What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

I've been modding weapons and thinking about what the structure of a weapon tech tree 'ought' to look like. Which makes more sense: A fixed increment of improvement for each level, the same amount of improvement at each tech level even thought the cost is higher (diminishing returns)... or gradually increasing improvements as the tech cost increases ('proportional' returns)? I can think of a lot of arguments for each side. Sure, it's 'realistic' to have diminishing returns for effort. But it's also realistic to make sudden breakthroughs giving huge unexpected benefits. Too bad we can't have those in SE, but everyone has the tech tree memorized after a few games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 12, 2002, 17:31: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

Baron,

Using diminishing returns seems the most appropriate form. Decreasing marginal gains accompanied with increasing costs as you explore closer to your research possibilities frontier would be a formidable research design.

Keep in mind though, that as new incremental improvements in applied technology are discovered, I think that there have to some kind of tangential creative bursts that lead to new areas of research -- whether applied or theoretical.

Theoretical research paths should likely be very expensive to begin, and have a steep curve for continued research in the particular area.

Finally, I like the idea of a race surpassing their research possibility frontier through long-term research. Their passing of this mark (the "theoretical" limit to their research capabilities) might let them explore new and Extremely radical theories that are outside the boundries for their race. However, these research paths have to be considered within the argument of balance between the designed races.

Cheers!
Trajan

[ July 12, 2002, 17:48: Message edited by: Trajan ]

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

Is it possible to have both?
If so, is there any way to have a "random" event?
Probalby "No" to both questions. In which case, I guess we should put it in the SEV list of "I would really like to have"

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

You can do both if you make multidimensional tech areas.

Have the normal "uninspired" tech area produce a reasonable start, but have diminishing returns.

Add a new tech, the "breakthroughs" area.
At each higher level of the breakthroughs area,
you will open another dimension of research into the original tech.

Your multidimensional tech could be something like the following:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> | uninspired
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
---+-------------------------------
B 0| 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
T 1| 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
# 2| 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1 3| 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The uninspired research will provide hefty practical gains, but soon becomes expensive to add levels too.
A breakthrough will allow you to start working on a new dimension to the problem, which happens to be a tech level that is "fresh", and not yet suffering from the diminishing returns.

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The MOD I'm working on can make good use of this concept; thanks for the idea!

As-is, I'll hve a two-dimensional array for technology based on simple-tech-field, and which of several Racial Technology types you have (including a 0-cost-advantage "Standard" type); for example (and only off the top of my head for now):

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">----------------------------------------------------
Simple | | | |
Propulsion | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Level ---&gt; | | | |
----------------------------------------------------
w/ Standard | Engine Is | Engine IIs | Engine IIIs|
| speed +0 | speed +0 | speed +0 |
| cost +0 | cost -1 | cost -2 |
----------------------------------------------------
w/ Organic | Engine Io | Engine IIo | Engine IIIo|
| regen +3 | regen +3 | regen +3 |
| cost +2 | cost +1 | cost +1 |
----------------------------------------------------
W/ Temporal | Engine It | Engine IIt | Engine IIIt|
| speed +1 | speed +1 | speed +1 |
| cost +2 | cost +1 | cost +0 |
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Unique | *at all levels, new engine type w/ |
&quot;Improved | increased supply storage and damage |
Engines&quot; | resistance becomes available, similar|
| to each type above. |
----------------------------------------------------
Unique | *at all levels, gain a +1 speed bonus|
&quot;Inertial | for Propulstion I-III, +2 for IV-VI, |
Dampener&quot; | +3 for VII-IX, and soon, compared to |
| base engine types above |
----------------------------------------------------
Unique | *at all levels, gain a new engine |
&quot;Compact | which requires half the space of the |
Engines&quot; | normal, base types above |
----------------------------------------------------</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">... and so on. So "Propulsion 5" will be about as useful for an Organic-tech empire as for a Temporal-tech empire, but what each gets at that level will be slightly different.

Then, perhaps I can add in Unique / Ancient class technologies (as above) which further expand the available tech ... based on what you already have! So instead of getting X component or facility regardless of your own current technology, the Ruins will instead improve your possible research gains, past present and future.

A great inspiration, it'll improve things immensely! Thanks, guys! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Of course, this also means scads more work creating components, but hey, what else is MODding for, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Oh, and as you can see, I'm currently figuring on Temporal being slightly -faster- (+1, +2, +4, +6 speed-bonus engines, instead of the current +0, +1, +2, and +3 engines, for example), but I will of course compensate in other ways -- cost is one way, at least.

The neat thing is, with the right work done on the tehcnology setup, I (or others) will be able to add entire new technology-types just by cut-and-psting into the proper data files to set up the racial technology field, and it's components. Even more Unique fields for enhancing what's already there, with similar work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(edit: UBBcode error, argh)

[ July 12, 2002, 19:55: Message edited by: Pax ]

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

My god... I've started a graduate seminar on 4X game design...

BTW, I agree that Temporal races ought to have a propulsion advantage. I used that nifty 'warp core' component that someone posted ages ago and gave them their own propulsion technology. It's got the 'bonus movement' ability like the solar sail, and it's also a Quantum Reactor so they don't have to research that independently.

As for all these research graphs and trees, this is awfully elaborate for a simple system like SE IV is right now. I was just referring to linear benefits. Does it makes more sense to get a larger and larger degree of benefits for increasing research costs or should benefits be linear, which results in 'diminishing returns' by default.

Yeah, for SE V I'd like to see variable tech research costs, and variable 'connections' across the tree to get to certain techs. This would play havoc with the AI but it would be so much more interesting for human players. But this will require major hardcode revisions. I suspect that the elaborate systems being discussed here will be a real pain to implement and especially to maintain with the current design of SE IV. We need some way of implementing entire series of components with one definition.

[ July 12, 2002, 20:29: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

I don't think that research can really be thought of in a linear sense.

The two dimensional array's work nicely, though a three dimensional one would be better.

I think I am visualizing it as there being some way to advance through one research matix then make an advance in a particular area that suddenly jumped you to a different level of the matrix where the recent dramatic discovery would have an effect on all further research no matter the direction you take. Could you revert back to the original research matrix? I am not sure. I think that if you found a cheaper/better/faster way to propel your ships, not through better implementation of a know field of advancment, but rather through a never-before imagined breakthrough technology you would leave the old way behind and jump on the new technology.

for ex. If you spent 100 years developing transportation based on steam engine technology, then suddenly split the atom and found that you could make anti-matter propulsion a reality, why would you go back to steam engines in your ships.

---I am just brainstorming here, but hey...it is Firday afternoon in the States, and I am stuck at my desk with little motivation to work.

Cheers!
Trajan

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

Um, cool
If I understand,
You are trying to allow for:
Eureka! = as in the sudden realizaton of how to determine if the crown was pure gold. Making the connection between two seemingly unrelated concepts.
Serindipty = as in the realization that microwaves melted the chocolate in the engineres pocket. Making the connection between cause and effect
Good hard plodding work = As in the cure for cancer. Trial and error, Observing Cause and Effect, and Eurika!
That sounds like one sweet challenge. Hmm, I sound like the mouse who said soneone should put a bell arround the neck of the cat.

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BINGO!

Basically, you would have a single non-complex matrix for the inital (Good hard plodding work) technological systems research set. If you encounter a "Eureka!" event (I dont know how the cause of that would work) you could jump to a new level of research in your current universe that has some significant multipliers applied to costs, but the payoffs would be equally significant.

Finally, there is the Serendipity event that would suddenly teach you about a whole new avenue of thought and could take your technological research to new levels, with new functions of cost applying to the technological advancements.

I am looking for a picture that would tell the story a little better. Basically I am talking about a three dimensional matrix of technological advancement.

Cheers!

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

oh, I forgot one:
Eureka!
Serindipty
Good hard plodding work
and
BINGO as in:
1) A farm Dog
2) Interpreting peoples thoughts

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Hmmm...The Farm Dog research Matrix...I could see that leading the the answer to life the universe and everything.

Cheers!

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

Here is a quick image I whipped up that illustrates in a VERY basic format what I was trying to explain.

http://www.rbectel.co.uk/assets/images/matrix21.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Trajan

Re: What is \'reasonable\' return on research?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's essentially what my MOD (still as yet unnamed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif ) will have; see my chart below for an example. The first bit shows a two-dimensional effect; based on your level of Propulsion tech, and what you have as your "racial technology type", determines what engine you learn to build.

The addition of Unique technologies from ruins, adds a third dimension to the array -- because the additional components and/or facilities learned, are also based on your "simple" technology levels (Propulsion or Missile Weapons or whatnot), and on the base "Racial Technology" type. Compact standard engines won't be quite the same as Compact Organic engines, and so on.

Not only components will be affected this way; also weapons / component enhancements (a.k.a. Mounts), facilities, possibly even hulls (hmm, a Unique Tech that gives a Death-Star sized "Planetoid" ship hull, of a sort that is in keeping with your Racial Technology base ... heh!)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lord, I would LOVE to make a decision-tree based tech tree -- but I don't think there is a way to EXCLUDE components or tech levels from being discovered if you DO have such-and-such prerequisite, not in SE4 anyway ... is there?

Probably a feature to beg for in SE5.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd guess that it's possible to put such hurdles and leaps forward in, by requiring some new Theoretical as the prerequisite for further advances in the base technology types. For example, perhaps after Propulsion 6, where you have pretty well pushed X engine paradigm to it's final, ultimate limit ... instead of beign able to research Propulsion 7, you cannow research some new theoretical field that itself enables Propulsion 7 to be learned, based on some new paradigm of engine operation. Until that paradigm TOO is maximised, of course.

Alternately, instead of one catch-all "Propulsion" field, you could have "Jacketed Photon Engines" technology, and possibly continue on past level 3 for further refinements in cost, or change over to that theoretical field which will open up the potential to, instead, research Contra-TErrene propulsion.

Assuming you do the theoretical, you then have a choice: research Contra-Terrene 1, or research Jacketed Photon 4. Which do you prefer, slightly faster or marginally cheaper?

...

What I'd LIKE to see though, is a way to make a true decision tree. Instead of just IF/ELSE prerequisites, what about IF-NOT/ELSE prerequisites?

In other words, why not make it so some components require you to NOT have a given technology ... thus, there will come points where you have to decide forever which of two or more ways you wish to pursue ... knowing the other way is closed to you for all time.

You could get two empires, with otherwise identical technology options (IOW neither takes a choice like Organic, etc, which the other does not ALSO take) -- yet, having made different choices along the way, their options for facilities, components, and so on, would be entirely different ... at the point when BOTH of them have NOTHING further to apply research points to.

Now THAT, I would dearly love to see.