ISG Dev Diary #3: Research

Discussion in 'Development News' started by Adam Solo, Jan 30, 2017.

  1. dayrinni

    dayrinni Ensign

    Posts:
    45
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    1. Is the discovery of the strategic resources all based in the same tech field or different fields, or discovered in some other means?

    2. How many levels of technology per each field? 5, 10, 15?
     
  2. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    A partially random tech tree will be a bonus to the game and is not far off from reality either.
    On this one planet with a single species we can see this already.
    Want to buy the best in jet fighter technology? buy American
    Want the best in surface to air defences? buy Russian.
    There is no need to include the many reasons why this is so in the game, an abstraction works well.
    As long as the basics are available and only a percentage of the tech is either unique or random you will enhance the replayability of the game and keep it fun. The key, in my opinion is to balance it well so that no "critical" tech is missing. (Shields, etc)
     
  3. Edward the Hun

    Edward the Hun Moderator Lieutenant

    Posts:
    206
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Incidentally, that example would be less due to randomness and more as a direct consequence to each other. Russia couldn't keep up with US avionics so they devised means to counter it, which put more pressure on the US to have even better jets. We are seeing the same thing in the nuclear arms race (which still wages despite the fall of the Soviet Union, just that it took a different form).

    You are right, but that example was less random and more of a feedback loop on itself. I would list the deferences between the area of specialties between Europe, America, and Japan with technology. Also, it's late so I can't think of exact examples but you can easily see the fields each excel in and what sort of innovations each produces.

    What is interesting to note is once you have your niche you stick to it till something shakes it up or it becomes obsolete and you go into another field.

    This also raises the question about diplomacy and tech. In my previous example the partnership between these three regions lets their areas of speciality be shared so all members benefit from each other. However, it becomes too easy to exploit tech sharing in a 4X game. But this is a discussion best left when we discuss diplomacy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. csebal

    csebal Cadet

    Posts:
    13
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    That is a completely acceptable explanation for the use of randomization, but you will never achieve that level of consistency and sense with a randomized tech tree. It would be hard even if the technologies would be totally procedural, it is nigh impossible if they are static and pre-determined.

    Also talking your example, it is just a snapshot of where we are now. Nothing prevents russia from researching jet fighters more (and they do it). Its not that they do not have access to the tech, its just that they focused on other technologies instead. Same goes for America and surface to air missiles.

    Cutting access to technologies - especially good ones - is also an immersion breaker because of logic. Imagine this: you see the other nation having this very cool and much desired technology that you really want. What will you do? You will try to get your hands on it either by stealing or reverse engineering it. Contrary to popular belief, you do not need a sample of it to be able to reverse engineer, it just speeds up the process a lot, if you see how it ticks. Science and technology is defined usually by a core idea, which is the expanded into something applicable. Reverse engineering can start the moment you see the idea. Hear that someone is building a new bomb that is based on splitting atoms? Why did I not think of this myself, get working on it right away, we need one such bomb ourselves. Oh and spymaster, while the scientists are working on this, why don't you go and see if we could get our hands on their plans, maybe a working prototype (insert counter espionage sabotage hint here)?

    Essentially any technology that is publicly visible and not based on some weird racial abilities or missing strategic resource should be researchable, maybe with heavy penalties to how long it takes to research them, but come on.. the idea is publicly out there. Whats stopping you from trying to adapt it to your needs?

    Come to think of it, instead of cutting technologies out, why not make them take a varying amount of research to unlock? This variance would achieve the same end result of making the tech tree somewhat unpredictable, while still keep options open for researching things you want, even if at a premium. Also based on the logic outlined above, the cost of technologies should decrease with the amount of other races knowing them, after all.. the more nations have developed a technology, the harder it is to keep that technology under wraps. Also helps protect against runaway tech superiority, as "leading" the tech race would cost substantially more than just following a few technologies behind on the road already paved by the leader.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Interesting and basically correct... perhaps a different example is in order.
    Greek Fire, google it if you are not familiar with it.
    In essence, the Byzantines fielded crude flame throwers for centuries. This tech was visible to enemies and many tried to copy it, they couldn't.
    Here we had a technology that others saw but could not replicate even though they lived practically next door. Is it really that far fetched then for societies evolving light years apart to not only develop different technologies but for those technologies to be hard or even impossible to replicate?
    I think part of the problem is that we look at technology through the lens of a Sid Meir civ game. It really is not that straight forward.
    There are many factors that influence a society as regards tech research and progression, we need to abstract this in my opinion.
    Perhaps we should not only think of technology as what has been discovered but what may have also been missed.
    Think of dirigibles, had the airplane been invented much later it is very likely that dirigible technology would have evolved even further.
    In conclusion, while I understand that no system can be perfect, I still see a random or partially random tech tree as being quite realistic and certainly a lot more fun.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017
  6. csebal

    csebal Cadet

    Posts:
    13
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Your argument is blunt (kinda insulting) and outright wrong. Not only did you totally miss that little thing called age of enlightenment, which revolutionized scientific thinking and introduced things such as the scientific method, but you are also basing your example on the one thing which I specifically outlined as something that cannot be reverse engineering easily or at all: Technologies based upon unique racial features, or limited access resources. Greek fire is essentially a chemical compound of a composition closely guarded at a time, where analyzing chemical compounds was not only impossible, but has not even been conceived yet. In contrast, today you can often analyze chemical composition of chemical weapons days after the attack took place simply form the residue left on the site of the attack.

    Please read again, and carefully what I wrote: I specifically said, that could you give similar plausible explanations to every technology I am unable to access in my game, I would be more than happy with the randomization of the tech tree. It will not break the fundamental unity and logic of the universe I am asked to believe in. However if I am simply able to research a technology one day, but not able to do so another day without some proper explanation, especially if my neighbor can field that same technology, then I will raise my eyebrows and complain on how that just does not make any sense.

    Let me sum it up for you: I am not against randomization. I am against the kind of randomization we are talking about here, because it makes no sense and frankly it is near impossible or at least highly unfeasible to give believable explanations for it, resulting in the randomization breaking the suspension of disbelief.

    IF (and that is a huge if) they can give an explanation, an in game reason, for every technology I do not have access to in my game, similar to your examples, then by all means.. go ahead. It will be a very cool and atmospheric research system to play with, one that will help build stories. Thing is, in my opinion, doing that is simply not possible with a tech tree system based on fixed technologies, hence my suggestion of an alternative solution that would achieve a similar effect without any of the drawbacks of cutting the technologies outright.
     
  7. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    My apologies csebal, I had no intention of insulting you or the points you made, My response was indeed blunt and short as I am making an effort to introduce brevity to my posts, obviously I need to work on this.
    Now, seriously, you read more into my post than was there, this happens when people don't get to sit face to face and explain themselves fully.
    Now let me see if I can explain better,
    Greek fire. The Byzantines and their contemporaries had the same exact material at their disposal, If they could come up with this weapon then it should have been easier for their foes to copy it, especially after a ship carrying this system was captured intact, yet they were not able to do it. I realize that it was centuries ago but so what? It was an even playing field and I used the example and extrapolated on it. Does this mean an event like this will always happen? no, does it mean it will never happen? again no.

    I understand what you are saying and what you want is an in game explanation for such divergence, I simply don't share that need to the same degree as you. This is not an insult by the way, just a different opinion as what matters most to you in game like this may be different from me in some areas, on other areas we probably converge.

    I am a big believer on removing as many issues as possible, in light of that, I hope the devs do include some plausible in game explanation for the randomness of the tech tree as I am certain that others who will play it may share your distaste for such an arbitrary mechanic.

    In particular, I find your alternate idea of dealing with this issue through a variance in research times worth exploring, this has merit.

    Now a question, If I could take my processor and send it back in time to the 1920s would the "scientific method" allow them to understand it much less replicate it? By the same token would an unknown never before seen or used agent in an attack really be recognizable within days? or is it that we can only quickly detect what we already know and are familiar with?

    Apologies again, csebal

    P,S, (Your comment on my having missed the age of enlightenment was insulting to me and seemed deliberate,) My argument is neither wrong or right, it's my opinion, maybe I will change it once I find out what this age of enlightenment thing is. (sorry, I couldn't resist, peace be with you)
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017
  8. csebal

    csebal Cadet

    Posts:
    13
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    No apologies are necessary as no offense was taken and apparently none was meant and too many words were wasted on this already.

    As for the Greek Fire case, we must agree to disagree on the validity of that example.

    As for your question about a CPU sent back to 1920, well.. the answer is no, but this is a loaded question on many levels, shame on you for even asking.
    A) There are no what ifs in history, so anything I answer can be dismissed out of hand as speculation
    B) Sending someone in '20s a piece of plastic with some silicon in it with no context of what it is or does.. well.. let's be honest, if you look at a CPU, you can hardly tell its function, unless you know what it is for.

    Now let me turn this around, because there is something which has been proven times and again over the course of our history and it is coincidentally what I was talking about:
    If you were to play a short movie about computers today to scientists from 1920, you would be surely starting a technological revolution and here is why:
    - proof of work: Persistence is in our nature, but so is giving up. Knowing makes all the difference in this regard. If you know you can reach something, you will try and try until you do, given the rewards are great enough. If you do not know it is possible, you will give up eventually, dismissing it as impossible, no matter how much of a reward I offer you. Seeing something as "wonderful" working as today's computers would inspire scientists to tremendous effort in trying to replicate it.
    - providing the idea: Many things we take for granted today started out as fringe or accidental ideas or things someone intended for a different purpose, but turned out to be better this way. Playing a short movie about computers of today in 1920 would likely overload those watching with new ideas. Throughout modern history, many inventions were actually inspired by fiction, so in essence the invention was triggered by someone reading a book about it or watching a movie about it.
    (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ten-inventions-inspired-by-science-fiction-128080674/)
    Now imagine these guys did this knowing that what they read was just some made up stuff, that might or might not be possible. How many more would have tried to invent these things, would they have known for sure, that they are indeed valid things that can be made?

    Obviously in a fictional universe, there might be societies where scientific thinking is not as open and not as "enlightened", but would such a society be "competitive" in the first place? It would fall behind and either be eradicated or become subservient eventually.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2017
  9. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    So much for brevity...sigh.
    There is no shame in asking a question, even one I knew the answer to beforehand as my intent was to get YOUR answer in the hopes that it would provide me some additional insight into you as a person with the goal being to better communicate with you.

    I re-read your posts yet again and basically distilled your concerns down to these two things. (please correct me If I am wrong)

    1. If there is a technology available in the game you want the ability to possess it as well
    2. If a technology is present in one game session you want it available on all sessions (baring a plausible explanation as to why it is not available).

    Fair enough and you have also provided possible solutions that are not far from what the Devs have in mind anyway (as I see it).

    Let me address no 1 by going back to the 1920s, this time however we do not bring a cpu or movie but rather an entire working laptop and demonstrate it to the scientists at the time. It would be years and possibly decades before a crude copy of the laptop or pc can be made and we both know the reason why. The environments, laboratories, micro-tools and infrastructure required to build a laptop would need to be created from scratch. Moo2 did not address this well. Capture an alien vessel and scrap it, half the time you were rewarded with a technology that you could field immediately if you chose to do so. This abstraction could have been better if the results were not as predictable, perhaps a captured technology should take some time before you can field it and with unpredictable results. Your version of the captured tech could be worse than the original, the same or even better. (The Chinese have managed a stealth fighter but I would take an F22 Raptor any day of the week over it)
    By the same token, if instead of a pc we brought a p-51 mustang to the 1920s they would be able to replicate it much faster as there was already an aviation tech sector present. The problem is that if all these nuances are not abstracted it could become tedious, a solid compromise might be best.

    Number 2 is not too difficult to address either and you again have provided a good basis for a solution. If the number of random techs are a small percentage of the overall techs then it makes perfect sense to tie them into some strategic resources and elements. This would be similar to some electronics which are virtually impossible to produce without a supply of rare earths. In effect, the randomness of the tech tree would be tied to what resources or elements you discovered in game. This would require some good balance to pull off but should work quite well as an abstraction.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2017
  10. Bigmo

    Bigmo Ensign

    Posts:
    37
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    In regard tp point 3, a possible way to implement penalties toward tech in bigger empires, would be to make bigger catastrophe for tech development failures or accident if a research is rushed or the race is accident prone or just scientifically inept (looking at you Klackons). For example, an accident while developping a level 2 bomb could kill off 1 population unit and lower morale on a planet, while rushing trying to rush an advanced super AI related tech later in the could bring about some sort of Robocalypse, creating a rogue faction that act like a major invading force and possibly evolving into a galactic menace. Let's call it the "doomclock" feature
    • Making the doomclock go forward
      • Scientific ineptitude
      • Social policies or doctrine or racial traits
      • Unbalanced population distribution (ie almost only scientist pop)
      • Prolonged War
      • Unhapiness
      • Actively using powerful "evil" artefacts
      • Pushing tech out the door too fast
    • Making the doomclock go backward
      • Scientific prowess
      • Social policie or doctrine or racial traits
      • Happiness
      • Prolonged peace
    • Type of incident
      • Pop and morale lowered
      • Random ship explosion
      • Rebellion
      • Creation of rogue faction
      • Planet or sun damage or explosion
      • Galactic doomsday scenario
    Each tech development could have some sort of percentage of accident (with possible racial modifiers) and a specific set of consequences. if the player is unlucky (or pushing is luck) he still gets the improvement but also has to pay for the consequence of his act. Along with the doomclock feature, the player gets to pay for toying with forces out of his grasp or reckless tech dev. Also that would create events that logically tied in to the ongoing game, not just random events from a spreadsheet.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    In a recent conversation with csebal, closely guarded state secrets were brought up and it gave me a thought.
    What if factions were allowed to designate certain key technologies (small percentage) as State Secrets?
    The effect would be that these designated techs would be almost immune to spying but at a monetary cost.
    For the AI factions this could cover any tech that the Devs want reserved specifically as racial/unique
    For the player it would be dynamic, this way the player chooses what to protect and gains a valid explanation why a certain tech can't be had from an alien faction.
    If I'm not mistaken this might be fairly easy to implement and fit in nicely.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Thrangar

    Thrangar Ensign

    Posts:
    36
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    I don't have any problem with this ,( well mostly I don't), if this aspect ( and it appears it does) leads to more game play and replayability

    I don't need "a plausible explanation" almost any would do, its a small price to pay for what is gained.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Vivisector 9999

    Vivisector 9999 Moderator Ensign

    Posts:
    79
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I really like this idea.

    I was thinking earlier about how I liked the way Stellaris had a few "dangerous" techs that could unleash galactic doom, and how Sword of the Stars 1 had potential backfires if you rushed research on certain techs. I'd love for a 4X game to expand on that idea, with more than just the few techs those games did (and not always as bad as GALAXY-RUINING consequences each time, either).

    Your doomclock idea could be even better than that. With the right implementation, it could tempt players to take dangerous risks, like rushing research (or cracking open the evil artifact) to develop weapons to counter a strong enemy, or even going all-scientist in a threatened system and squeezing out a few more research points while deliberately triggering a disaster that your enemy will get to inherit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Vivisector 9999

    Vivisector 9999 Moderator Ensign

    Posts:
    79
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    This is another idea I like. Master of Orion had its share of references to Star Trek, and state secrets would be reminiscent of things like how the Klingons/Romulans had cloaking devices but the Federation never developed their own. Hell, the idea of crucial technology that an enemy somehow can't simply reverse-engineer goes all the way back to the original Lensman stories.

    There could be various ways to implement this, too. The above idea of selected techs simply being impossible or almost impossible to steal is one approach, but another could be galactic laws that impose a stern diplomatic penalty on offenders. Or the aforementioned doomclock idea could be brought in - since state secrets are so secret, stealing them doesn't give you the full tech, and researching the rest of it would incur a bigger risk than usual.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Nice. I like that, it blends well with the idea. I think that you could get creative and look to tie this into the existing core vision of the game and get a lot of bang from the action of doing so
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Mark

    Mark Ensign

    Posts:
    73
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    I cant over-stress how much I agree with this. In fact if there's one critical design flaw that resulted in most of the recent 4x games flopping, it would have to be pointlessly abstract "gamey" choices that have zero connection to the reality of the game universe. Star Ruler 2 comes to mind as the poster child for this particular sin.

    Players do not play space strategy games merely for the intellectual strategic challenge - well I dont anyway. If I want that I can just play Chess. The most important reason is to imagine yourself as a space admiral or emperor and make the same decisions they would logically make. If the game decisions on offer are inherently illogical or dont make any sense then that whole immersive factor becomes almost impossible and destroys a large part of the reason for playing the game.

    SOTS 2 did this in quite an interesting way, certain "key" techs were 100% certain but many other less critical techs required feasibility studies which varied in success likelihood depending on the race. For example the bug-like Hivers were extremely likely to develop advanced ballistic weapons tech but not very likely (but still possible) to develop energy weapon tech. These tech-biases helped to give each race their extremely rich and diverse character. So with the SOTS tech tree, you could see every single tech possibility but some of those possibilities resulted in dead ends when the feasibility study (which didn't take long) failed and you were often forced to revise your strategy.

    Interesting idea, it fits in well with the concept of making sure that game choices make good sense in the context of the setting. If it were possible in MOO 2 it would be like grabbing a spy or several spies and instead of assigning them to general counter-espionage, drop them onto a specific tech where they would have a greatly enhanced chance of making sure nobody steals that particular tech. Have to admit, that would be a pretty cool option.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. gja102

    gja102 Cadet

    Posts:
    26
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    I liked the MOO2 tech system, and this seems pretty faithful to it, which is good. I wasn't aware that the MOO2 system was particularly off-putting (unless *everybody* played Creative)?

    The beauty of the MOO2 system was that it meant you needed to interact with the other races to maintain a good level of technological development.

    If you were completely isolationist then your culture's technology would be strong in some areas, but lacking in others. That seems to be a completely plausible outcome - it is broadly similar to what happened in isolationist medieval China.

    It also forms a potential counter to the problem of snowballing - being big and having the most research points won't automatically grant you dominance in every field, if you are an isolationist monoculture it will still harm you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I can totally relate to this, it is a very good point.

    When I first started playing Moo2 I had to have every tech available and so I created a creative race. After a few sessions this totally reversed, not only did I choose not to play as creative but after a while I chose to set up games without any creative races present at all precisely because of the points made by gja102. I found the games more interesting by doing this and the replay value was also enhanced.

    The thing is though, that I can relate to both sides easily. There is no correct preference on this, it is a matter of playing style and personal likes and dislikes. It is with this in mind that I suggest a mechanic and plausible explanation to be included as regards tech.
    If this mechanic does not require that the game be re-coded so much the better.

    The goal is to please as many player preferences as possible with minimal cost and effort, I know you can't please everyone, no game can do that but there is nothing wrong with pleasing as many as you reasonably can.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  19. Camphibian

    Camphibian Cadet

    Posts:
    8
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2017
    My Rant, perhaps 1.4142 cents worth.

    I see Research, Technology, Economics and Beliefs being interrelated.
    Pure Research is like the long vision moderated by Cultural preferences giving rise to applied fields
    Applied Research is like finding the archetypal Printing Press or Stealth Fighter, but then this is simulation or model
    From this model, Technology development is represented by a concerted economic process that takes time, like laying submarine cables or converting to 'clean' fission power.

    After the technology is deployed then it can be further evolved in response to environmental factors, but these researches are effectively dead-end and not give rise to further new techs.

    For example, the Kr'gynn with a cultural taste for etheric vibrations apply themselves to development of Quantum Warp Field Theory. From this the create a prototypical Subspace Distortion Module which is then gradually introduced as a production module on key empire shipyards. Eventually most of the fleet will have these installed. One fine day, the Kr'gynn encounter an aggressive race and their shields are tested in combat. The Pulsed Disintegrator Cannon fire from the turrets of the Yxx-Chakk-Chakk destroyers were fortuitously tuned such that they sliced through most of the shields of the Kr'gynn. Pondering their defeat, the Kr'gynn declare further applied research in developing mark I, 2, etc of the Shields, a process which of course chews up many RP and is counterbalanced by the Ix-Chakk-Chakk performing a similar process on enhancing their cannon. Eventually, the Kr'gynn make an intellectual leap in the domain of Quantum Warp Field Theory and produce the Hyperwave Deflector Array which makes their ships invulnerable to Disintegrators, at least until the Ix-Chakk-Chakk up gun their cannons or learn the doctrine of overloaded force wall ram raiding.

    And, consider that even though the Kr'gynn have spent years in a futile arms race honing their SDM's , there is no reason to assume the bonuses accrued against the Ix-Chakk-Chakk would apply when defending against the Superluminal Fusion Torpedoes of the Blarg.

    The traditional 4X technology is single one time expense which then is completely available thereafter and is never forgotten. From my viewpoint, the force of cultural stagnation is completely overlooked. See Drake's Law.

    Like, we have these mighty dreadnoughts but unfortunately we cannot build them any more because we became lazy and complacent and spent all of our economic power building outrageously pompous statues of ourselves celebrating the folly of sobriety.

    In game achievements could be a mechanism to deviate us from the minmaxing of the economic juggernauts we love.
    For many scientists and developers, their work is a life's work and when they are gone then there are only those standing on their shoulders that take it forward. Adding a tech 'maintenance' cost could limit runaway tech explosions. So, not paying the maintenance cost initially inhibits new marks being researched, then stops factories being built, then modules begin produced, then ultimately no new tech researches in that field then the tech is forgotten or relegated to some dusty library at the edge of the known universe.

    Anyway, tech is key and I don't envy the devs trying to balance this slippery squid.
    Part of the problem is the breakpoints of discrete discoveries. Too small and tech becomes less relevant, too big and its then game balance that gets shot.

    Sorry if my rant appears wack. Good luck.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
    • Helpful Helpful x 1

Share This Page