Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Tech Progress Mechanics

#1
This is actually backwards since this dev log entry came up a few days after the topic but for completeness' sake...
JoshParnell wrote:Sunday, October 20, 2013

TL;DR

Research will be easy, approachable, and deep...all at the same time. It will encourage - no, force - exploration, reward specialization, but won't require liters of brain juice to understand or use ;) Researching is as simple as selecting a node in your tech tree. That's literally all there is to it :)

"Summary" (...if you can call it that...)

Clarity! :D :D :D

Alright, brace yourself. I'm going to describe the new concept for LT's research, and if you're not interested in "technical gameplay" details (aka Gazzisms), you might want to just read the TL;DR. You've been warned :roll:

Ready? Ok! Here we go! :squirrel:

The act of researching is incredibly simple. At first glance, it looks too simple. But bear with me as we explore the full consequences of this "simple" idea. Here's what you do: select a research node. That's all. Ever. :shock:

The core idea underlying my whole research system is: research is discovery.

When you select a research node, you're not "leveling" that technology. Levels are both boring and problematic due to scaling. What you're doing is saying, "let's focus on creating new technology based around this idea." Translation: search for nodes in the tech tree that are connected to the selected one.

After some amount of time, you will make a discovery which will add a new node to your tech tree. The discovery is always connected to the node that you were researching. Depending on where you are in the tech tree, the discovery may be a fixed node or it may be a procedural node. A fixed node is built into the game, and will usually encode the notion of a broad field of research (such as weapons, propulsion, etc). A procedural node is generated randomly, and applies a modifier on top of another node. Most of your research will consist of exploring procedural nodes to find the perfect modifiers for your tastes.

When you unlock a new node in the tree that looks promising (i.e., a procedural node that has a modifier you like), you will select this new node. Now, keeping in mind that the next node you unlock will be a modifier on top of your current node, the natural result is that you continue to develop more and more sophisticated / specialized technologies, by stacking.

But what about overpowering? Doesn't the continued stacking of modifiers allow us to keep piling more "bonuses" on top of a tech and arrive at an ubertechnology? No, because a modifier by itself is neutral in the value it produces for you. A modifier is a trade-off, not a boost. You will see things like a "heavy" modifier which will grant +20% integrity, but comes at a price of +20% mass. One of those effects is helpful, the other detrimental. By itself, the heavy modifier is neither good nor bad, simply a matter of taste. Similarly, you might have an "advanced" modifier for ships which adds +2 hardpoints, but cuts cargo capacity in half. Again, not clearly good or bad, simply a trade-off.

Ok, so we just get to keep making trade-offs but never actually get any better? Luckily no, that's not the case. When you research a procedural node, there are a few options for how the tech tree can unfold from that node. The first is, obviously, by adding another new modifier - you can think of this as lateral progression. The second is amplification of a positive modifier, and the third is suppression of a negative modifier. The latter two are where vertical progression happens, where you actually "get better". For example, if I've already researched my "heavy fighter" with +20% integrity and +20% mass, continued research in the heavy fighter node might yield a "modified heavy fighter," which will have +30% integrity and +20% mass (amplification of positive). Or, it could yield a heavy fighter with +20% integrity and +10% mass (suppression of negative). Now I've actually achieved an objectively "better" tech.

The beautiful simplicity behind this scheme is that you customize and specialize your technology simply by accepting or rejecting to further explore the procedural nodes that open up. If the node looks like it's taking your technology in a direction that you like, you follow it and continue branching from it. Otherwise, you leave it be (perhaps even delete it so that it doesn't clutter the tree). I love how simple this is. But more than anything, I love how this strikes a beautiful balance between control and unpredictability. Yes, you can guide your fate and, ultimately, you can become a master of whatever you want. But, your path to that mastery will be lined with unpredictable, alternate paths, making each game vastly different. You are guiding your research, but it is also guiding you at the same time. That simple yet profound idea is a reflection of how research really works.

There's a final bit to the system that I want to quickly go over, and it's the bit that rewards specialization and prevents jacks-of-all-trades. It's also quite cool :D Over time, the procedural unfolding of your tech tree becomes more and more biased towards your previous choices. In other words, if I have historically only spent time researching technologies that are modified with the "heavy" modifier, then future exploration is biased towards unfolding this same modifier. I.e., if I've explored heavy thrusters, heavy weapons, etc. then it's more likely that pressing into the ship fabrication side of the tree will reveal "heavy fighter," "heavy corvette," etc. So this means that your choices not only influence your view of the tree, but also how the tree will unfold in the future. This is basically a super-cool, implicit way of encoding the idea of researching a specific bonus, except that it's so much more intuitive ;) Instead of spending time researching the "heavy fabrication" technology, you simply spend time researching techs that have that property, and the implication is that you get better at it automatically. Elegant. Also, again, a reflection of how things really work!!

To close, just so you can get a better sense of how this works in practice, let's look at a hypothetical research scenario.
  • Begin game. I have only one node available - Engineering - the root of the tech tree. I select Engineering.
    Engineering -> Propulsion unlocks. I ignore the discovery and carry on researching engineering, since I'm not interested in propulsion tech at the moment.
    Engineering -> Ship Fabrication unlocks. Now we're cooking. I want to build some ships! I switch my research to this node.
    Ship Fabrication -> Fighter Fabrication unlocks. I switch my research to fighter fab. At this point, I can design a blueprint based on the "Fighter Fabrication" tech. It will be a vanilla, no-frills fighter. We'll talk about blueprint design later :)
    Fighter Fabrication -> Light Fighter unlocks. -25% mass, -25% integrity. Might be good for a scout ship but I'm not interested in that right now. Keep researching fighter fab.
    Fighter Fabrication -> Bomber Fabrication unlocks. Nice! I've figured out how to scale my ships up and, at this point, can design a blueprint for a basic bomber. Still not interested though...what I really want is a powerful fighter. Keep researching fighter fab.
    Fighter Fabrication -> Specialized Fighter unlocks. +50% power generation, -1 hardpoint. Yes! Here's what I want. I'm gonna rig this puppy with high-powered energy weapons.
    Specialized Fighter -> Heavy Specialized Fighter unlocks. +50% power generation, -1 hardpoint, +25% mass, +25% integrity. Wow, that could really be a tank, but I don't think it's where I want to go for now.
    Specialized Fighter -> Specialized Fighter Mk. II unlocks. +60% power generation, -1 hardpoint. Yes! They'll never know what hit them when I rain down the pulse lasers. Heck, a bit more and I might even be able to load a small beam cannon onto that :squirrel:
    ...
    ...
I hope that gives you an idea of how you'll be able to "craft" what you want in an interesting way! It goes without saying that I got a bit "too lucky" in that scenario, but this post has gone long enough already :shock:

Now then. That was far too much text. And I probably have only scratched the surface of this system...but I'm super excited. It's so simple and clean, but it's going to yield so many interesting possibilities :)

And...as always...the debate floor is open ;) 8-)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#2
Thursday, October 17, 2013
JoshParnell wrote:Anyway. About the real task at hand...I'm really choked up on the finer details of research, and the brain juice just isn't flowing for some reason. The exact mechanics of how a technology progresses as you gain levels in it, how technologies can be combined, and how a technology unlocks a constructable type. All the same thing, but still...I just don't have the clarity. I mean, I understand the basic answer to each of those. But the exact details and interactions between them...still don't have the clarity. Where is it!!?!?! :shock:
This may be a completely different approach than what you were thinking of but that never stopped me before, so...

I did not attempt to make a complete list - this is just a concept for the mechanics. Things like production / refining / economy may require yet more base techs.
Nailing down the exact list of technologies would be the next step.


You start with several base techs
  • Construction
  • Energy
  • Propulsion
  • Sensors
  • Weapons
These are your "basic research" fields and there will never be more than those.
That keeps the interface manageable because you're not getting lost in the detail of researching 582 different types of technologies.

Base techs are abstract. Nothing you can build.

You invest research into these base techs only. This unlocks more specific technologies.
More exotic technologies may require multiple fields and levels of basic research so these would "advance slower". You couldn't beeline for the one killer tech.

2 points in Weapons and 1 point in Propulsion nets you 1 level of Missiles.
2 points in Weapons and 1 point in Energy nets you 1 level of Beam Weapons.

You start with Level 1 in everything so Projectile Weapons would unlock immediately and be the thing you can build first.
Same with engines etc.



Base Tech, Blueprints, and Technologies

Base techs lead to technologies.
Progress in more than one base tech may be required to progress in a technology.

Technologies allow you to generate or reverse engineer blueprints... and to create modifications of blueprints that you already know.

A blueprint always belongs to one specific technology.



Levels and Tiers

As you advance in Projectile Weapons tech, you gain levels in it.
On the first level and then every 5 or 10 levels, you gain another tier. (instead?)

Tiers are blueprints.
Levels are modifications of a specific blueprint.



What happens when you unlock a Tier

It's an empty slot, ready to be used.
You can now choose to click on it and create a blueprint. (see Faction Diversity)

You can also drop an... acquired... item of the appropriate type in that slot. The item is reverse engineered and you gain the blueprint (not the modifications) that the other faction used to create that item.

There are no "better" or "high level" items / blueprints.
Developing "your own" blueprint in the Projectile Weapon technology rolls the dice once more. You just create several random blueprints of the projectile gun... in your faction's flavour.



Acquiring blueprints instead of research engineering items

That would also be possible and cost considerably fewer points to "learn".
It wouldn't be free, though, because you still have to understand the new blueprint and that requires a minimum of research.
(and it prevents you from building rare alien super-tech too easily =)



What happens when you unlock a Level

It's an empty modification slot, ready to be used.

You can only modify the blueprints that you have researched / acquired / learned.

...but you can use up more than 1 modification slot to mix blueprints... with the result of a modification.
One blueprint is the primary. The generated modification will always remain specific to that blueprint.
By adding a secondary blueprint to the cocktail, you create a modification that goes somewhat in that direction.
Like a breeding program for specific traits.

You then gain a modification to the primary blueprint, resulting in a different item that you can build.

Which items you choose to modify and how often is up to you. The levels and tiers are a currency that you can spend in whatever proportions you like.
If you like your first blueprint a lot, you could develop 15 modifications of it. Knock yourself out.

That should result in a huge amount of tinkering and lateral progression instead of a "level 5 technology" being automatically that much better than a "level 2 technology".



Item sizes

When creating a blueprint on an empty tier, you pick an item size.
Which sizes you have access to can also be limited by a Construction tech... but I'm unsure on the specifics. Needs more brains.

When reverse engineering a foreign item, the blueprint is generated with the item's size. (if you can build that large?)

When developing a modification, one property of a modification could be to adjust the size of the base item if the secondary blueprint is of a different size.

If tiers are plentiful then it would be an option to use multiple tiers to generate a large size blueprint.



Diversity of progress

Since you research base tech which can unlock "levels" in multiple dependent technologies and at different paces, there will be "something to do" more often.
You may have switched all research to Weapons but while the technology you were after may need another level or two, you may unlock a new level in 2 other technologies that are somewhat related to weapons.

And when you switch to Propulsion afterwards because you have to do something about your fighters' engines, you may unlock some Missile technologies as Propulsion catches up to Weapons.



Faction Diversity

That you require 2 points in Weapons and 1 point in Energy to unlock 1 level of Beam Weapons... doesn't mean that the Etherials do.
They may only require 1 each, or none at all in Weapons, leading to substantially more advanced guns of this specific type. Their projectile weapons are probably weaksauce...
All factions can use the same tech tree but by mixing up the scale of the dependencies you can create major variations.
A flat bonus to a base tech leads to the same progression as everyone else.


Any time you create a genuinely new blueprint ("using up" a tier slot) it's stats are randomised... but always weighted by your faction's philosphy/stats/definition.
That way the research system is usable for every faction and will produce technologies based on a certain theme.
noticably different result

Modifications should probably not be weighted. They are the "tinkering" currency, allowing you to steer research in specific directions.


It is not a given that you know all base techs at the start of the game.
Acquiring obscure or super-science fields like Gravitonics or Matter Imagination may require more effort. You might get them in a major trade agreement, a peace treaty... or something on that scale.
So even later in the game you could "start at level 1" and research / discover entirely new technologies. Boldly build what no one has built before.
It's also a gating mechanism. If you don't know about the Imaginary Attacks technology, you cannot reverse engineer an Ethereal-built Psi Blaster.
Some alien technology is just too freaking alien.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#3
.
Levels, Tiers, and Item sizes - Alternative 2

There are no Tiers. You only earn Levels in a technology. (by researching base tech)

You "spend" levels both to create (or reverse engineer) blueprints and create modifications.
The bigger the size, the more levels it will cost you.

You can build "a" gun from a water pipe and firecracker in your garage... but 155mm artillery takes considerably more effort to develop.

Reverse engineering a blueprint might even cost a little more more because you're dealing with alien technology. But you have a working copy so... maybe not. Food for thought.

Modifications are cheaper than genuinely new blueprints but what you spend your levels on is up to you.



Overall I like this simplified approach much better.
Choice defines a gameplay feature. Arbitrary limitations have no purpose when the system is designed for near infinite progress.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#4
What's clearly missing here is a way to vertically scale a technology. Directly improve it.

In part that is because unlimited vertical scaling always breaks game balance. Eventually.
Diminishing returns help for a while but eventually someone shows up with Projectile Weapons level 5918 and cuts through everything.
This works with 4x games like MOO because there is a clearly defined end to the game.
You research Awesome Laser 07, destroy the enemy fleets, conquer their planets. You win. Game over.

In a sandbox game you shouldn't allow research alone to become the equivalent of a game over condition.



Vertical Scaling

One approach to doing it anyway would be to define specific and limited "milestones" that improve all blueprints in that technology that you build afterwards.
Like... after investing 10 levels/points/whatever into blueprints, your Projectile Weapons technology unlocks a random perk like "reload time -5%".

Those milestones are all pre-defined (may be flavoured by your faction stats) and once you have them all, that's it for vertical scaling.

Still, that leads to everyone eventually having all the perks so it's all back to square one. Dumb idea. So...



Technology perks as character development

While I'm largely against vertical scaling it can be useful if it serves a purpose beyond "better stuff".

So what if these tech perks (like "reload time -5%") were somewhat separate from the progress of "their" technology?
The first time you invest a cumulative 5 levels in a technology, you achieve a breakthrough in that technology and all further developments in that tech will have the benefits of "reload time -5%".

At this point, the counters for all technologies are reset.
The next time you invest a cumulative 10 levels in any technology (the same or not), you get a random pick from it's special perk list.

So regardless of your faction's "base stats", there would be some leeway to concentrate on certain technologies.
A faction may be as peaceful as you please but due to it's aggressive neighbors, it pushed some weapon's research early and gained a few perks there so that their lasers aren't quite as crappy as if they had proceeded more leisurely.

The scaling can be steep. To the point of making it nearly impossible to get every perk for every technology. That's kinda the point.
You make a choice of how to develop your faction.



Missile Research, Production, and Storage

Different topic but these things are tied together so closely it's hard to break them up.



Just so I don't forget:

The properties of properties in fixed nodes

The properties of a fixed node (like "Railguns") may be qualitative or quantitative.

For instance, all railguns will always have a qualitative "Bullet Speed" property.

But there might only be a 10% chance for a railgun (or it's ammo) to be Shield Piercing.


So some properties would need to have a range, other properties a chance to be present at all... in addition to the range of their value.

The procedural nodes spawned from this fixed node would then roll the dice to find out which "special" properties they have.


Simply put, all properties have a % chance of occurring. Things like bullet speed just have a 100% chance.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#5
I tried to come up with a tech tree / progress system that works in a sandbox universe.
The classic problem with tech trees is that they are designed for games with a clearly defined end.
4X games, RTS games (Warcraft etc.), you always start over with a new game. That's a context in which vertical progression works.

This one allows you to keep researching pretty much indefinitely... because you need the tech levels to pay for "learning" alien items... or creating different and/or better ones yourself.


(Don't be scared - comments are allowed! Except for telling me that I lost my mind. We already know that so it would be redundant and count as spam. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#6
Gazz wrote:(Don't be scared - comments are allowed! Except for telling me that I lost my mind. We already know that so it would be redundant and count as spam. =)
That is pretty sweet. Also do not be afraid of losing your mind as genius and madness can compliment each other remarkably well. Something to do with balancing on the edge of a coin...... well tipping could be a problem.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#7
Okay. Let me have a look at the proposed system and see where I can prod it until it screams and bleeds...*knucklecrack*
Oh, and by the way, the proposal could probably do with a TL;DR summary.

First of all, I'd like to hear how the player is supposed to accumulate research points (for lack of a better term). If this pathing becomes only available after owning a station or heaven forbid, a planet, then it's definitely a late-game element, and as such you might want to skip the "beyond sucky" tiers of items. Fitting science modules for research purposes to mid-size ships strikes me as wierd at best.
Diversity of progress

Since you research base tech which can unlock "levels" in multiple dependent technologies and at different paces, there will be "something to do" more often.
You may have switched all research to Weapons but while the technology you were after may need another level or two, you may unlock a new level in 2 other technologies that are somewhat related to weapons.

And when you switch to Propulsion afterwards because you have to do something about your fighters' engines, you may unlock some Missile technologies as Propulsion catches up to Weapons.
I have no idea what you are proposing here. Could you try again, using short sentences and giving examples, for an idiot like me? :squirrel:
That you require 2 points in Weapons and 1 point in Energy to unlock 1 level of Beam Weapons... doesn't mean that the Etherials do.
Ugh. I'd rather have everyone cook with water, playing with the same set of rules, instead of basically using a different ratio for each bloody faction you come across. Even worse, some factions might be more or less harmless things like trading companies or asteroid miners, which for some bizarre reasons end up with with the equivalent of wave motion guns purely by the wierdness of the random generator.
It's probably more sensible to give a bias based on function/occupation, assuming that not all factions are what's basically evil space empires in the making.
Any time you create a genuinely new blueprint ("using up" a tier slot) it's stats are randomised... but always weighted by your faction's philosphy/stats/definition.
That way the research system is usable for every faction and will produce technologies based on a certain theme.
noticably different result
Oookay, let me sum that up in layman's terms...
Research is an ongoing process, accumulating "points". Every X points in one or more fields, you can either a) reverse engineer an item you bought somewhere or b) roll the dice for some new, never seen before item with random stats, weighted after your factions preference.
...what again are the players faction preferences?
Also, this seems to assume that all items of a specific class are built on the same budget (barring "modifications", which in fact seem to be "improvements" on a basic blueprint). If it isn't, and the budget is increasing after each level, then you'll get a nasty proliferation of item stats as the game progresses, forcing you to constantly upgrade stuff just to stay competitive. Slippery slope here.


I see a couple of problems that need to be addressed when implementing a "research" function.

1. Accessibility
We need to make crystal clear on HOW and WHEN the player can access research, and how he can improve the rate of the research resource income. I.E., how can you generate research points in the game?

2. Obsolescence
The player will usually gun for the top of the line stuff, and go to great lengths in obtaining it. There are 2 problems.
The first one is that if the player's handcrafted stuff outclasses what the NPCs can offer, he loses motivation to go anywhere (except to blow shit up or maybe get resources...neither of which is much in the way of interaction with a faction). He'll just turtle up and research the hell out of things, until he has the Wave Motion Gun that can oneshot a dreadnaught.
The second one is that if all factions use research to improve their equipment, you're entering a galactic arms race, forcing constant upgrades just to stay competitive. Which is par for the course in a 4x game, but hell in a handbasket for a sandbox.

3. Suspension of disbelief
Sad as it may sound, research doesn't make a lick of sense for most smaller factions. Your friendly local asteroid miners (all 12 ships of them) are unlikely to sponsor a research program. They buy their stuff from a supplier (just as the player does), mine the asteroids and sell the gains to become rich (what they do with the money is another questions, but spending it on ale and whores sounds much more sensible given the nature of the faction compared to investing it into an engine research project). Same goes for most concepts of smaller organizations.
As a matter of fact, the only ones motivated to do massive research programs are empire-style factions in active warfare. (This, by definition, includes a lot of players...)
Research in real life (gah, there's the r-word again) is a long and arduous process. I'm not sure whether the game would be much improved if it pops out a new generation of hardware every X hours.

4. Ceilings
Most "classic" space games have no research mechanism; a few do gate items via arbitrary tech levels (so you have to seek out a truly civilized world in order to get a gravitic hellbore), but those are merely to get the player to move around a bit. But the stuff is already there, and usually either a direct improvements up to a certain level (see the lasers in Elite) or balanced in gameplay terms against each other (the later incarnations of the X series come to mind, where each weapon has a purpose).
A true escalating improvement done via research is probably best left to 4x games, as it makes balancing in terms of sensible gameplay hazardous. Throw in procedural generation, and it's an unholy mess as far as the balancing goes. I don't think LT was designed with being a roguelike in mind, killing players of willy-nilly because the great randomizer in the sky decided that it's time to die, now.
So, when push comes to shove, we're pretty much limited to putting a definite ceiling on the power level available.


Damn, this is getting longer than I intended again. The following paragraph comes with a big IMHO warning, and is best taken as a suggestion only. It also contains regurgitated and partially fermented Gazz ideas.

Bascially, research is limited to the player. NPC factions come with a supply of procedurally generated items which they are using. Yes, that means the player is that "special snowflake", but it's a single player game, so the amount of flying rat's asses I give in that regard are precisely zero.
An items building points budget is dependent on it's size. Bigger guns create bigger holes, bigger fabbers build things faster, bigger engines provide more thrust. Partially balanced by stuff like tracking (which gets worse the bigger you guns/missiles are) and mass (which means you'll NEED those big-ass engines to actually move at a decent clip). I'm sure you can come up with sensible trade-offs for most other stuff as well.
There is no vertical progression. If the majority of people here scream and kick and threaten to hold their breath, then (and only then) miniaturization might be a decent approach, allowing you to shove things intended for slightly larger size classes into a smaller hull. But that's about it. No death star lasers on your X-Wings. Research bascially allows you to reverse engineer blueprints from the various items offered across the universe, or allows you to roll the dice (quick and dirty), OR allows you to set the build points allocation for a specific item manually (slow and expensive, and you still need to stay within the budget). Divide the items into a handfull of categories, assign research accordingly.
This would result in getting whatever the player considers as "the best" stat allocation for his build after a while, relegate research to a "nice to have" game element instead of the be-all, end-all thing that allows you to oneshot the universe (Alchemy/Enchanting in Skyrim says hello, btw...), and keep NPC faction as valid threats at the same time (since they can't be outclassed).

Again, this comes with a big "in my mind" warning. Results may vary. Reality might reject my ideas as absurdly wrong.
Hardenberg was my name
And Terra was my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The stars my destination
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#8
Hardenberg wrote:Okay. Let me have a look at the proposed system and see where I can prod it until it screams and bleeds...*knucklecrack*
Oh, and by the way, the proposal could probably do with a TL;DR summary.

First of all, I'd like to hear how the player is supposed to accumulate research points (for lack of a better term). If this pathing becomes only available after owning a station or heaven forbid, a planet, then it's definitely a late-game element, and as such you might want to skip the "beyond sucky" tiers of items. Fitting science modules for research purposes to mid-size ships strikes me as wierd at best.
Yes.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for a fighter pilot to have a research team on call.

At that stage of the game, you would likely buy hardware. And use it.
You can still construct ships like that.

If the station / shipyard that builds your ship can supply the hardware (has the blueprint) then you only need to pay the bill.
That offers plenty of fun and tinkering before the point of you stepping up to stage to join the big boys in the Great Game.
Some players like to construct capable ships for their purposes without all that technical gobbledygook. Let them.
Some will want to buy PGC AI ships right off the assembly line and go shoot stuff. Just like in the LT Prototype. Fine. Let them.

In fact, different stations/factions may well "own" different blueprints so you'll be able to travel around and build different things in different places.
Travel the galaxy, build interesting ships, and kill ****.


Diversity of progress
I have no idea what you are proposing here. Could you try again, using short sentences and giving examples, for an idiot like me? :squirrel:
What you don't do:
Switch all research to weapons and wait until you have the 5 points required to do the next thing.

What you do:
Switch all research to weapons.
While on track towards getting the 5 points (required to do the next planned thing) you pick up 3 points in this technology and 5 points in that technology... so you have something thrown your way in the meantime.
Something to break the boring routine of
- pick next research target
- wait until next research target is completed.


1. Accessibility
We need to make crystal clear on HOW and WHEN the player can access research, and how he can improve the rate of the research resource income. I.E., how can you generate research points in the game?
I didn't make that clear because I neither know nor care. =P
You could be building a research station.
Install a research module on one of your ships or build a dedicated research vessel that gets "points" from "researching space-time anomalies or archeologic arifacts".
Hire alien scientists for a time.


2. Obsolescence
The player will usually gun for the top of the line stuff, and go to great lengths in obtaining it. There are 2 problems.
The first one is that if the player's handcrafted stuff outclasses what the NPCs can offer, he loses motivation to go anywhere (except to blow shit up or maybe get resources...neither of which is much in the way of interaction with a faction). He'll just turtle up and research the hell out of things, until he has the Wave Motion Gun that can oneshot a dreadnaught.
The second one is that if all factions use research to improve their equipment, you're entering a galactic arms race, forcing constant upgrades just to stay competitive. Which is par for the course in a 4x game, but hell in a handbasket for a sandbox.
That's why I designed this specifically for a sandbox context.
There are a lot of different "dice roll" items and acquiring of similarly balanced alien items.
Plus modifications to adjust them one way or the other.

But there is very little vertical movement... to avoid Doomsday Laser Mk4 being 100x stronger than Terran Laser Mk1 in every possible situation.


So, when push comes to shove, we're pretty much limited to putting a definite ceiling on the power level available.
That's basically the point.
This is no 4X research system. It cannot and must not be.
This is more a Borderlands / Diablo style system of finding PGC stuff, then modifying it slightly. Inserting gems into sockets if you will although the analogy is off.


Bascially, research is limited to the player. NPC factions come with a supply of procedurally generated items which they are using. Yes, that means the player is that "special snowflake", but it's a single player game, so the amount of flying rat's asses I give in that regard are precisely zero.
I didn't rule out AI research and in a limited scope it may make sense - even become a "plot element" - but on a cosmic scale, the amount of ***** that I give is very low as well. =P


This would result in getting whatever the player considers as "the best" stat allocation for his build after a while, relegate research to a "nice to have" game element instead of the be-all, end-all thing that allows you to oneshot the universe (Alchemy/Enchanting in Skyrim says hello, btw...), and keep NPC faction as valid threats at the same time (since they can't be outclassed).
I see no good way to keep research "valid" as a progression tool indefinitely.
Eventually you will find a "configuration" you like.
But given the amount of options, it will certainly not be the same one for every player.
Different parts/blueprints/strategies will call for a different approach. Different choices. And eventually, you can tech your way there and try them in "your" game.
Or start over and try that. *shrug*

Then I would expect players to argue at length and vigorously on the forum that their kung fu is better than everyone else's kung fu.


TL;DR: :squirrel:


Jerek Adams wrote:Also do not be afraid of losing your mind as genius and madness can compliment each other remarkably well. Something to do with balancing on the edge of a coin...... well tipping could be a problem.
Nah, it's just a matter of scale. Imagine a coin the size of the moon. I could comfortably build a city on it's edge. Niven had his RIngworld. I have... Coinworld!
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#9
Gazz wrote:It doesn't make a lot of sense for a fighter pilot to have a research team on call.
I'd lean in the direction of Hardenberg, that it does't make a lot of sense for most players to have a research team on call. I think research is either an extremely simple mechanic that the average player is expected to engage in regularly, or it is a byzantine nightmare of the kind described in Gazz's first post and it's expected that only players who want to specialise in research will engage with the research system at all (by building a research station, just as a miner might build an ore processing platform.)
Experiencing a significant gravitas shortfall
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#10
I'm going to treat this thread as a general opportunity to outline ideas to help Josh get the juices flowing. Thus below is an alternative suggestion to what Gazz has extensively outlined.
  • At the high level there are only Technologies and Blueprints. This contradicts some of the more recent dev logs, but Josh's thinking on this topic appears quite fluid. So just bear with me.
  • Blueprints are broken down into the base categories Gazz outlined above, with the sole addition of "Shielding":
    • Construction
    • Energy
    • Propulsion
    • Sensors
    • Weapons
    • Shielding
  • A technology can yield one or all of these blueprint types.
  • At any given time, the user can choose to spend his/her research budget on one of two actions:
    • Enhance existing tech
    • Develop new tech
  • Enhancing existing tech is exactly as it sounds - improving something already known. Thus a tech can exist in one of four categories:
    • Basic
    • Applied
    • Advanced
    • Perfected
  • Each category yields its own set of blueprint types.
  • The improvements resulting from each category are governed by the law of diminishing returns, and also require increasing levels of financial and time commitment.
  • New tech is developed by breeding two existing techs together. Thus the tech tree can be portrayed exactly as a family tree.
  • The "potential" of the new tech is governed by the comparitive power of the two breeding techs (i.e. how recent they are) and also the level to which the user has enhanced them.
I reckon this approach is simple enough to grasp quickly but also leads to some interesting tactical and strategic choices. There is always a legitimate reason to choose tech enhancement, because it enables you to build more capable blueprints and develop powerful new techs... but it sucks up time and cash. The lure of a brand new tech that may also provide shielding capability is always round the corner.

I also want to raise something that's been on my mind and is nicely summarised by CSE here:
CSE wrote:The time scale of the game is battles in space (hours), travels across galaxies (weeks), building up a faction (several years, max few decades). This is not the kind of time (as opposed to for example civilization with millennia) to built technology trees. This also does not really fit in all the other activities of RTS (even if I am aware that many RTS do have a somewhat out-of-place technology evolution even during a single battle - absurd) and first-person piloting / fighting.
Tech and blueprint development should be SLOW. Like, really slow. It possibly shouldn't even be part of the game at the start, as per Hardberg's point above, with the player only being able to purchase blueprints. Tech development is for the "big fish" already in the game at that point, most likely factions. In any event, when you do get a research team, I'd like to think that you set the direction and then have to leave it for quite some time before you see the result. This would make the whole thing considerably more "realistic" but also make the player truly invested in each research decision they have to make.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#11
mcsven wrote:I'm going to treat this thread as a general opportunity to outline ideas to help Josh get the juices flowing.
This.

I'm not describing every aspect of my concept in such detail because it must be done precisely this way.
It's quite likely that it won't be working exactly like that (for whatever reasons)... but bits and pieces of those mechanics may end up being useful.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#12
Wow. This thread is probably one of the most legendary things I've ever seen. Thank you, sir Gazz, once again, for lending us your fiendishly-analytic brain! :D :clap: :clap: These mechanics have already done a tremendous job of getting the juices flowing. It's also just great to hear a fresh viewpoint coming at it.
Gazz wrote:It's quite likely that it won't be working exactly like that (for whatever reasons)... but bits and pieces of those mechanics may end up being useful.
Yep, it's true, it probably won't look exactly like this, but your design has already influenced my own and already been immensely useful :)

Thanks to a full day of thinking and mulling over this thread, I think I've almost arrived at the full design. I fear it may be slightly harsher than some may like - but it will reward tinkering, enable a very large degree of specialization, and, hopefully, almost eliminate the problem of vertical scaling (by doing away with the notion of continuously improving something in a generic way). I think one more day should do the trick!

In the mean time, I encourage anyone who has thoughts on the matter to continue speaking! And keep in mind that you can still be helpful even if you don't propose an entire gameplay system (a la Gazz), by simply stating what you want out of the research system, i.e., how you see yourself being able to enjoy a research mechanic in general.

:monkey: :squirrel:
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#13
I feel I must make a statement here relating to real life.
In real life vertical scaling is true. Life is a sandbox. The first American colonists had guns and weapons far superior to the Cherokees. That was because of vertical scaling. The Europeans had researched (not necessarily focused research, but still research) weapons because of all their internal conflict. There are numerous occasions in history in which armies have fought in which one side has vastly superior weapons and still lost e.g. Vietnam vs US, Napoleon vs Spain. Vertical scaling did not necessarily mean that one side won, better weapons don't insure success. Research is a very slow and arduous process, and I think this should be reflected in the mechanics of LT research. I don't agree that a global arms race is a bad idea if research is a slow and relatively uninvolved process. I also think that research should require a large start-up cost (i.e. you have to have a capital class ship to think about it). It doesn't really make sense for a tiny fighter to be able to research anything except the most basic. If someone has enough money and has spent enough time to max out their research, then anything that isn't able to match their strength isn't worth what it takes to kill them.

Perhaps research should directly tie to the cost of the item, If you want to build a basic Missile lv1 it might take 100 steel. If you want to build a Missile lv10 with super upgrades and special anti-matter propulsion etc. then it might take 1000 steel, 10 ruby, 10 emeralds and 1 anti-matter. In this way, you would limit a player in terms of creating advanced weapons, but you also limit what they want to destroy. It's not worth wasting those materials on a fighter or even a bigger ship.
A life well lived only happens once.
Seems deep until you think about it.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#14
There is vertical scaling in the concept I proposed.
The item sizes scale. It would take considerable effort to tech up to a point where you could build "good" carriers and battleships.

Also it would take even more effort to tech up to unlock the "hard" technologies, like maybe Beam Weapons, that require multiple points in a base tech to advance by one level.

The Colonists vs Cherokee analogy is limping a bit because we're talking about a sandbox universe with interstellar conflicts (small or large scale) that should have been going on for hundreds of years.
Tech tends to equalise if civilisations are in contact for that long.
But... the real reason was gameplay. =)

Vertical scaling did not necessarily mean that one side won, better weapons don't insure success.
Yes, combat and "ship classes" need to be balanced, too.
Battleships with minimal "air cover" wouldn't survive a Pearl Harbor.


JoshParnell wrote: It's also just great to hear a fresh viewpoint coming at it.
That's why I completely ignored everything you said about your research concept and just started over. =)


JoshParnell wrote:Thanks to a full day of thinking and mulling over this thread, I think I've almost arrived at the full design. I fear it may be slightly harsher than some may like - but it will reward tinkering, enable a very large degree of specialization, and, hopefully, almost eliminate the problem of vertical scaling (by doing away with the notion of continuously improving something in a generic way).
So what direction are you going into?
"We" may still be able to refine it or spot nasty holes in it if we know what we're talking about. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Tech Progress Mechanics

#15
Since Josh said we should still add ideas, I will do!

Regarding "breeding" of technologies that was part of my earlier post. There are are some interesting mechanics that could be applied that I've been mulling over.

The first is that perhaps the "levels" of tech that I suggested would be better expressed as the expertise the player has in that tech. Thus the progression would look more like:
  • Empirical awareness
  • Basic theory
  • Engineering application
  • Advanced understanding
  • Mastery
There are some nice implications/gameplay features could arise out of this.
  • That breeding of technologies can only happen when your knowledge of both techs reaches "Advanced understanding".
  • That blueprints can only be developed once you reach "Engineering application".
  • Using and reverse engineering items results in 'Empirical awareness", which means you get head-starts on where to research next.
  • Research effort means you arrive at "Basic Theory", skipping "Empirical Awareness".
At this point it's not obvious what the benefit of "Basic Theory" is, since you can't build anything. In a nutshell, it's the point when you become aware of the tech's potential in terms of Blueprints. This would translate as: (a) which blueprint types are possible; and (b) their ultimate possible power. The point here is that there may be techs that are dead-ends, or merely stepping stones to greater techs - this is how you can judge if it's worth investing more time and effort to enhance your understanding.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron