Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#16 Post by Oberlus »

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm I imagine industry as the resource that most depends on expansion.
Oh, I never thought of giving this kind of distinctions to the different resource. I like it.

Some of the research bonuses different from population, infrastructure and flat also depends on number of planets, more or less: I see Diversity (per planet, like a flat), and Stellar Tomo. (the more multiplanet systems the better). Moving some of the bonuses (fully or a percentage of the bonus) to singular buildings (new/dedicated ones or the empire's palace) would help making them less dependent on total number of colonies.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#17 Post by wobbly »

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm -The debated reserach bonus from Meteor Blizzards, which involves putting lots of ships in a particular area
As one of the players who thinks these are unbalanced I'll talk about what I like and dislike.

I like the fluff,they look good and they make the universe a more interesting place.
I dislike the luck factor. I'll tolerate luck in a game (and others like luck), but it shouldn't be the major factor. If I have 20 RP total and someone has 80 RP from 1 blizzard this is terrible balance (and this has in fact has been the case in the current MP game). It means I'm losing badly and all I did wrong was, not get lucky.
The current implementation is boring gameplay. Spam ships. Park ships. Get free stuff. Arguably interesting cases can arise if it spawns in contested territory. This is not what I've seen happen on the map.
It's a distraction from doing more interesting stuff. If you are spamming ships at a meteor swarm then those ships aren't exploring or warring. This is probably fixable by making them less of an unbalanced bonus. Bring it down to the level where its an interesting decision rather then just 1 more reason to sit around turtling.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#18 Post by wobbly »

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm There was also some discussion of having "anomalies" that give research when investigated. I'm not sure how to do that without it being automatic from what you're doing anyway (exploring) or too micromanagy (with specialized ships that have to be produced and move to the relevant location).
A science part may be ok if its a more general use part that naturally fits your fleet make up rather then a single use part. If its added I'd like to see it priced to be viable on a scout.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#19 Post by Oberlus »

wobbly wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:10 am
Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm -The debated research bonus from Meteor Blizzards, which involves putting lots of ships in a particular area
[luck] shouldn't be the major factor.
[...] The current implementation is boring gameplay.
[...] Bring it down to the level where its an interesting decision rather then just 1 more reason to sit around turtling.
IIRC this or some other field has in its initial version a damage per turn to ships, that was removed until AI can acknowledge that damage and not lose fleets to it.
But it is a good balancing mechanism for human players. Give it some damage enough to kill regular chaff ships in 2 turns, so something around 75 damage per turn. That makes parking chaff no longer viable (but open to micromagement: stay one turn on the field, go back to nearby orbital drydock, rinse and repeat, best scenario is one bonus every 3 or 4 turns), and makes it to require good techs to get the most: bigger hulls, better armor, fleet repair... It also makes the field more interesting for other purposes because you have to consider the damage it causes: combat under a field gives advantages to big hull fleets, exploration/colonization can be hindered.
Another option (to combine or not with the above) is to make the bonus dependent on number of ships, so more ships gives diminishing returns: each ship gets 1/sqrt(#owned_ships_in_system) RP, so 1 ship gets you 1 RP, 4 ships get you 2 RP... 64 ships get you 8 RP instead of 64. That helps reducing the luck factor, since having the field nearby isn't that exploitable.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#20 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:54 pm Another option (to combine or not with the above) is to make the bonus dependent on number of ships, so more ships gives diminishing returns: each ship gets sqrt(#owned_ships_in_system) RP, so 1 ship gets you 1 RP, 4 ships get you 2 RP... 64 ships get you 8 RP instead of 64. That helps reducing the luck factor, since having the field nearby isn't that exploitable.
That should be done immediately, as it doesn't need many testing to get balanced and would remove a lot of the flaws of the current system.
And in the situations where the Fields are the most interesting (where more than one Empire could compete to get them) there would still be an incentive to get them/deny them to your adversary (2-3 RPs are more than nothing, especially over a long period).

Also, making the Meteor Swarm disadvantage Defense (through a test in FOCS of number of turns spent in the system, each one diminishing damage and shields) would produce a "king of the hill" situation that should be very interesting strategically.

Another thing that could make them more interesting is it they were visible by everyone (or by everyone having researched a Tech / adopted a Policy), so that they'd rise competition.
If there is a way to make them appear only outside Supply, the advantage of the closest Empire would be reduced.

Apparently as of now (and I believe due to the way the .py file is coded) they tend to appear always (or at least often) in the same area, which makes it even worse as the random bonus will mostly come to the same people.

If what appears is a zone susceptible to bring Meteor Swarms, zone visible by all (or by everyone having researched a Tech / adopted a Policy) and which will spawn Meteor Swarms only 30 to 50 turns later (with a random factor), then it leaves time to build a strategy (militarily or diplomatically).
Whether that zone should spawn Meteor Swarms only once or a few times is to be determined, I'm not sure which would be the most balanced.

Also, making Meteor Swarms move quicker may be useful to distribute the bonus between Empires, benefiting the most the one able to cover the wider distance.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#21 Post by Oberlus »

The formula was wrong, it's #ships^-0.5, or 1/sqrt(#ships).

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#22 Post by LienRag »

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm
LienRag wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:42 pmOne good thing of old DTC was that it allowed a base Research value (probably too much of it, I admit) even without focus.
Was that really a good thing to have available from a game-balance perspective?
Yes.

And I was able to cut my player's heart's longing for high research bonus before writing this, and actually speak from a game-balance perspective.

I understand your point of view and it is indeed interesting - the fact that we had so many discussions about how to automatize the tech selection at start proves that there were a lot of need-have techs (aka no-brainers) and that you are right to want to make radical changes there.

But, apart if you want to make FreeOrion a hardcore game à la Dwarf Fortress, I believe that following to some degree the ordinary logic of 4X games ("research gives boni that allow for more research that allow for more boni") is actually making the game more interesting, if we can balance it right as to not make snowballing the uncontrollable force it was in precedent versions.

Note also that snowballing is not entirely negative for game balance : if there is no or very little snowballing, there are little consequences for going to war early, or to concentrate on production, or on early techs, whatever. So the snowballing effect should not be so that it prevents doing anything else than early research (as it used to be), but still exists somehow.

We do not want, you are right about that, to have investment in research bring that much research that there will be no research strategy necessary after a while, and indeed pre-nerf NAI used to do that, and the original DTC also.

But right now, especially since it's difficult to get more planets, what we have is a very stagnating Research, usually for very long periods.
In one of my test game, I didn't get over 30 before turn 150 I believe (IIRC).
It's not very interesting strategically but more importantly it makes the game quite boring (as many things do not change for long periods of play) and absolutely not rewarding.

The fact that when you've made an investment in Research, reached a certain threshold (usually with some pain, as in DTC), you get some acquired bonus that won't be taken back from you is a staple of 4X games, and is a part of what makes them rewarding.

The game has been designed to have steps (what we usually call early game, mid-game, end-game) with different levels of meters for each, right now this is quite broken.

You are right to want to make these meter levels less automatic that they are now, but I believe important to keep some of these rewards rather than being entirely punishing as you say ("additional requirement like needing a policy slot, rather high cost to research, or a highish stability requirement").

Note that we're saying basically the same thing as I proposed the effect to apply only on a high stability as to prevent the unbalanced bonus that DTC was initially, but I believe that our perspectives are a bit different, and that you forget entirely to take into account player's psychology : if a player makes an investment, he's got to get some rewards.
And it's fine to have many of these investments be rather bad investments if some conditions are not met or if they don't fit the player's strategy, but I believe that some generic investments should still exist (like NAI now, and a not-unbalanced DTC) and have an okayish ROI so as to mark the evolution between game epochs.

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm In general though, I'd like to not have so many research bonuses just be dependent on population or infrastructure, or be fixed bonuses. I imagine industry as the resource that most depends on expansion. For research, I'd rather it more so involve doing different stuff on the map.
Very interesting idea.


Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pmExamples include:
-The current Distributed Thought Computing, which requires having stuff far apart
-Stellar Tomography, which benefits from lots of planets in one system
-The recently-added Exploration Research policy, which gives research for exploring systems, hopefully without being too micromanagy
-The research bonus from the Diversity policy, which benefits from having lots of differnet species
-The debated reserach bonus from Meteor Blizzards, which involves putting lots of ships in a particular area

I'll probably also add:
-A policy or building that gives research for having outposts or colonize on more different planet types or with different specials
-A ship part that gives research if the ship was involved in a battle (or perhaps was attacked) on the previous turn
-A few policies that work better for small / "tall" empires, including
The problem is, none of them really work/are actually fun to play/avoid micromanagement and I'm not convinced that "doing something on the map" can actually avoid all these pits simultaneously.

Current DTC is interesting in a way, I admit. There's quite some careful thinking involved, as it's not that easy to send ships very far - but if you succeed it's usually more by luck than real strategy.

Stellar Tomography is also interesting by its originality, but practically it's also quite a luck factor. There is of course strategy involved in taking control of Black Holes/Red Star/Neutron Star systems with a lot of planets in disputed territory, and there's management involved in populating them, but that's all. It's also prone to micro-management once one gets Planetary Starlane Travel.

Diversity is good (as far as policies go), I admit.

Bonus for colonizing more different planets and/or specials may be interesting, I guess.
It'll also quite quickly feel like being an errand boy (as the game is already stability-wise), with only some of these Specials getting strategically interesting.
It will bring competition between allies, also. I kind of like it but is that intended ?


Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm There was also some discussion of having "anomalies" that give research when investigated. I'm not sure how to do that without it being automatic from what you're doing anyway (exploring) or too micromanagy (with specialized ships that have to be produced and move to the relevant location).
It doesn't look possible to me, but if you find a way, go for it, it'd certainly be interesting.

Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pmI'm also pondering some initial espionage type systems using policies, where if an empire is producing more than twice as much RP as another, the behind one can get some "free" research. This would be anit-snowball and somewhat discourage players from researching too much faster than others.
The latest part is not what we want, I believe...
If a player is able to pull a good research strategy, he shouldn't be punished for that.
Being punished for being reckless in it, yes, being punished for being successful in it, no.

I had some ideas about espionage (the important part is giving both players agency - not having any of them be a sitting duck if he takes steps to avoid being it - without making it micro-managy) but that would wait for Influence projets (if I don't forget them before that !).


Geoff the Medio wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:13 pm Regardless of the details though, I don't want to just add more / the same generic research boosts for having a tech or policy or setting a focus anywhere...
In a way you are right, originality in mechanisms is more interesting that what we had, but some the generic research boosts should stay imho (especially for the psychologically rewarding reasons I mentioned earlier).
And setting a focus anywhere is a core mechanism in FreeOrion, it certainly should bring a research boost aided by the techs researched !

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#23 Post by Oberlus »

I don't buy most of LR's verbal diarrhoea in his last post.


DTC in 0.4.10 gave 0.1*pop unfocused. That usually was around 2 RP per world mid game, 3 RP late game.
It was a no-brainer if you had telepathic species (just don't do it too early, you have to wait until you get enough population to make it worth it, but usually before turn 50). If you didn't have telepathic you had to wait longer, to not make you fall behind in other important techs, but probably better to have it before turn 100. Production species would give it some more priority.
After 0.4.10 release, a change made telepathic less powerful by reducing the discount on Psionics (from -83% to -50%).
Re. gameplay balance, that was acceptably non-overpowered, but still a must have for every empire before late game: an unfocused, pop-based bonus to research!!!

If DTC was more powerful and more expensive to research, it is still a no-brainer, just moving it later in the queue.
If it was focused, it's less of a no-brainer because there would be cases when you don't really need it (for its price): when you have most planets not focused on research. That's better.
If it was a policy with unfocused effect, it's certainly less of a no-brainer as long as there are more interesting policies than available slots, so you have to choose if better research or better influence or better stability. But the reasoning would probably be "is there anything that I really need for my empire to not collapse on rebellions or to reach minimum stability to get my bonuses from other important techs? No? Then I want DTC, period."
If it was a policy with focused effect, that's when it is less of a no-brainer.

Take into account player's psychology? Unfocused non-policy bonus being psychologically rewarding? If the bonus is good to use in some cases and not so good in others, people will get it and enjoy playing with it to get the most.


Not so much luck in having a multisystem planet with a neutron or a black hole: you just won't have one, period. You'll have to move planets around, a mechanic which is seldom used (I never did, I never saw it in a MP game, I know some people do it when they are unopposed in a single player game and delay finishing the game while toying with stuff). It has little to do with micromanagement if it is a few worlds (requiring many less clicks and time than colonization), and it feels rewarding.


Regarding espionage and discouraging some players to go too fast in research, I don't know.
In MOO2 you knew that if you went too fast in research (Democratic Lithovore, for example) you better invest on building many spies and getting the espionage techs ASAP or you would be feeding any empire that met you. That was anti-snowballing and it was good to have.
So I would like something similar, allowing spying empires to get something from good-research empires, but also allowing the latter to fence themselves against the former if enough investment.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#24 Post by wobbly »

LienRag wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:09 pm Current DTC is interesting in a way, I admit. There's quite some careful thinking involved, as it's not that easy to send ships very far - but if you succeed it's usually more by luck than real strategy.
I don't think this is true, I can think of 5 ways you can get a ship quite far away, though some are as much about tactics as strategy.

1. stealth ships or stealth colonies
2. hidden scouts (outside detection circles rather then stealthed) or scouts in inconvenient locations that take too long to hunt down (happens a lot when you need all your warships at the front line)
3. controlling a lot of space
4. peace treaties/alliances
5. speed/maneuverability - you look for a gap in the blockade and rush the scout through.

All of these are common in a normal game.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#25 Post by LienRag »

Indeed.
Which of them doesn't fall under "careful thinking" ?

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#26 Post by wobbly »

LienRag wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:46 pm Indeed.
Which of them doesn't fall under "careful thinking" ?
Which of them do you consider,
LienRag wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:09 pm luck
rather than
LienRag wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:09 pm real strategy.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#27 Post by LienRag »

Valid question indeed.
But whose answer would need elaboration, as you are right that it's not always obvious.
I'll be back to it when I'll have time and energy.

Note though that I didn't write "rather than" but "more".

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#28 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:56 pm Note though that I didn't write "rather than" but "more".
I'm almost sure in this context it has the same meaning: more luck than strategy.
I think like wobbly, all those ways to get large distances between owned objects require strategy/tactic, not necessarily less strategy/tactic than luck, also to maintain it during time.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#29 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:54 pm IIRC this or some other field has in its initial version a damage per turn to ships, that was removed until AI can acknowledge that damage and not lose fleets to it.
throw in a part for getting rid of that damage for special science ships and count me in. maybe normal shields would suffice; maybe a science lab core part.
Oberlus wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:54 pm Another option (to combine or not with the above) is to make the bonus dependent on number of ships, so more ships gives diminishing returns
+1 for diminishing returns. science lab core part could give extra research bonus (e.g. x2).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Rebalance/rework research techs and policies (v0.5)

#30 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:13 pm Using the pop of the system (instead of planet), regardless of focus and owner of the other planets in system, makes it more situational (and you love that) and still somewhat unfocused and very specific to fluff.
I love strategy.
Since a player has total agency over where he puts his ships, nearly everything situational for ships adds strategy to the game.

For things like Planets, it's less obvious, since the agency is way lower.

So I don't know, indeed making it use of unowned (or currently at peace) Planets is different that what we have now and as such interesting.

Post Reply