|
Snoman -> RE: Give Models after the first additional chance to roll high structural design (4/14/2021 10:44:16 AM)
|
I've finally just come to understand this mechanic (Structural Design Stat), and discovered how frustrating it is. I started Googling, and discovered multiple threads and comments saying the same thing: This sucks!
The current way it works seems tailor-made to piss you off. There's a fundamental stat, that you can see from day 1, that if rolled poorly, will permanently hobble this model. The obvious response is to try again. Except... The cumulative cost increases with each subsequent attempt!! Wut??
I understand the argument about randomisation adding to the character of each empire you play. I like that idea. I like the interesting choice of either A: just dealing with a weak unit type in your army's roster or B: spending more to fix things, at the cost of doing something else. I don't think the current system does that at all. Instead you end up with the following:
- Option A has the problem that you can immediately see that you've got a weak model. There's little incentive to go ahead with something that the game is telling you in black and white is substandard. You haven't built any units yet, so there's no cost in terms of reorganising and replacing units if you make a new base model. So the game is motivating you to go with Option B. (If you don't believe me, take as an anecdote all the forum posts and comments and guides advising people to just keep making new models until they get a good score.)
- Option B has escalating costs each time, as if the game is saying "Haha, F*** you!". I don't mind making the decision to pay the same again for another crank of the slot machine, but when the costs keep escalating it's incredibly aggravating. I'm already paying the opportunity cost of delaying the rollout of this new unit, and the opportunity cost of not researching something else, and you're going to hit me with another penalty on top of that? Why? It makes no sense! Adding some in-game logic here: surely they'd have an easier time on subsequent attempts? Or at least the same difficulty. What part of the process of doing something again would make it take longer and cost more? It flies in the face of common sense that says that things will tend to either take the same time, or go faster as you repeat them. It's this disconnect between common sense and how the game treats the player that makes it so especially annoying, I think.
So, with that off my chest, I really think something needs to give here. I'm clearly not the only one with a problem, and it's pissed me off enough to quit playing for a while, and spend my evening writing this post instead. For a game that is so innovative, and has so many cool systems, I really want to see something constructive here.
Suggestions:
- Have the Structural stat be shown as a range, with uncertainty. E.g. 75 - 115, with the true score somewhere in that range. Have the range converge on the true score based on the percentage of field testing completed.
- This would result in a sunk-cost effect if you find out after operational testing that the design has structural flaws. The decision at this point of whether to start over, or stick with that model line would be much more interesting.
- Get rid of the aggravating escalating costs for creating new base models. Honestly I tried to think of something more constructive here, but I just can't see any way that it can be justified. Personally I think something like a cost reduction on each subsequent new model, with diminishing returns, would make sense. Something like the following function acting as a multiplier to new base model cost, where n is the number of existing base models, starting at zero: [image]https://i.imgur.com/A9LOVgJ.gif[/image]
This would see costs get closer to half the original cost, but never quite get there. See the curve shown at this link: https://i.imgur.com/53MDjIk.png
- If the existing cost penalty to the player is (as I've speculated) a game balance measure against constant re-rolls until a desirable score is rolled, then it wouldn't be required any more: If you eliminate the penalty, or even give a cost reduction, at the same time as the above change to the displaying of the Structural Stat, then you won't have to worry about people constantly re-rolling, due to the time it takes to field test.
|
|
|
|
