RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please.

RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

Tophat1815 -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 1:14:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ceyan I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. I mean I get that some people want specific numbers, but the in-game Galactopedia has simple and straight-forward descriptions of components. There are a few details which I wish I could clear up (mostly just what kind of rate does a single plant transform resources into components), but by and large the component section was one of the parts I liked best because it was mostly clear and concise. Or... did no one look at the component section of the Galactopedia? Edit: Plus the tech names are fairly sequential. Its pretty obvious to tell what is the most advanced component. You bring up exactly what I was thinking but didn't want to say.

Tophat1815 -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 1:24:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir so, aside from the in game documentation of exactly what each tech gives you being sparse and more a few too many clicks away... what is exactly the problem? The one complaint I registered is that some people would like more control then just crashing, but I actually really like the current approach... in most game you only research one item, here you research one item if you pay for it, or you research all of them at once... I like it. And... what else? Its not that I am trying to be dismissive of the complaints, I am just not sure I even understand what the problem is with research. Again,I agree totally with this as well........and frankly I also like the current system as is regarding research.Though I would lower the research rates to extend research times! One major rather unpalatable truth about research that isn't well represented in games is that a great deal of research results in failure to achieve expected/desired goals.If I research a system tech that gets me a component that is suboptimal I don't use it.I continue my research and hope for a better result down the line.But this does kinda down and dirty simulate the waste represented by some research.Try looking at it that way people. This game is just starting out,its going to evolve,expand and improve.In that process I for one hope it doesn't loose some of the quirks that I find interesting to watch unfold.The problem with all "friction of war"lets say being removed and this being a strictly by the known numbers gets you X result kinda game........makes it the same as a myriad other 4x games on my shelf and probably yours as well.

Krippakrull -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 1:49:18 AM)
About the info about the techs, yes, it could indeed be quite a bit more informative. I also always like the small blurbs and story connections you get with some games (SMAC is probably the best ever in this regard. The Fall from Heaven 2 mod for Civ4 is also top notch). On the other hand, I can see how it got a somewhat low priority with such a a small dev team. One idea, probably not for a patch though, for making it possible to focus research a bit more could be to have neutral corporations with research stations that you could grant money to. The corporations could have different tech areas they focused in, and the AI and player could get into a bidding war for contracting them for x amount of time. Any research from these would be outside your population limits, and of course you could just target their research stations (with a high risk of getting a horrible reputation among the remaining corps and maybe other empires as well) if someone just signed a beefy 4 year contract with one of them.

Fishman -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 3:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Davor I love the idea. The biggest thing that I don't like, is there is no choices to make. What do we have, build more bases wich we might not need later and costing maintence points, and crash research. Pssh, the maintenance cost of bases is about 3 or 4 orders of magnitude lower than crash research. Crash research is like 100-250K a tech on average. Base maintenance is like $900.

HsojVvad -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 4:07:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman quote: ORIGINAL: Davor I love the idea. The biggest thing that I don't like, is there is no choices to make. What do we have, build more bases wich we might not need later and costing maintence points, and crash research. Pssh, the maintenance cost of bases is about 3 or 4 orders of magnitude lower than crash research. Crash research is like 100-250K a tech on average. Base maintenance is like $900. Did you custimize your bases? I just use the default AI bases, and it's over 1300, but I see what you mena.

Joram -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 1:53:37 PM)
I think the issue with research is two-fold. One is it's very hands-off. I mean, i don't even build research stations most of the time, I just let the AI do it. Even so, spaceports are the majority of my research generators. I'll add one here or there certainly but I don't need to do any of that and I can still stay competitive. Second is that the results of research are pretty uninteresting. This has the downstream affect of making ship and base design pretty uninteresting too. While I wouldn't say I hate the research part of the game, I do think it adds little value to the feel of the game.

HsojVvad -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 2:07:26 PM)
That's a good way of putting it Joram. I want hands on. The private sector I love is hands off. Research should be hands on, well at least for me. I guess we need an option for hands on and hands off, for people who like hands off. The results are unitresting because alot of the tech is for the private sector wich is 'hands off' so since you don't have any interaction with it, it is unintresting. I am curious, how many people upgrade their star bases and mines when they discover new techs, like labs, manufacturers etc etc. I always forget to upgrade them in the desgin screen. The only time I remember to do it, is when I discover new shields or armour, then I go to the design screen and click on upgrade. But then sometimes I forget to go to the star bases themselves and upgrade them from there.

Gargoil -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 2:23:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tophat1812 The problem with all "friction of war"lets say being removed and this being a strictly by the known numbers gets you X result kinda game........makes it the same as a myriad other 4x games on my shelf and probably yours as well. I agree. But the fact is DW's research IS TO PREDICTABLE and unchangeable. I'd even accept having new components be hidden and randomly generated until research was complete. But once in hand, I want to know what it does. And I want to guide my research. I am not saying the system in place now is bad. I always thought that games where you researched ONE thing at a time were stupid. I am saying we need interaction with the research in the game. We need to be able to influence it. I don't want control over the outcome so much, just control over the effort.

taltamir -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 2:46:49 PM)
I never liked the "random chance of being available" type of research... You might want it but I don't. I also don't find the current research boring. its all practical tech. I guess it could have some more "epic" research projects such as planetary shields or terraforming, etc... but it doesn't need to, and its fairly neat playing a somewhat "lower" tech game.

Stardog -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 3:41:13 PM)
Sup Guys! I did not mean to stray away from DAVOR'S original POST. I under stand what he is saying as to the Lack of Item info. I was just putting in my thoughts of the R&D aspect of the game. It's apparent that we all like/love the game and are just making suggestions as to what we feel will make the game better and more immersing and captivating. Some would like to see more Detailed Info about the different ITEMS in the R&D to be researched.? Yes But again does this really matter .? - I MEAN > For we can not make a choice in the R&D development as of Right Now & each Item is Researched one after the other. It has been preset. So with the current R&D system & if you use Manual Ship build You can choose to use the new item or not >> That's your only choice.. Some of us would like to make some choices &/or increase one area of R&D over another with out having to build extra Space Ports or R&D stations or use Cash.? For me Yes I would like to see the above. But then again can the AI handle these changes.? This is a good post ACE'S Up to DAVOR. WM

thiosk -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/13/2010 9:24:00 PM)
I've made a couple posts complaining about research in general. Easing ship retrofit will go a long way towards fixing the research problems i've observed.

HsojVvad -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/14/2010 2:18:37 AM)
Ok, explain this to me. Just when I thought I was understanding research, it makes no sence to me. I am researching Concussion Beam. It says in the galacticopedia that it costs 140K. The blue bar is over 3/4 of the way I would say 8/10ths full and it says 79K. I thought my blue bar would only be about just over half full. So I take it that what it says in the galactopidia is not what you need to research then. So what do these numbers mean then? While I am playing this game different now, research at the fastest setting instead of normal or slowest setttings, I would think if it costs 140K, that is what it takes to research it. Now I am at a loss for this. Can anyone explain please?

Kruos -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/14/2010 2:29:10 AM)
Not sure, but maybe the Galactopedia info are obsolete...

Astorax -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/14/2010 2:30:09 AM)
No clue, Davor. I just assume as my working hypothesis that the Galactopedia's numbers are wrong and usually just ignore it altogether. Heh.

taltamir -> RE: Why I don't like the research part of the game. Can someone explain please. (5/14/2010 4:09:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Davor Ok, explain this to me. Just when I thought I was understanding research, it makes no sence to me. I am researching Concussion Beam. It says in the galacticopedia that it costs 140K. The blue bar is over 3/4 of the way I would say 8/10ths full and it says 79K. I thought my blue bar would only be about just over half full. So I take it that what it says in the galactopidia is not what you need to research then. So what do these numbers mean then? While I am playing this game different now, research at the fastest setting instead of normal or slowest setttings, I would think if it costs 140K, that is what it takes to research it. Now I am at a loss for this. Can anyone explain please? research is like levels. its 140 total research points to get to that point, your empire has a "total research point level" for each research field which you can adjust with the built in editor. rather then have "researched technologies" there is just an amount of RP acquired per field. Think of it like XP in DnD... Level 1 you start with 0 XP Level 2 requires 1000XP total, 1000XP more then level 1. Level 3 requires 3000XP total, 2000XP more than level 2. Level 4 requires 6000XP total, 3000XP more than level 3. Level 5 requires 10,000XP total, 4000XP more than level 4. and so on. AFAIK the 140K isn't the amount of XP you need from the previous level, its the amount of XP total you need to have in the field to unlock it. I agree that this can and should be made more clear.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.421875