Outpost Universe Forums
Projects & Development => GORF => Hall of Fame => Topic started by: TH300 on July 16, 2006, 07:14:56 AM
-
Non-deterministic research
Related ideas:
- Technology Create By Usage Over Time Of Stuff (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2688)
- Infinite Technology(weapons Part) (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2674)
Description:
In outpost2 (and most other rts games) research is deterministic, i.e. you start a research and you know, that after a certain time you will have a certain new technology that gives you certain advantages. This is one aspect which allows to use the same research order every game.
Now what if research wasn't deterministic? the player couldn't be sure to have certain advantages after a certain research. The player would have to adept to what comes out of research.
Of course there would still be some limits for the outcome, i.e. if you research a new weapon, you won't get a technology that improves the productiveness of your agridomes. Instead the properties of the weapon could vary, so it could have a higher firerate / less firepower than the default.
Maybe the time for a research could not only depend on scientists assigned and morale. It could end earlier than normal, but the outcome wouldn't be as good as normal.
The results could be better if specialists (http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2987) were assigned to research.
What do you think?
-
ive heard of no game (and if there is one out there, theres a reason i havent heard of it) using this type of research method. it sounds annoying. it pretty much removes the element of balance and makes the game more like a series dice throws - the person who has the best luck with research gets to win. It sounds interesting and innovative, but i dont like it. Maybe it could be used in another area of the/a game? (but definately not op2).
-
It can still be balanced. I don't want to make it completely random, just so that it becomes more realistic. In real life you don't know how much faster your tanks will be, before the actual speed upgrade research is done. Maybe the scientists don't see some possibilities etc.
It would still be fair, because when the research takes longer, you will get a better result and vice versa. Its just so you don't know before, how long it will take. If it finishes earlier, you have a slightly worse tech than other players, but you can start earlier with another topic, and maybe later your scientists find out that they can still improve the tech and then you get a second chance.
-
nobody wants an rts game to be real life. if it were, setting up a building should take months. this type of research is interesting but putting it in op2 is just crazy. nothing would be predictable, nothing would be certain. that is fine in certain places or in small amounts but with something as important as main research, it would just piss people off.
people expect things to behave a certain way and when they dont, they really dont like it. im not saying this isnt a cool idea but im pretty sure players would be irate or simply not play it.
-
Even if you did that there would be patterns that would make weapons for rushes and long stand offs. Plus If you did do your research this way the description alone would be enough to tell people what its going to do. Now if its going to be research with no description and the name of the research doesnt sync up with that is outputted then i think that would be a major problem. I think you would be better off with adding to the exsisting research tree or moddifiying it for any new weapons or buildings or chassis.
-
Actual think the idea is good idea for cyou an't have very plan out statergy as much well. Make player think more in game when you are doing it.
It throw lot more uncerteity into the loops. Instead of for insteait I reaserch microwave I get all potential immenfiately.
Is more of research and get half of what could of then has research other technolgy and make do until scietistic say hey figure out way make it better. Also make so can always improve stuff as time goes by.
Wreakage vechicle put in give vaule to try wreack fall enemy vehivle scan by scout scan it give way to stuff your scientist check make they did not have better.
For those love say compare idea to technology. Here one if don't do something like this then it make more like red alert, warcraft 1,2,3, and more that don't know about. Get rid feel when step 1 complete go step 2 type stuff.
-
I don't see why players would want the exact same techtree over and over again.
Real good players must be able to adept to different situations, and its not like I want to disadvantage players randomly.
-
I think if you add something like this, it should definitely not be part of the default set of rules. (make it something you can turn on and off).
Personally I think it creates a lot of 'chance' thus strategy might be less of a factor.
-
Only reasoin see why is op2 reseach tree set time research thing is so can think head what research plan stragegy out before game. Yes cool more stategy that has plan for instead if don't good of weapon or maybe get better weapon then expected.
Point out also people out there want keep game almost exact like outpost 2 instead of try find way make game challege and also might make more fun even quote been done another game.
-
There was a game with this kind of research - Alpha Centauri (the best 4X game me thinks) and its quite fun to have on imho.
I think this kind of option would be most effective if the specialization thing I talked about was used. A player could allocate what % of research points will be used for what areas (heavy weapons, light weapons, spaceship, mining, etc etc etc whatever). Perhaps this could be done on a per lab basis?
Doing that will still give players some control over the direction of the research but there is still the blind factor that the player must prepare for.
Maybe if there is a research tech path then one of the techs on that branch would make deterministic research available?
-
points for research that sounds bad. The way you research things now it good because it takes time and requires scis. and with enough time you can get every thing. Making the research so you dont know what your getting sounds a bit off i mean if your researching some thing you have to expect what your going to get out of it based on a hypothesis or Theroy. its not like Hey lets just start pushing these 2 peices of equipment together with a fusion generator and add a parabol. Think we will call this weapon the falingendingen.
-
Sadly the transformation of science into reality doesn't work like that, in real life anyways =P. Science is driven by failures in experiments more than success.
There ARE points used in op2 research. Each scientist contributes so many points to the research per mark, so the more scientists there are, the more points that are added to the research (thats what those numbers mean above the research bar. Higher end research needs more points, hence it takes longer).
Blind research has always been a very touchy subject with players for obvious reasons. I'm personally a fan of it because I enjoy the challenge. SMAC, when blind research was on, allowed the player to select which areas to focus on, and I am more or less saying the same by allocation research points (or whole scientists) to the various branches of the tech tree.
-
A) This is the future. There is no failure.
B) This is a game.
C) Most OP2 research starts with something they've already done, then they try and enhance it or give it a new use/make it more practical to use.
Examples:
Adv/Reinforced Residences
Lasers
Microwaves
Starflare
Supernova
EMP
Acid Cloud
ESG
StickyFoam
RPG
Rail Gun
Thor's Hammer (Wait, that's all the weapons)
Lynx/Panthers
Spiders/Scorpions
EMP Missile/RLV
The list goes on...
-
What if instead, each technology is given a bunch of names and descriptions that changes randomly from game to game, and it doesnt tell you what it does?
IE
I play a game as Eden, and I see a research called "Vehicle Engineering Designs." I think, "WTF is that?" and click the description. It says something to the effect of "Our colonies current vehicle designs are obselescent, they need to be upgraded" or something. I think, hmm, sure, why not. I research it, not knowing what the hell i'll get out of it. And when its done, it says "While we haven't come up with an upgraded vehicle, we have increased our abilities at the Vehicle Factory, increasing its production" or whatever.
The next game I play, I see a research called "Updated Factory Production Techniques." I think, hmm, interesting, and click the description. It says "We may have a way to increase our Structure and Vehicel Factory effectiveness." or something. Then I research it, and it says "We have perfected a technique that allows the Vehicle Factory to be more efficient." or something.
It's the same research, it just has a different name and description, and I dont know what it does. After all, if you research something in real life, you don't know for certain what you'll get in the end, do you?
-
This isn't REAL LIFE for a reason.
What's with this sudden "More realistic games" thing?
Realistic games suck, and that's why OP1 failed so miserably.
I have to deal with physics EVERYDAY. That's what games are for.
In games, you can replay failed missions or reload and erase your mistakes.
And while real science might be about taking risks and failed experiments...
I don't give a crap.
This is a computer game.
The more you know about what you're doing, the better off you are.
This "random research" crap will drive people away.
People think the techtree is hard enough to figure out as it is. Now you want to go in and make the names and outcomes random?
Besides, I think the majority has already decided we don't want this.
-
If you want a game thats fun but isnt realistic, play Mario. OP1 failed miserably because of the myriad errors people got because they were too lazy to DL the patch.
If you know from the very beginning exactly what each research gives you, then the game gets insanely predictable, and its replay value drops like a rock.
If you insist on not randomizing the research, it could get more predictable at lower difficulty levels. Easy = no randomness, the research tree is the same boring, predictable thing each time. Normal = some randomness, you arent entirely certain what you'll get. Hard = Completely random, you have no idea what each research may come out with.
-
I think bomber's just in the mood to argue today. Personally, I love realistic games. I hate it when you're playing a game, and you can do something that is just insanely impossible (in example, jumping off a 300 foot cliff and landing without any injury). It's okay to have some fiction in a game, that's the backbone of its structure, but can we at least get the insanely impossible things out?
-
Lets keep the randomness limited. My original idea wasn't to make it entirely random and unpredictable. I rather thought of the following:
Eden scientists want to develop a weapon and know that a laser could serve as such. They propose the "Large scale optical resonators" research, but don't know the exact details of the weapon, yet (otherwise they wouldn't need to research it). After research is completed, they will definitely have the laser weapon, but it could be relatively strong or weak, depending on how good the scientist were.
Later they might find out that they missed some potential, and propose an improvement.
-
Ahh I see where you were going with this. So the exact damage, turrent speed, weapon range, redisance capacity, etc etc etc will have some variation.
Hmm, interesting. THis can tie into the special/super worker scientist (or the variation that scientists/workers becoming more effective with the more experiance they have). This would enourage more military players to be a bit more attentive to how well the colony is doing.
I think I like this more than blind research.
-
I hate it when you're playing a game, and you can do something that is just insanely impossible (in example, jumping off a 300 foot cliff and landing without any injury).
That's the best part!!!
-
*kidnaps bomber and pushes him in a rift*
-
*lands and has his minor headache cured*
Thanks!
-
Ahh I see where you were going with this. So the exact damage, turrent speed, weapon range, redisance capacity, etc etc etc will have some variation.
Hmm, interesting. THis can tie into the special/super worker scientist (or the variation that scientists/workers becoming more effective with the more experiance they have). This would enourage more military players to be a bit more attentive to how well the colony is doing.
I think I like this more than blind research.
Yeah thats a good one. Thats my primary gripe about online play, is its always fight fight fight, kill kill kill and nobody halfway cares about what happens in their colony unless its getting blown up.
-
yea problely games lot time seem more evolve around kill then actual maganement of resources.
-
This is starting to sounds more like it would cause a major inbalance in the game between colonies even if there the same.
-
yes, the point of a game is that any advantage can be balanced and equalized with another advantage to the opposition. making everything random makes it a game of chance and luck, not of experience.
seasoned players will know all the tricks and can apply that, but if everything is more or less random and nobody can ever stand to expect anything, there would be no way to predict what actions will yeild the best results.
and besides, look at real life. when a house is hit with a rocket, it just explodes. if you shoot 100 rockets at 100 houses and they all hit, you never see 20 of them intact with just a couple scorches. in op2, buildings can be destroyed easily and making their hitpoints random enough so that two buildings of the same type take different numbers of hits to destroy just makes it seem illogical and strange. why would a colony build one residence with more armor than another? why would anyone intentionally build a turret that rotates slower than others and leave it that way?
the colonists in op2 are supposed to be masters of efficiency. its the only reason theyve survived this long. so would it really make sense to start seeing them suddenly not care that any two like buildings have vastly different structural integrity? (and arent structure kits manufactured by predetermined plans by computer? the only way that two structures would have different hit points is if the computer made them that way. why would it?) would it make sense to see those people deploy a weapon of war that determines their survival with less than peak turret rotation? i dont think so.
in cards, an ace is an ace. theres no such thing as a "greater" and "lesser" ace.
-
I think you are thinking this is something it isn't. Other than a SMAC style research, its not random, but is ultimately based on how well you manage your colonists if I am understaning the OP correctly.
-
yes, the point of a game is that any advantage can be balanced and equalized with another advantage to the opposition. making everything random makes it a game of chance and luck, not of experience.
seasoned players will know all the tricks and can apply that, but if everything is more or less random and nobody can ever stand to expect anything, there would be no way to predict what actions will yeild the best results.
and besides, look at real life. when a house is hit with a rocket, it just explodes. if you shoot 100 rockets at 100 houses and they all hit, you never see 20 of them intact with just a couple scorches. in op2, buildings can be destroyed easily and making their hitpoints random enough so that two buildings of the same type take different numbers of hits to destroy just makes it seem illogical and strange. why would a colony build one residence with more armor than another? why would anyone intentionally build a turret that rotates slower than others and leave it that way?
the colonists in op2 are supposed to be masters of efficiency. its the only reason theyve survived this long. so would it really make sense to start seeing them suddenly not care that any two like buildings have vastly different structural integrity? (and arent structure kits manufactured by predetermined plans by computer? the only way that two structures would have different hit points is if the computer made them that way. why would it?) would it make sense to see those people deploy a weapon of war that determines their survival with less than peak turret rotation? i dont think so.
in cards, an ace is an ace. theres no such thing as a "greater" and "lesser" ace.
what are you talking about? who said, we'd want to make vecs/structures of the same colony have different properties?
It won't be completely random. This thread is about determining the maximal randomness that might be good for the game. So far you are only against making it totally random. If you are also against small amounts of randomness, say that and explain why, please.
-
Ok TH300 You said that the research is dependant on the scientists but the fact is the scientists are all trained they same so they would pretty much be carbon copies of each other in the knowledge. Lets say this Eden Colony (Colony A) did the laser research and they get the damage on there weapon of 6. How ever the other Eden Colony (Colony B) does the same research only there weapon gets the damage of 10. Now you say Colony A has to wait till the scientists come up with some way to make it better. This is the imbalance. You should know that a imbalance is created right away in the game with Plymouth vs. Eden just different Tech trees.
The quality of scientists really wouldnt be a issue because of the training they get as said above. How ever the ammount of scientists to get the research done faster seems more plauseble like it is in OP2. The imbalance that would be cause and having to wait for a solution wouldnt be good.
-
If research was done by machines, the outcome would probably be the same every time. But its done by humans and humans have weaknesses, they are not all the same, even if their genes were selected or whatever.
I don't want to insist on my position that this won't disadvantage anyone. The best would probably be to wait and test it as soon as we can test it.
-
So suppose it wasn't random. Suppose there was no random factor at all. Suppose also, however, that we threw in elements from OP1 - It doesn't tell you right out what the research will give you, and there's a bunch of researches that don't actually give you anything, but rather just expand the tech tree. No randomness, each player is the same, apart from colony differences, and though it's still predictable, you have to pay attention to know what you're shooting for.
-
Hopeful all those that disagree will see light like the idea.
Tramis that funny to implement in op2 or op3 see reaction all those more into war part game. :heh:
-
excuse me but thats is what RTS is WAR and battle. if all you do is research and sit in your base its a Sim City clone.
-
And if all you do all day is kill kill kill, its a Starcraft clone. There is a fine balance that exists in OP2, between killing the other guy and focusing on your base. people's focus on that combat aspect, is what overturns that balance. The very fact that it isn't entirely combat oriented is what sets OP2 apart from every other RTS in existence. OP2 is not, contrary to popular opinion, meant to be an entirely combat-oriented RTS. If it is, then point me towards a Colony Game or Campaign level orinally created by Sierra, in which the goal is to level the other base, and I'll take it all back.
-
excuse me but thats is what RTS is WAR and battle. if all you do is research and sit in your base its a Sim City clone.
sim city does not have research in it & too boring more so then even outpost 1.5 . I don't have direct what built in city so your wroung about that. That stop play simcity series long time ago.
If think I going to go all out try promote no war in game, then your wroung. Maybe went off tangent it just big fifferents in games.
oh think you responed to Tramis idea about outpost 1 style reseach but my point still valid.
Tramis next time post idea in thread with idea already just start new thread so does not confuse people who responed to what.
Back track main thread
If research was done by machines, the outcome would probably be the same every time. But its done by humans and humans have weaknesses, they are not all the same, even if their genes were selected or whatever.
I don't want to insist on my position that this won't disadvantage anyone. The best would probably be to wait and test it as soon as we can test it.
If in test they find out give too big disadvanage and advanages no matter what they let go of idea, for part game make sure stuff implment make fair play for all.
-
Hey I like SimCity, especally 4 =P
I agree, there is a fine line that OP 3 will be walking. Both the domestic and militart aspects in OP2 were simple and both could use much more texture to it. The game should (and by the sound of the devs will) be designed where one side can't be ignored over the other. A military player who ignroes the needs of his colony should lose, and a player who doesn't build any military or defences should lose.
Just because the game is real time doesn't mean its an RTS. If anything the devs should strive to make this play like realtime 4x game, just maybe not quite as long =P
-
A military player who ignroes the needs of his colony should lose, and a player who doesn't build any military or defences should lose.
OP2 has all of that. It's called unchecking the "Morale Steady" box.
-
I see that the people around here have different interests.
I'd like to fulfill all your wishes.
I will propose that whereas in the Campaign the player has to cope with all aspects of the game, in other games the player can choose whether to play a C&C-style game or rather SimCity like.
However, that is not subject of this thread.
-
I think it is not a very bad idea - I liked it very much in (Sid Meier's) Alpha Centauri (and Alien Crossfire). Before you started the game, you could choose whether you want to make research "deterministic" or not. If you selected the other one, you could just say what area of research do they have to interest in - pure knowledge advance (ie. Fusion technology, Graviton theory and such), combat applications (ie. Lynx, Laser, Microwave...), buildings (ie. DIRT...).
-
While yes choose between blind research and choose what research. Also had several catergores that infinite so no many time research it still could research more. But that it of how it relate to this idea.
For idea research varies in time and so do stats for building and vehicle and weapons attrutibrute varies respective with researxh time(obvously with limit so does make player have no chance to win game)
Also idea implemenet there should be checker make sure that player or ai don't keep get same thing happening to them for each research topic. so prevent from player get small time to research 10,000 times.
-
In my oppinon the Maximum amount of randomness is the amount of chance to hit a vheical.
-
This is starting to sounds more like it would cause a major inbalance in the game between colonies even if there the same.
indeed it would.
it could work in single player but not multiplayer. a multiplayer game needs to have the same rules each time you play with thos settings. it needs to be fair and balanced.
-
I think in op2 there is some randomness regarding the combat... If you move less likely you will get hit by direct type weapon (exaple laser)... I seen hit that failed a lot... BUT if you move your shot are inacurate too. so the exact same battle if played really really tight can be won by the player who had more luck. So about luck factor nothing is new here. Same goes in some other game such as Warcraft 3 and even starcraft...
YES there is luck!
-
Ok. Thanks for clearing that. Now to quote myself, the maximum amount of chance should be the chance of hitting a target.