Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#271
Personally, I am against research.
It just does not fit - it is a long term activity with unpredictable outcomes and highly cooperative/large scale in a short term flying around trading game. So this may have place in the universe generation (to have heterogeneous tech in regions of space) but should not have a dramatic effect during gameplay (think during your life, with a full world of researchers, how many life changing technological revolutions? A few at most assuming forum members are 2-4 decades old (internet, perhaps robotics). Now scale down to your small research lab and wait a couple centuries to get something interesting).

Now Josh was more speaking of develpment/specialization: improve some stats at the cost of others, ultimately allowing a progression because players can select more appropriate building blocks for their creations and hence have more effective units for the design purpose. This is fine - we have this kind of stuff happening in most companies with a research lab all the time. This can be at late game a component of the game, could even lead to a real progression if one of the characteristics is cost (so something may be better in all dimentions, but more expensive). Add some inflation and you get a slow (inflation, e.g. Economic model, controlled) progression in absolute terms compared to the universe physics.
Image
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#272
I think Bfett and Cornflakes have sufficiently argued my point that Research is only 1 aspect among many in LT, Research can be stolen, labs can be blown up, materials to conduct research can be made scarce, internal strife can splinter great powers, and there won't be a sudden superpower or two who can overnight dominate everyone. Research can be unbounded so long as it is balanced with other aspects in the game. Yes numbers go up forever if you play forever, but if you've been playing a single game nonstop 24/7 for 2 years, would lasers with DPS of 9,234,690,214 be terribly strange? dunno, you're an edge case, clearly it's not a problem if you've been playing that long... and I await the day someone comes in saying they got tired of having to read a 10 digit number when shopping in a game they've played forever.
So why implement it? This is the heart of my argument that research progression and unbounded play are incompatible.
What's the alternative? As far as I can tell it just a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors then. Games feature research so that players can gain an advantage in quality rather than in quantity. If you have no research, the player will eventually figure out that rock beats scissors but not paper, so the enemy has a lot of paper, let's build lots of scissors and not a lot of rock... and the AI will even come to this eventually, if by nothing other than natural selection.
Hmm. I may be entering my dotage, but I'm not seeing how this isn't another way of saying "unbounded research." In which case, all my prior whatabouts apply.

Maybe I need a chart? Some kind of visual aid that shows how research gameplay value can remain constant throughout an open-ended game?
but as global ticks are always at the same rate the value of research doesnt decline over macroscopic time scales.
it may decreases temporarily when you reach your desired breadth of research between the vertical ticks and you dont have anything to do until the next tick.
Corn described what I'm saying perfectly :thumbup: . Research progression rates occurs in global ticks. The tick rate of different research branches are different, meaning that research in armor is particularly valuable at a given time because it's advancing quickly, while at another time, you're better off researching shields because no one is getting anywhere with armor but some progress is being made in shields.
CSE wrote: Personally, I am against research.
It just does not fit - it is a long term activity with unpredictable outcomes and highly cooperative/large scale in a short term flying around trading game.
That's just like your opinion man 8-) . LT is more than just a short term flying around trading game, flying around and being a space trucker is just one of the many many ways to play. And unpredictable outcomes are interesting and fun. and because the universe is infinite, if you don't like the outcome of what happened in one area of space, just fly on over to somewhere else and try again.
Image The traditional view of robotics, the metal servant who doesn't ask questions, is merely nostalgia for slavery.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#273
Hyperion wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:23 pm
Corn described what I'm saying perfectly :thumbup: . Research progression rates occurs in global ticks. The tick rate of different research branches are different, meaning that research in armor is particularly valuable at a given time because it's advancing quickly, while at another time, you're better off researching shields because no one is getting anywhere with armor but some progress is being made in shields.
to be fair i was elaborating my own variation of global research ticks :ghost:

with vertical research progress being tied to something global/regional that defines the current "state of the art" for everyone.
independent of your variable research rate thing :ghost:
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#274
Hyperion wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:23 pm
CSE wrote: Personally, I am against research.
It just does not fit - it is a long term activity with unpredictable outcomes and highly cooperative/large scale in a short term flying around trading game.
That's just like your opinion man 8-) . LT is more than just a short term flying around trading game, flying around and being a space trucker is just one of the many many ways to play. And unpredictable outcomes are interesting and fun. and because the universe is infinite, if you don't like the outcome of what happened in one area of space, just fly on over to somewhere else and try again.
Indeed my opinion hence "personally"...
You misunderstand my point, though. Research can (should, at least in the generation phase) happen in the backdrop of the universe. But as a player, you can only make a difference when you are at the head of a multi-world empire (in which case you don't build research labs, because you indirectly owns many universities on each world). As long as you are only so big as a corporation, you statistically won't make a difference, the more so if you have only a few ships.
What corporation do well is development - and there the concept of Josh fits quite well, with basically specialization and trade-offs.
Still an opinion, obviously :mrgreen:
Image
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#275
Well yeah, the bigger a player you are, the more effect you have on the world. i wouldnt expect some mom-and-pop lab to be doing much in the way of real advancement. You could just have it so that 8 times out of 10, you're just trading stats around, and 1 in 10 times you actually make it better in absolute terms and 1 in 10 times it makes it objectively worse. And only from then on will you have more or less "tech points" in an object to shuffle around. If you're a small corporation doing 100 research projects an hour, you'll make some headway, which might be significant if you're really specializing in one area, but you obviously are a pretty small fish and your headway is quaint compared to that of the Imperial Research Association... but you're also making that lone research ship, even if they're exceptionally lucky in their advancement rate look pretty quaint too.
Image The traditional view of robotics, the metal servant who doesn't ask questions, is merely nostalgia for slavery.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron