Another Approach to Research

[JeffM]

Many games have a technology tree that is climbed by making investment decisions. SE4 is no different. Yet, this is not how inventions occur in the real world for the most part. It may be how ENGINEERING of the invention happens, but it's not how invention happens, usually. I think SE4, and most games, lumps research and engineering into one Category called "research" or "the technology tree", etc.

Innovation is largely a function of two things: individual initiative and a perceived or felt need for something to be better/different. And, this happens in an environment of actual experience with the predecessor item and experiments upon it to see if an improvement will work. Invention is mostly incremental improvement and generally, the improvement happens without funding support (investment) of the society. This is not always true, but usually.

Acceptance of the resulting invention/improvement is another matter. Individual, cultural and societal resistance to change often results in significant delay in the usefulness and application of the invention/improvement.

The problem is how to model all this “soft” stuff. Well...

p=(exp(i+n)+E)/R

Where
p=the probability a hoped for/needed improvement will occur
Exp=level of experience with predecessor/existing technology
i=the individual inventor’s ability
n=the level of perceived or felt need
E=the number of experiments needed to actually demonstrate a practical improvement
R=the level of individual, cultural and societal resistance to the improvement

I don’t know if this formula would actually work, but it might be a first step toward one that could be put in a game.

What I like about SE4 is that there is a strong emphasis on what I think of as the engineering of incremental improvements like armor 1, 2, and 3 before someone gets a good idea and comes up with emissive armor 1. I also like the serendipidous discovery of alien technology and the resulting engineering investment that results in more fun goodies for us to play with. And, I like the hidden technology areas. Neat to be surprised and this is pretty true to real life: research in an area often leads to an outcome no one expected.

What I'm not so thrilled with in a game that is so heavily technology dependent as SE4 is that once I decide to invest in a new technology, I ALWAYS get it. It's 100% sure. I don't think it should be that certain. I think it would add a real interesting dimension to SE4 if when I invest in engineering improvements and I achieve armor 3 and then decide to invest in emissive armor 1, there should be a real chance of failure.

To me this would add an uncertainty factor to the game I'd really appreciate. What do you think? How could MM implement that?

[wingte]

SE does have a form of "racial" modifiers but they don't seem to have any impact on the amount or type of recearch any race has access to. These "modifiers" may effect how fast you can research but rarly how much.


Master of Orion and Imperium Galactica do it by setting different racial" characterists in effect creating a sort of "need driven slant" to the areas of research based on the "physical and mental characteristics" of the "race". IG II goes even farther by making some races completely unable to research some tech areas. They can only get that tech by stealing or buying it from some other race and even then they may find that they cannot even use the technology once they have it.
IE,, a militaristic race does better in weapons,, where as a race with a high natural reproduction rate does better on science that allows larger planetary population and/or terraforming and a race that values knowledge for its own sake finds itself physically disadvantaged because of its dependence on technology. In most cases having a higher "need" in one area results in less emphasis/ability in another area because of less "need". Like a "crystaline" race that is immune to polution and disease but has an inate understanding of "solid state computing devices". It excels at making computers and does well at robotics. I am sure any of you that have played Master of Orion will agree that on first glance the the Silioids look like a loser race, -50% reproduction, -20% in all research except computers, and unable to use any diplomacy since they are a "repulsive race" with very poor spying abilities,, but,, playing against them makes even the "easy" game setting very challenging since they can populate any planet right from the game start and even though they have a slow birth rate,, they still get equivalent or superior production and research capacitiy to every race because they have no need to expend any resources on polution control or food production. This advantage deminishes in direct proportion to the ability of the opposing races to increase their population and reduce polution and increase food production ,, the 3 research/resource areas the Silicoids never have any "need" to worry about.



------------------
Wingte

[Grumbling Grognard]

I posted this Last month on the cdmag.com forums...so I guess I agree.

quote:

---

I'll tell you what I would like to see someday in a 4X game's research model...uncertainty.

It always seemed weird to me that I KNEW that exactly "X" turns from now I could start producing "Y" technology that had "Z" effects.

In 'reality' (there is that "R" word!) research is anything but certain. The time required is not certain and the results are never known.

I would like to see something that said..."Stage II particle physics" with perhaps a short explanation that this is a 'good field for possible projectile weapons or such and results could be expected in 5-10 turns.

Then the actual results and the time required would be randomized by the game. So the above "Stage II particle physics" research project could actually end up running "over budget" and take 12+ turns and instead result in a more efficient propulsion system...or perhaps NOTHING but allowing access to the next level in the tech tree or even a possible 'dead end' once in awhile!

With a system like this we would finally have a 4x game that could avoid the same old ruts. I don't about you guys but the main reason I stopped playing MOOII/CIV is because the technology trees got old. Its not that the trees themselves lacked anything it was just the fact that I had played the games some many times and I and developed a 'style'. I did the same research in the same order and produced the same units in the same order...because it was the 'best' fit for my style. Throw in a little random time for research and some random results and it's a whole new ball game IMO.

---

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard



[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 16 August 2000).]

[PGHArch]

I agree as well. Long ago (in a galaxy far far away) I believe I mentioned something like the following model to Malfador, but it is very possible I'm thinking of something I e-mailed a different game designer. I've been pushing this model to anyone who will listen... In any case here is my idea:

Have a "science tree" and a "technology tree" which are two seperate things. The technology tree would work largely as it does now, you apply effort to a science area or group of areas, create a prototype and build. This is the engineering aspect of it. There are few limits but practicality, eventually the costs of developing better basic armor types outweigh the benefits of the improvements.

The science tree would be where the uncertainty comes in. You have an assortment of fields you know about. You may invest in "theoretical research" in any of those fields. The trickiness is twofold. First, you are only creating a probability of making a discovery each turn, there is no set goal. Second, some discovery probabilities may be almost none unless you have appropriate simulatanious research in multiple science fields. So for emissive armor to be "discovered" you may need to be researching both physics and chemistry, and the probability is the lower amount.

Analyzing technology based on an "unknown" scientific development has a one time higher probability bonus to open up that field for your own development.

Also, some scientific research would simply open other theoretical areas, having no direct applicable products.

This creates a dynamic effects in that you can get lucky or unlucky in basic research, or you can go with the more steady but in the long run less innovative approach of engineering investment.

I think malfador is halfway there with the divisions between weapons, theoretical and applied technologies, except that the model of how they are researched is all the same, so there is no real difference other than the name. It is probably too late to make the sort of heavy change I'm suggesting, but there it is.

[Baron Munchausen]

Yes, I have had similar thoughts, but discussion here has only covered half of the problem so far. Besides research being to predictable, the technologies themselves - weapons, shields, etc. - are also too predictable. Who says that EVERY race would research the exact same kind of armor or shields that are just as effective in every way? Who says that type or armor or a particular beam weapon - anti-proton beam, phaser, whatever - would improve in clear increments as you researched further? We need a much finer-grained simulation with differences in technologies. One race's shields might stop beam weapons really well but not solid projectiles. Another race's shields might be great at stopping physical objects but not so good against radiation weapons. We need a world with "virtual laws of physics" and these theoretical sciences you are discussing would be required research to be able to learn those laws and then apply them to technology research. And the technologies themselves should be both more static and more flexible. More static in that you should not have to "upgrade/refit" your ships every time a tiny little improvement is found in the given technology that it is equipped with. More flexible in that they should not improve in these large, sharply defined steps but gradually in small increments. If you have researched 'Phasers' for example, the possible damage could increase a little bit because of a research breakthrough, and any of your ships that returned to a shipyard could be automatically upgraded. It's just a matter of "fine tuning" not totally ripping out the old beams and putting new ones in. But if you research a NEW weapon type, then you'd need the refit.

This would solve a lot of logistical headaches in SE. Like having to wait and wait for a new level in a given tech field to be researched, and getting NOTHING for your efforts until the magical break point is reached. And when you've got the new tech it can be a major pain to work out how to rotate all your fleets back to shipyards and give them upgrades. And since it's such a hassle you also tend to wait until you've researched several levels of a given technology - increasing the "delayed effects of efforts" problem with techs. With incremental improvements in technology, both of these problems would be much reduced. You could install 'Phasor I' or "Anti-proton beam I' of whatever in your ships and not have to worry about the hassles of upgrading to the same tech with slight improvements. The upgrades of a given tech would be automatic. Only totally NEW techs would require a refit.

What I'm talking about is a sort of blend of the MOO style of handling technology and the SE style. In MOO the technology remained the same, but got smaller and cheaper as you researched further but you didn't have to re-install it to get the benefits. In SE the technology gets more expensive, but more effective as you research further and you have to reinstall it to get the improvements.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 16 August 2000).]

[Jeb]

On the other hand, the "delayed effect of efforts" is one of the things that causes "just one more turn" syndrome. First you play another turn so you can research that dandy new tech. Then you play a few more turns waiting for a ship incorporating the new gizmo to be built. Then you play some more so you can see it in action. By that time, you're on the verge of a new breakthrough, and you're hooked for another couple of hours. If everything improved gradually and incrementally with no need for upgrades or new ship designs or anything, new tech would be a lot less fun.

While I'm being a contrarian, I might as well add that I'm not crazy about a more complicated research system. If there is still some sort of tree but players just aren't given information about what leads to what and how much it costs, this will have a couple of bad effects. 1) Some players will inevitably figure out the whole tree, and then have a massive advantage over those who are just guessing. 2) As a side effect of (1), Boards like this one will be deluged with newbie (and not so newbie) questions about the tech tree.

The other proposal on the table is to make research very random, so even knowing as much as you can about the tech tree still won't allow you predict what you'll discover or when. This is more realistic, but could really unbalance the game. Imagine in a PBEM game where the research subroutine generates some bad numbers and you wind up with fighters, planet improvement, radioactives extraction, and chemistry 3 while your opponent gets meat-and-potatoes techs like propulsion, shields, and energy pulse weapons.

All that said, I do like the idea of not everyone having the same tech. The MOO2 system of not allowing everyone to research every tech (except for those weenie Psilons) was fun, although could also lead to tedium if you tried to keep a "pet" enemy empire around in hopes of stealing all the techs you can't research yourself. So to really get this to work, some techs should just be mutually incompatible. I have no idea about how that shoudl work, though.