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 !