4 RC's each

 

P1 - No RB - 4 RC spent = 2 RC gained

P2 - 30% RB - 4 RC spent = 2.6 R RC gained

 

At least this is what I am seeing, I think. So the diminishing return is applied based on the number of RC's before any bonus is applied. Hence the net effect is the RB player always gets the bonus and it is not reduced in any way.

 

Now, if 4RC went to 5.2 RC (apply bonus) then down to 2.3 (diminishing return), then the person with research bonuses would have a greatly diminished value, a penalty for their bonus (yuck). Anything reducing the impact of dimished returns would have been a boon to the RB player.

 

As it is, since the bonus is applied after the DR, the is no real benefit or detriment to the RB player. Lets say diminishin returns were removed (Oh happy, joyous, day). Then P1 would get 4 RC and player 2 would get 5.2, still just 30%. Each would get things exactly twice as fast. So no detriment to either player.

[RTGPete]

Some thoughts to ponder while the turns go out :lol: Warning: made-up #'s used here. Better to use something than no numbers at all in a discussion like this, but don't take the #'s I am using literally (are there really items that take a whopping 50 research points each? ).

 

To alleviate any concerns about the racial research bonus, I'll come out and say <oh my gosh Pete's giving out something> that the racial bonus suffers no detrimental effects from the diminishing rate of returns. By this I mean: if 1 Research Center generates +1 research point, and you have a 20% research bonus, you'd get +1.2 points toward the appropriate item. If 5 Research Centers normally generated only +2 research points (I'm making this up! It's just an example!) then you'd gain +2.4 points toward the appropriate item. Still a 20% bonus. You can choose how many RC's you want to devote to something, but no matter what you choose, your racial bonus remains completely intact. Somebody else who had no research bonus would gain the base +1 or +2 points per turn, so you'd be 20% ahead of him given the same RC assignment by each of you.

 

Suppose 25 Research Centers generated a mere +5 points. Terrible efficiency. (I'm just making this up. Just an example. Don't try this at home. Caveat emptor). You have a +30% racial modifier. That would mean +6.5 points toward one item per turn. Ok, you could put 1 Research Center on it and gain +1.3 points per turn, or 25 Research Centers on it and gain +6.5 points per turn. If you had lots of similar items to research, and each took 25 total Research Points to achieve, you could gain twenty-five of those kinds of items in 25 / 1.3 = 20 turns. Alternatively, you could gain one of them in only 25 / 6.5 = 4 turns. Then repeat and get 4 more items. In the same 20 turns, you'd get only five of that sort of item instead of twenty-five (using 25 Centers on one item versus 1 Center on twenty-five different items). Sure, twenty-five items is better. It's a lot better. But you gained the ability to use the first item in a mere 4 turns, giving you 16 more turns to actually do something with it--like bring the Great Fire to your most irritating neighbor, who is plugging away with great efficiency, but on items he doesn't have yet. And the second item had 12 turns of useful life, then 8 and 4 turns for the next items. There must be something good about getting items sooner, or you wouldn't be worried about the whole efficiency question to begin with.

 

Another example (this one is better). Suppose you want to get a 25 point item, and after that you want an item that takes 50 more points to get (once again I'm making all of this up. Just for the sake of the example....fabricated #'s). +30% racial bonus would net you +1.3 points per turn. To get that 50 point item you need the 25 point one first, because the irritating tech tree requires it

 

That's 25 / 1.3 = 20 turns with 1 Research Center assigned. Then 50 / 1.3 = 39 turns to get the item you really want. 39 + 20 = 59 turns. That's over two real years of waiting. You could have used your other 24 Research Centers on other things--that's very good--but 2 years is a loooong time to wait.

 

Alternatively, you bite the bullet and put all 25 RC's on the job. All other research halts. Mass hysteria on the homeworld. Raining cats and dogs. Hot hail. Fanatics have taken over the government. Scientists everywhere are screaming about the efficiency, the madness of it all. Fortunately, you're the Emperor, and what you say goes. Suppose you're getting the +6.5 points per turn again. That's 25 / 6.5 = 4 turns. Then 50 / 6.5 = 8 more turns. 12 turns to get only one item, but it's a good item. 6 months is also a long time. But there's no other way to go - that's as good as you can get. If you really, really want that item, efficiency doesn't mean anything at all. It will range from 59 turns to 12 turns, depending on how many RC's you assign. Have a better racial bonus and you can drop it more (can it get better than the fictitious +30%? Who knows? It sure is expensive to buy, though, whatever the final % )

 

Final thought: suppose you cannot slot 1 that last item. Maybe you still have some points left over and can slot 1 the 25 pointer. Then you start thinking about the item after the 50 point one. You want it. You don't know what it is, but that doesn't matter, because nothing matters once you fall into the pit of 25-Centers-on-one-item. Hysteria continues to rule the home planet. If you can't slot 1 the 50, you probably can't slot 1 whatever comes after it either. That means a long, long research trek. Fortunately, nobody is as insane as you are, and you devote all 25 of your RC's to the job. Your plan is to get something that nobody else will go for. Nobody's that crazy. Nobody but you. Efficiency in research is thrown out the window to gain the holy grail: some weird 6th or 7th Generation Antimatter Gravitonic Gapper Zapper, or whatever strikes your fancy. It will take a long time--but that favors you, because if nobody else wants to devote the effort to getting it, they'll just never get it. Good. Is it worth it? Who knows! Combine this sort of thinking with item trading (you don't have to kill all of your neighbors, after all) and maybe you can all benefit from mass research insanity....

 

Right, none of this takes into account any scientist breakthroughs, exploration hits or anything else. But RC's dominate the equation, and you can't count on anything else anyway.

 

There you go. Of course, you could just devote 2 or 3 RC's to each of ten or so different items, and you'll do fine. Or even spread 'em out with only 1 RC per item. It doesn't get any more efficient that that. Eventually you'll come up against the Research Wall, and you'll be tempted to put more Centers onto one item. You know you're at the Wall then: that's the point you know you have reached the balance-point decision between worrying about an abstract efficiency question and the reality of I-Want-It--Now-Not-2-Years-From-Now

[DWillard]

Thanks for the correction WKE and Pete.

[RTGPete]

Thanks for the correction WKE and Pete.

Were you wrong on something? I thought you had it right, anyway. Racial bonus is a % gain after the diminishing returns formula is applied to the Research Centers, so it washes out.

[DWillard]

I think I had the math right but I drew the wrong conclusion that the greater the diminishing return, the more it hurt empires with higher bonuses. I guess it's past my bedtime.

[Phoenix Arisen]

Fanatics have taken over the government.

 

Ahhh, so THAT'S what it take to create fanatics.... 8-)