Research... Anything else aside from teleportation?

[Morkonan]

...My point, however, (which I may not have been clear about) is that while in ages past individual insights accounted for much (perhaps even the majority) of total advancement, today they contribute only a miniscule portion. While from a "romantic" perspective this may seem a sad thing, it is a simple consequence of the fact that the basic fundamentals have pretty much all been figured out by now, with that which is still unknown to us requiring ever more difficult (and expensive) techniques and equipment to allow us to see farther, deeper, smaller, faster.

And... that's not how true scientific advancement takes place.

What I'm saying is not that science doesn't progress through the exploitation and investigation of the known physical world. What I'm saying is that "science" traditionally advances through scientific revolutions, not a gradual increase in knowledge.

But, at some point along the various timelines in science, each incorporating their own sort of "standard model" of accepted, verified, fully realized knowledge, there comes a point when science tells itself "we already know just about everything we need to know, all we have to do now is work out the details."

And then... BOOM, a revolution and science is practically redefined as scientists gouge each other's eyeballs out arguing and defending their beloved principals that have just become antiquated.

That isn't the sort of thing people think about when they think about science and research. Instead, they think about people "standing on the shoulders of giants" and methodically plodding away, contributing their small portion to the human body of knowledge. Science "progresses" methodically along, slowly accumulating knowledge, gradually adding that knowledge to our human experience and understanding of the world.

But, that's not what really happens.

In short - Just about every "research" model in a 4x game is fundamentally wrong. Master of Orion had it partially right, but only in how it was announced - "We have made a breakthrough!" But, if research models were "real", then the player would never know when some random researcher out there would finally discover something worth noting and, more importantly, they would never, ever, truly know what that would be. They may intend to research "lasers" and end up gaining knowledge on the most fundamental parts of the fabric of the universe...

[RAVEN.myst]

What I'm saying is that "science" traditionally advances through scientific revolutions, not a gradual increase in knowledge.

Well, yes and no, but I didn't go into this in order not to get bogged down in details. However, since we're now here...

The progress of any single scientific or technological discipline is more or less a line/curve that is interrupted at irregular and largely unpredictable intervals by quantum leaps/paradigm shifts. BOTH take place, and they in fact depend upon each other, and more and more so in modern times - progress in ancient times, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and even through the Industrial Revolution was characterised primarily by the breakthroughs made by single inspired and/or inventive minds.

Increasingly, however, and especially now in the Information Age, the balance is far more tilted toward the tedious "grindy" bits - if that weren't the case, we wouldn't have multi-billion-Dollar/Euro/Pound particle accelerators and colliders, radio telescope arrays, space probes and satellites, and other less visible, lower profile research facilities such as materials development labs, aerodynamic testing facilities with wind tunnels and the like, pharmaceutical (OMG, pharmaceutical!) labs, and so forth. Modern revolutions/paradigm shifts depend on lots and lots of data. For example, the LHC and other such installations, which cost billions, run experiments with truly gargantuan data collection taking place, to test proposed mathematical/physical models. This data is then analyzed by millions of hours of supercomputer run-time (expensive in terms of initial setup cost, running costs, time, and personnel costs - and likely others I can't even conceive of), distilling it to formats that can then be interpreted by human minds. These then go on to modify/refine the existing models, or scrap them in favour of alternative ones, in the hopes of "hitting the jackpot". Without all that time, money, and effort invested into the whole business, no revolutionary breakthrough is likely to happen - the grind is required, but here's the rub: the "winning model" can't be predicted/anticipated, most of the time - the very next set of experimental conditions may yield the sought result to confirm/disprove something, or it might take years. On top of that, it's as likely as not that whatever "breakthrough" gets made ends up answering some question *other* than the one originally "asked", so to speak. When a/the breakthrough comes, it will often invalidate at least a significant portion of previous candidate hypotheses, while giving rise to new possibilities to test. And so the cycle begins anew.

It's much the same in materials research, with lead scientists hypothesizing, based on their expertise in the field, what sorts of combinations and production methods to attempt, and their underlings going through countless iterations, each time slightly tweaking one particular variable, be it temperature, pressure, proportions of reagents, timing/sequence of their introduction, the method of combination of chemicals/materials, environmental humidity, local magnetic flux - you name it. And testing each combination multiple times, to account for anomalous results. As this is being done, immediate observations are recorded. Then the resulting materials are tested for, let's say, flexibility, resistance to scratches, resistance to chemical agents, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, changes in brittleness at different temperatures and other environmental conditions, interaction with electromagnetic fields, reflectivity, etc etc... Out of that mess...I mean mass of data, some avenues are abandoned, others are pursued further.

While there may be specific disciplines that don't work in the above manner, I can't think of any off the top of my head (doesn't mean they don't exist, of course) - the majority certainly conform to a methodology analogous to the above (the specifics will, of course, vary from experiment to experiment.)

If somehow quantified and plotted graphically, each individual discipline's advancement is an upward curve with these irregularly spaced jumps - however, if all disciplines were to be amalgamated into a "total scientific knowledge" over time, then because their jumps will most often be out of sync (except in cases where advances in one discipline immediately and dramatically benefit another), the overall graph will be "smoothish" (yes, VERY scientific term, that! ) [Incidentally, given how advances in information technology accelerate all disciplines, including IT itself, the curve has taken on an exponential character in the past century or two. In fact, given how "the scientific method" is really an aspect of "information technology", it can be argued that the curve has always been exponential, but only relatively recently has it departed significantly from the horizontal asymptote, and is thus now steepening more obviously.]

That isn't the sort of thing people think about when they think about science and research. Instead, they think about people "standing on the shoulders of giants" and methodically plodding away, contributing their small portion to the human body of knowledge. Science "progresses" methodically along, slowly accumulating knowledge, gradually adding that knowledge to our human experience and understanding of the world.

But, that's not what really happens.

Well that's the thing - the above is BOTH true AND false. To this day, we still owe the foundations of our sciences to the likes of Ptolemy, Eratosthenes, Aristotle - even despite the fact that so much of what they believed or thought they knew has since been disproved. And when a previously accepted model or theory is invalidated, that fact itself still adds to the body of knowledge - that still represents a step forward.

In short - Just about every "research" model in a 4x game is fundamentally wrong. Master of Orion had it partially right, but only in how it was announced - "We have made a breakthrough!" But, if research models were "real", then the player would never know when some random researcher out there would finally discover something worth noting and, more importantly, they would never, ever, truly know what that would be. They may intend to research "lasers" and end up gaining knowledge on the most fundamental parts of the fabric of the universe...

I completely agree here. Essentially, research isn't the predictable thing it is portrayed to be in games - "spend X time across Y labs to generate Z 'research points' over time-period T, and you get Pernungulators IV" - that's total bollocks It's a reductive and oversimplified "model", and even randomizing the length of the progress bar would fail to redress this, as it is in itself meaningless - how does one pre-define an amount of work/time/resources required to discover something? And as you rightly point out, research often yields serendipitous results different (or sometimes even completely unrelated) to those being pursued. If true research is about plumbing the unknown in order to discover stuff, then by definition it can't be anticipated when milestones will be reached - the territory is not yet mapped, so we don't even know where the milestones are!

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

RAVEN.myst

Essentially, research isn't the predictable thing it is portrayed to be in games - "spend X time across Y labs to generate Z 'research points' over time-period T, and you get Pernungulators IV"

I take it you are aware of Moore's Law.

Look it up on Wikipedia. That pretty much is exactly spend X time over Y
labs and end up with a better microchip.

[Kitty]

RAVEN.myst

Essentially, research isn't the predictable thing it is portrayed to be in games - "spend X time across Y labs to generate Z 'research points' over time-period T, and you get Pernungulators IV"

I take it you are aware of Moore's Law.

Look it up on Wikipedia. That pretty much is exactly spend X time over Y
labs and end up with a better microchip.

Moore law is not a resarch time and effect law, it is a successful industrial target.

btw, in a game, we don't really want a random research. We want that the players decide most often than the dice.

[Morkonan]

What I'm saying is that "science" traditionally advances through scientific revolutions, not a gradual increase in knowledge.

Well, yes and no, but I didn't go into this in order not to get bogged down in details. However, since we're now here...

The progress of any single scientific or technological discipline is more or less a line/curve that is interrupted at irregular and largely unpredictable intervals by quantum leaps/paradigm shifts. BOTH take place, and they in fact depend upon each other, and more and more so in modern times - progress in ancient times, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and even through the Industrial Revolution was characterised primarily by the breakthroughs made by single inspired and/or inventive minds.

And, just before the "next big thing", science traditionally says "We have a pretty good idea about everything, now. We just need to finish the fiddly bits."

Increasingly, however, and especially now in the Information Age, the balance is far more tilted toward the tedious "grindy" bits - if that weren't the case, we wouldn't have multi-billion-Dollar/Euro/Pound particle accelerators and colliders, radio telescope arrays,.....

It's the "Tool Boundary" problem. ie: "It'd be great to investigate xx, but we don't have a tool for that." We've gotten to the point where we're coming up against what are apparently fundamental boundaries between what we can use a tool for and what we need to use a tool to do. It'll take... another revolution to overcome. Or, somebody will figure out that we're trying to do the wrong thing with the thing and we need to do another thing with a thing.

...If somehow quantified and plotted graphically, each individual discipline's advancement is an upward curve with these irregularly spaced jumps - however, if all disciplines were to be amalgamated into a "total scientific knowledge" over time, then because their jumps will most often be out of sync (except in cases where advances in one discipline immediately and dramatically benefit another), the overall graph will be "smoothish" (yes, VERY scientific term, that! ) ...

If you spread anything out far enough, it looks smooth...

"Exponential" may soon change to "logarithmic", depending on what side of the fence of AI you're on.

I completely agree here. Essentially, research isn't the predictable thing it is portrayed to be in games - "spend X time across Y labs to generate Z 'research points' over time-period T, and you get Pernungulators IV" - that's total bollocks It's a reductive and oversimplified "model", and even randomizing the length of the progress bar would fail to redress this, as it is in itself meaningless - how does one pre-define an amount of work/time/resources required to discover something? And as you rightly point out, research often yields serendipitous results different (or sometimes even completely unrelated) to those being pursued. If true research is about plumbing the unknown in order to discover stuff, then by definition it can't be anticipated when milestones will be reached - the territory is not yet mapped, so we don't even know where the milestones are!

And, this is back to where we should be, I suppose - "Research Tasks in Gaming."

In the upcoming X4, I think the "Research" thing is sort of a clickbait-ish statement. I don't mean there won't be something called "Research" and you wouldn't be able to do it. I mean that what it will entail would be much like gathering up a lot of resources just because some weird Boron guy "needs a few things." So, it will likely be "quest-like", with the goal being a new tech being unlocked. That fits within the previoius models and the research approach that one sees in traditional 4x games just doesn't fit into an imaginable X4.

I remember playing a game that had an interesting research method. First, not all research was available for every game instance you played. Some were guaranteed, but a few were not. This made every session different. Secondly, research was not "spend xx amount of resources over xx time and get xx research." Research could attain its goal sooner or later than an expected date. Sometimes, research would take significantly longer than one had originally thought.

I now recall there have been several games like this, mostly science-fiction sorts of games, since it's hard to imagine how one's research teams couldn't figure out how to make a "Wheel" rounder, so it would be roundish, capable of roundish things, like wheelness... And, that's another part of research - Making the thing better.

"Steel" isn't "steel." There's fifty-bajillion types, different formulae, different manufacturing requirements, different strengths, different uses... Sure, someone figured out the first iteration, but now there are fifty-bajillion and that first slug of steel only barely resembles what it is, today.

Some games, however, took this idea too far. Shield mk 1, Shield mk 2, Shield m3... Hey, it's not a terrible use of the idea, but since we're bothering labeling them and using those big words an' all, why don't we come up with some more flavorful shields with neato shieldy words and descriptions.

I would never get excited about researching "Shielding Level 2." Hyperphasic Inducers, that strengthened Shield 1 or added a capability to warp inbound energy away from the ship... THAT's something that sounds exciting.

[RAVEN.myst]

RAVEN.myst

Essentially, research isn't the predictable thing it is portrayed to be in games - "spend X time across Y labs to generate Z 'research points' over time-period T, and you get Pernungulators IV"

I take it you are aware of Moore's Law.

Look it up on Wikipedia. That pretty much is exactly spend X time over Y
labs and end up with a better microchip.

I am very well aware of Moore's Law indeed, and though it's a predictable (and so far somewhat accurate) formula for predicting the increase in transistor density on integrated circuits, it is:
- A SINGLE exception (and I doubt the only one), rather like "the exception that proves the rule" (I take it you've heard of that concept?)
- Not an example of "research" in the sense of innovation and discovery/invention of new theories and technologies, but rather a refinement of an existing technology over time

Lastly, you will note that in *the very bit you quoted* I said "essentially" - that means I do NOT mean literally 100% of the time. So dredging up isolated examples which on the surface appear to contradict - well, what is it you're hoping to accomplish?


Incidentally, merely as a point of interest that's neither here nor there, and not pertinent to the discussion, but I think worth noting:
In a strictly "scientific convention" sort of manner, "Moore's Law" is in fact a misnomer - in science, "laws" are precepts that are held to be immutable and inviolate until such time as they are thoroughly (ie. in a scientifically rigorous manner) debunked, such as (no coffee yet, so I'll go with the easy one again ) Newton's three Laws of Motion. Within the framework of Newtonian physics (ie. macro scale, not the quantum scale), these are still inviolate despite hundreds of years of advancement. The "laws of nature" refers to the (rather large!) collection of behaviours observed in the natural world and not as yet contradicted, and include, in addition to the abovementioned, also the likes of the laws of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Law, and the like. Moore's "Law" is not such a construct, as it is entirely mutable - should a major breakthrough happen, we could see an abrupt (for example) quadrupling of transistor density tomorrow - or perhaps a sudden but permanent increase to the factor/multiplier; conversely, as various physical walls are approached, if no ways to circumvent them are found then the predicted rate would decline. But most telling of all: should, say, Silicon Valley's economy go belly-up and thus adversely affect development budgets, or the region get hit by an asteroid or a nuke or a crashing Vogon construction ship, we would see a decline or even an abrupt slowing of that rate. It is thus subject to arbitrary outside influences of various types: economic, technological, political - so the use of "Law" in that construct is really a grandiloquence, nothing more.
But like I said, the above is neither here nor there, merely provided here as "bonus trivium". Happy hunting!


Edit:

Moore law is not a resarch time and effect law, it is a successful industrial target.

Yes, exactly what I was trying to say, only Kitty said it more elegantly and succinctly.

[RAVEN.myst]

It's the "Tool Boundary" problem. ie: "It'd be great to investigate xx, but we don't have a tool for that." We've gotten to the point where we're coming up against what are apparently fundamental boundaries between what we can use a tool for and what we need to use a tool to do. It'll take... another revolution to overcome. Or, somebody will figure out that we're trying to do the wrong thing with the thing and we need to do another thing with a thing.

Hahahah, indeed! The move from optical microscopes to electron microscopes comes to mind: in trying to observe objects smaller than the wavelength of light (well, that's a bit simplified), we essentially "exceeded visible light's resolution capabilities", and so a different method had to be devised. But going smaller than that, observer effects rears their heads: we want to observe subatomic particles, but even if we can create electron microscopes with sufficient magnification, any illumination of what we want to observe changes it, so we have to devise ways to observe in strictly indirect manners.

If you spread anything out far enough, it looks smooth...

Indeed - or you can use a trowel or a belt-sander or whatever's appropriate

"Exponential" may soon change to "logarithmic", depending on what side of the fence of AI you're on.

Hmmm, I don't know quite what you mean here, but I suspect it's interesting, so if you feel up to enlightening me (either here or via PM if you prefer not to derail the thread more than I already have), I'd be much obliged.

And, this is back to where we should be, I suppose - "Research Tasks in Gaming."

In the upcoming X4, I think the "Research" thing is sort of a clickbait-ish statement. I don't mean there won't be something called "Research" and you wouldn't be able to do it. I mean that what it will entail would be much like gathering up a lot of resources just because some weird Boron guy "needs a few things." So, it will likely be "quest-like", with the goal being a new tech being unlocked. That fits within the previoius models and the research approach that one sees in traditional 4x games just doesn't fit into an imaginable X4.

I expect something similar, unless given (official) reason to anticipate otherwise - basically, something that is fundamentally not totally different from the Experimental JumpDrive in Rebirth, but perhaps a little more elaborate. Or the "first new gate in centuries" of X3TC.

Some games, however, took this idea too far. Shield mk 1, Shield mk 2, Shield m3... Hey, it's not a terrible use of the idea, but since we're bothering labeling them and using those big words an' all, why don't we come up with some more flavorful shields with neato shieldy words and descriptions.

I would never get excited about researching "Shielding Level 2." Hyperphasic Inducers, that strengthened Shield 1 or added a capability to warp inbound energy away from the ship... THAT's something that sounds exciting.

I couldn't agree more - the whole "level/tier/mark 1", 2, 3, etc. is very... well, it's lazy, for one thing, yes? It sounds perfunctory. I quite enjoy how in Sins of a Solar Empire you functionally get such tiers, but they all have names (well, they are named in pairs, to be precise), and much like in your example, the names are descriptive, suggestive of the mechanism whereby the enhancement is being achieved.

[Kitty]

The more I read the community expectations on what would or should be X4, the more I thnink about the differences between a serious game, a simulation, a space sim game, a 4X game, and a toolbox.

First conclusion: we can dream of whatever, when we'll have X4, we may disapointed if it is not a 4X toolbopx with the special flavor that Egosoft succeeded to put in its games, from X2 to X3AP. And this is incompatible with realistic simulations of space travel, for example.

When it comes to the research, I think that there are ways to improve the games with limited research, in some ways, but there are some that may not be good ideas.

- X games have an elastic time : time for missions is not the same as time for economy, which is not the time of the politics ; this is, i suspect, on purpose, as it lets the player become rich with missions quickly enough to have pleasure with it, yet makes the trade and industry interesting ... politics actions are limited to main plots, which makes it a longer time, and technology advancement too
In other words: the players live years of missions when its factories live one, when the world around live one month

- X games are simplistics : you can simulate many things, but each one is very simple compared to reality (or scientists expectations) ; this is important to let the player PLAY and not learn physics, economics, and all that, many years before playing ; it is also important to have a dynamic of the game

How to insert research and still have an X game ?
- set time frame
- Keep It Simple and Stupid (KISS !!! Yeah)

We may debate on what is research in real life (well, I'm personnaly well aware of it for professionnal reasons), but this is not really the point.

I think that the time frame should be slower than the economic time frame of the game, but can be quicker than the political background timeframe that we have today. This means that the number of improvements should be such as they don't interfere with the game more than twice per game day, for example.
I think that we could split between applied research and theoretical research, and between applied research and development in the other side.

Theoretical/fundamental research: search, search, search... you may find something really new (examples in real life: relativity, quantic, nanoparticles, antibiotics, ...). I don't feel like the player should access more than a couple of these improvements, and this may be plot related, and game start related.

Applied research: you have a target, and search for a solution that does not exist yet, or is really not obvious. Example: you wanna go to the moon and nobody went outside atmosphere yet... some elements are known, but some others not... you need new materials, you need to understand the way things go when entering atmosphere, etc. Applied research is more predictable that theoretical ones, but risky. You don't even know if it is feasible! I feel like such improvements should also be limitted in X4, to a handfull of big projects. Since Teleporter is already a feature in the game, a galaxy wide teleporter may be there. For game reasons, we could expect that first discover happen early in the game, but next ones should take days.

Development: you have all the technics needed to do it, just do it. This may need some brain to imagine your target, but once you know what you want, verifying its feasibility and performing it is moslty a matter of time, resource, and organization. Examples are : many new softwares, the new versions of computers, including Apple ones (mouse, menues, ships, all were invented before, mainly by Ranx Xerox, IBM, or universities), etc. In an X game, this would be ships and station types building from existing components. Look at space turn based strategy games like Endless space or Galactiv CIV: you search for technologies first (fundamental research) but, once this is done, you define your ship models by selecting the components you put in them. This is development. Once this is done, you can go to production. Development improvements can arrive more often, as long as you have the ideas and the resources. This may not be limitted to ships, you know. This could also be in sold wares. What arrives to your market if you mix 1% space weed in Cahoona paste ? Will you sell more? Will you have a good return on investment before the police finds it?

I don't expect complete trees of knowledge in X games (KISS!). I would first expect developments as a sandbox + a handfull of key discoveries.

[birdtable]

Should research just be for the sole benefit of the already over advantaged player, why not new station production lines that could be controlled by the player or AI... Take the humble cheese burger ... The development in pharmaceuticals to assist in the manipulation of the basic ingredients to delivering drugs to combat the effects of eating said product.... Why not have research that develops an addictive cahoona burger so the player becomes the big burgomeister.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Right, you take something that is an already known technology and you use
research and development to improve on it over time.

That is exactly what Intel did with the microchip.

With each successive generation of chips costing more to research and develop than the last.

Beginning to sound familiar?

So lets say we now apply that to a game. You take a known technology say
a weapon system. You pay an amount and a certain time later you have an
improvement. If you want to get the next improvement its going to cost more but it will still take roughly the same time.

Apparent Moore's law has wider application that just microchips. From the summary of a paper submitted to Scientific American.

'That Moore’s law applies at all to so many different industries is a surprise, since computing has often been regarded as a special case. “It’s a much more general thing,” says author Doyne Farmer, currently at the University of Oxford, UK.'

[Kitty]

'That Moore’s law applies at all to so many different industries is a surprise, since computing has often been regarded as a special case. “It’s a much more general thing,” says author Doyne Farmer, currently at the University of Oxford, UK.'

And Intel CEO said that "Moore law has been set as an objective for his company, so that all was done to make it become true.". Thus, if Moore used a different constant, it would still be true.

Not all researches in every universities say intelligent things. Sometimes they take it by the wrong side.

[gbjbaanb]

I remember playing a game that had an interesting research method. First, not all research was available for every game instance you played. Some were guaranteed, but a few were not. This made every session different. Secondly, research was not "spend xx amount of resources over xx time and get xx research." Research could attain its goal sooner or later than an expected date. Sometimes, research would take significantly longer than one had originally thought.

That was possibly Sword of the Stars. Awesome game.

I now recall there have been several games like this, mostly science-fiction sorts of games, since it's hard to imagine how one's research teams couldn't figure out how to make a "Wheel" rounder, so it would be roundish, capable of roundish things, like wheelness... And, that's another part of research - Making the thing better.

If you think of games like Civilisation, you could "research" things like currency. Obviously its a game mechanic doing this kind of research so I'm OK with it. Similarly, research improvements to tech, like "shields level 2" is sort of OK too, many people have an iPhone 6 after all

However, I don't like the levels to tech, it turns the technology into a kind of "mini game" where you grind away to get better stuff. That works for some games, but only those that have limited scope and use the tech improvement mechanism as gameplay to keep you interested. X4 really doesn't need such a thing, the game is more than researching tech in such a simplified manner and I would vote not to have it if I had a vote. What's I'd prefer is different items that have different characteristics, as we had with weapons in X3 - do you want something slower firing that does lots of damage, or the fast firing pea shooter? Improvement should be through different models of item, with slightly different advantages and disadvantages. The idea that you just get "better things" should be left to the kiddies who are only interested in being better than everyone else "for teh win".

[mr.WHO]

Umh Guys, I just read 3 pages of overcomplicated bable.
This is a computer game, not a reality simulation where you want to build the particle accellerator.

The research need to be kept simple and fun:
- teleportation device
- reverse engineering of existing ships so we could build then in our stations
- production upgrades so we could build ships cheaper and/or with less resourcess
- research of not - existing weapons/upgrades and/or Xenon weapons
- research ability to board/capture/hack Xenon ships
- "prototype ships" - version of existing ship that can have better stats or some better/some worse or even general worse stats (failed prototypes)
- "new ships" - custom ships not existing in the market (e.g. some plot ships, or good entry point for community made ship mods)


This is not Civilisation or Master of Orion we don't need huge research tree and mechanics.

[Memnoch]

This is not Civilisation or Master of Orion we don't need huge research tree and mechanics.

It's not a question of need. And who is "we" by the way. Who do you speak for exactly?

[Seanchaidh]

Given how dissatisfied I've been with research trees in total war games, I'm skeptical of them here. That being said, as long as it makes sense why it's a research and what you actually do to accomplish the research is reasonable, then I don't mind. However, if the game feels incomplete or too limited without completing some research option, then I think that's a problem. If there is short range teleportation (like X3) available from (say) Terracorp initially, and then you have to do something interesting involving Terran tech to "research" or prototype longer range teleportation, that seems good. But if it's "deliver 3000 microchips to Bala Gi and then..." I won't be pleased. Because at that point, the question becomes "why can't I subcontract this?"

[RAVEN.myst]

I go AFC for most of a day, and I come back to all these interesting posts - sweet! (And made all the sweeter by the gentle buzz of several toots of fine whiskey... and a public holiday tomorrow! )

Apparent Moore's law has wider application that just microchips. From the summary of a paper submitted to Scientific American.

'That Moore’s law applies at all to so many different industries is a surprise, since computing has often been regarded as a special case. “It’s a much more general thing,” says author Doyne Farmer, currently at the University of Oxford, UK.'

This I didn't know - thank you. I now have something to "research" (heheheh) - well, in that abused "Internet research" sense of the word. ^^

And Intel CEO said that "Moore law has been set as an objective for his company, so that all was done to make it become true.". Thus, if Moore used a different constant, it would still be true.

Ah, good point - a self-fulfilling prophecy, then. Just like every astrology source tells me that as a Gemini, I'm [supposedly] "intelligent, articulate, personable, fun-loving, and at least a bit crazy", so consequently from that point on I subconsciously (perhaps rather more deliberately, in the case of corporations, of course) seek to prove true that mostly desirable description through my actions/efforts (and my self-perception!)

However, I don't like the levels to tech, it turns the technology into a kind of "mini game" where you grind away to get better stuff. That works for some games, but only those that have limited scope and use the tech improvement mechanism as gameplay to keep you interested. X4 really doesn't need such a thing, the game is more than researching tech in such a simplified manner and I would vote not to have it if I had a vote. What's I'd prefer is different items that have different characteristics, as we had with weapons in X3 - do you want something slower firing that does lots of damage, or the fast firing pea shooter? Improvement should be through different models of item, with slightly different advantages and disadvantages. The idea that you just get "better things" should be left to the kiddies who are only interested in being better than everyone else "for teh win".

I completely agree. In a predominantly "sandbox" game, I think a better overall approach (I think it IS ok to have at most a few quests/missions that portray participation in a "research" project as a story device more than anything else) would be to have additional options (some of them improvements) being made available through exploration - by which I don't mean merely "exploration" in the literal sense of going around finding things, but also in the broader sense of exploring the universe, the political regions, economic markets, industries, and so forth.

- teleportation device
- reverse engineering of existing ships so we could build then in our stations
- production upgrades so we could build ships cheaper and/or with less resourcess
- research of not - existing weapons/upgrades and/or Xenon weapons
- research ability to board/capture/hack Xenon ships
- "prototype ships" - version of existing ship that can have better stats or some better/some worse or even general worse stats (failed prototypes)
- "new ships" - custom ships not existing in the market (e.g. some plot ships, or good entry point for community made ship mods)

Overall, I like all of these suggestions (especially research that unlocks/expands game mechanics, such as figuring out how to board Xenon ships - I REALLY like that idea! It pushes it toward later in the game, too, achieving in an alternative way what X3TC/AP did through lengthy marine training and player skills-honing - though the latter ought not to be eliminated, in my opinion.)

... you have to do something interesting...

Yes, that's key, in my opinion - "something INTERESTING", as opposed to "deliver 3000 microchips to some silly liquid-breather". I think the most viable way to implement such research elements is not to try to shoehorn in some incongruous, ill-fitting, and cobbled-together extraneous new game mechanic that feels out of place, but rather to implement it via tropes/paradigms already existing in and iconic to X games: story-driven quests, but interesting ones. So, to reuse the above example, instead of said thousands of bits of silicon integrated circuits, perhaps a shortish but intense and varied series of missions (or "plot", in X nomenclature) including maybe some "deep-space" exploration, a bit of station-walking content (since it's already in), perhaps a tough challenge such as boarding a Xenon capital ship to acquire some piece of exotic tech to be used as a component, maybe some political shenanigans - and I by no means mean all of the above, necessarily (if several such projects are to be included, then each can have a different mix of mission types consistent with its own story arc.)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I was thinking that a research facility would be something special.
Something the player would need to keep funding in order for it to work.
It would also require staffing and supplies etc.
It would also be expensive. Such that a player would have to already
have a small empire before this became a possibility. Then research
would only come into its own in the later game.

Now in the future one has to assume that the technologies in use are mature.
Therefore a "new astounding break through" is going to be a rare event.

What is most likely to happen is something similar to the automotive industry.
The internal combustion engine is a rather well understood piece of technology.
But add Superchargers or Turbochargers and the game changes.
What we see is the original technology has been refined but then other new secondary
technologies are developed that in this example improve power output.

[UniTrader]

This is not Civilisation or Master of Orion we don't need huge research tree and mechanics.

It's not a question of need. And who is "we" by the way. Who do you speak for exactly?

i guess for himself. he just wants to give his voice more weight.
Also i disagree with this because it reads to me like a Plot/Story Checklist, and when you are finished there is nothing more to do, so you either move on or start over.


in my opinion research in X needs a long "Tech Tree", not necesarily an extensive/branching one, just "linear" progression which makes older ships/objects weaker compared to newer ones - because Games usually last very long. This could be based on a Formula instead of defining what each Tech Level does by itself (making the "tech tree" basically endless)

This does not mean there will be no fundamentally new Tech which was not there at the beginning, but this stuff should imo not be introduced by regular progression of the Game but by Story/Plots. Once they are done the new Tech might also get regular gradual improvements via the regular research (or it might not if it doesnt make sense)

i guess i will explain my mod idea how i wanted to implement R&D in XR by describing the core points:

The first Points are describing how Research is done and used by the Nonplayer Factions, how the player can make use of it and research himself is explained after that

=> Research is done by special "Research Stations" which produce "Tech Points" for a cretain Region/Set of Factions. For example Omicron Lyrae, DeVries/Cantera, Albion, Home of Light(+Cold Star+ part of Toride).

=> Depending on how much the faction/region is ahead/behind in Research this necesary Time/requirements for further progression change (its easier to catch up with existing stuff than to stay ahead, or get there for that matter)

=> Said Tech Points will gradually Improve the Shield and Weapon Systems and to a lesser degree (because vey difficult in X to balance/counter-balance) Radar, Speed, Maneuverability and Cargo of all Ships created by/for the Factions in the Region.
I am not yet sure if there should be targetted research to definite goals (eg upgrading Shields, Upgrading Weapon Systems etc.) or if each Level should provide a Bonus to all of them, but not uniformly for each type of System (at certain times Shields from a region will be better, on other times their Weapons). Maybe use some Research preferences like the Player can have described below, just more granular (not just a preffered direction, but define the chance if all are equal in progress)

=> Already existing Ships will not immediately profit from new available tech, but they will be upgradedon Shipyard visits. This will also not be an upgrade to the best available but it will be based on each factions readiness to "pay" for upgrades. Government/Research Factions will upgrade to higher levels, Energy/Food Suppliers to a bit lower ones. The same applies to new Ships, although they usually start with better tech (to account for this the beginning tech level for every region is not 1 but a higher value like 10)

Special Research Rules for certain Factions:
=> Xenon: they dont do active Research (which economy should power that? ) but instead every Ship they kill and every Ship of them which is destroyed adds to their Knowlege/Research pool. This way you can keep the relatively tame by simply not interacting with them, or turn them into an unstoppable threat which simply steamrolls the Universe (how long can you survive?).

=> Khaak: not sure about these, maybe make them similiar to Xenon or use the lower end of the galactic tech level as their base level when spawned and let them upgrade each Ship through Individual Nividium Mining (meaning that they get more Dangerous the longer you leave them alone, but usually they mind their own buisness and dont actively look for a fight)

=> Pirates: the Tech Level for their New/spawned Ships is based on their Home Region, similiar to the Civil Factions (at the lower end though). But instead of Upgrading they will attempt to capture better Ships, possibly swapping them for their outdated ones, possibly adding them (if their current one is still modern enough)


How to integrate the Player into this:
=> The player can choose how modern he equips Ordered/Upgraded Ships on Nonplayer Shipyards. The Available Tech depends on the Shipyard Owner and may be restricted by Faction Standings (meaning that you basically can always buy Battle Ships unlike in X3, but because the factions dont give you their newest and shiny tech their usefulness might only lie in suppressing local pirates, not in overthrowing the government which sold you he Ships)

=> R&D itself is an mid game addition and End Game Content/Goal which is made available simultaneously with own Ship Production

=> Similiar to the Factions you have to put Ressources into research. if you just want to keep up with the others you can get this done for basically an apple and an egg, but if you want to get and stay ahead you have to constantly put lots of ressources into it (and indirectly this will cause the others to advance faster because you reduce their research requirements)

=> You can build Ships based on your Tech Level on Nonplayer Shipyards, but this will give the related Faction basically some free Research points if your Tech is more advanced than theirs. the same is true for Upgrades. To avoid this you must build your most modern Ships (or do your Hi-End Upgrades) at your own facilities

=> (this is a follow up to the third point of the nonplayer core points if individual research topics/directions are implemented instead of gradual overall progress) The Player cannot directly choose which Systems will be upgraded to which level. Instead he can give a Research Direction, like improve Shields or improve Weapons. If all Tech Directions are on a similiar Level this will advance with 90% probability, if its behind this increases, and if the resarch on this topic is really far ahead compared to the other Systems another system is more likely to be upgared. If the Player does not give a direction the probability for each tech type/system to advance is related to how much ahead/behind it is to other systems. This also avoids "constantly" giving a new Research Direction. And you can be sure that when you choose Shields as your Research Prioriy your Shields will be always the best available if you constantly put enough ressources into it - and the other Systems are also not completely left behind


Further Notes:
=> As described above the Tech Tree is not really presentable to the Player and also is not intended as such. Instead the Object Info should contain Info on how old an Ship is, when it was last Upgraded and how far this Upgrade has gone (to Hi-tech or maybe just catching up to the current requirements) and the Info on Research is abstracted into how far ahead/behind the Galactic average a faction is. because thats the relevant part.

=> i used the term ship here extensively, but most of this also applies to stations, with the difference that they are upgraded by their own crew in place

=> also the Research might be internally done in steps, but its nothing which is noticeable in regular gameplay, for example a tech level progress for Shields gives them 5% more capacity (and regen), and a tech level for weapons increases their DPS by 5%. This is barely noticeable for 1 or 2 Tech levels difference, if at all, but if the difference is 10 or more tech levels the older ones are easily outclassed (60% more DPS and Shields for the newer ones at that point).


PS This are just my personal thoughts/ideas about this Topic, nothing more.

[Morkonan]

Indeed - or you can use a trowel or a belt-sander or whatever's appropriate

"Hmmm, this graph looks too spikey... We really don't want to emphasize this."

"Make the x-axis longer or y-axis shorter."

"BRILLIANT!"

"I know."

<Belt-sander sounds>

I don't know quite what you mean here, but I suspect it's interesting, so if you feel up to enlightening me (either here or via PM if you prefer not to derail the thread more than I already have), I'd be much obliged.

It's a combo, tying into the Moore's Law comment made earlier, but applicable to the idea of "exponential" progress. It's a reference to Kurzweil's idea of a logarithmic progression of critical advances, which will only be accelerated more by Artificial Intelligence as we approach the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity . (I think I first read about that in "The Singularity is Near", but it could have been in another author's book, not sure. But, this logarithmic progression idea that is applicable, here, is his, regardless of where I first read about it.)

...I expect something similar, unless given (official) reason to anticipate otherwise - basically, something that is fundamentally not totally different from the Experimental JumpDrive in Rebirth, but perhaps a little more elaborate. Or the "first new gate in centuries" of X3TC.

Exactly so. I think it'll have a spin on it, but it will be functionally the same in the sort of gameplay we should expect. Whatever is needed could even be "Research Points" produced by "Laboratories", but it'll really not be any different than making boatloads of microchips.

I couldn't agree more - the whole "level/tier/mark 1", 2, 3, etc. is very... well, it's lazy, for one thing, yes? It sounds perfunctory. I quite enjoy how in Sins of a Solar Empire you functionally get such tiers, but they all have names (well, they are named in pairs, to be precise), and much like in your example, the names are descriptive, suggestive of the mechanism whereby the enhancement is being achieved.

Exactly! The research in that game is/was outstanding. It's not just how achievements are defined, it's how they truly effect and affect gameplay. You may not ever have access to certain tech, like shields, or if you ever do, it might only go so far or not appear until very late. You may have to base your designs on rail gun techs, because your laser tech is terrible. Every faction's primary techs demand a certain sort of playstyle. For the different gameplay choices you have, each will be defined based on the tech available balanced with your race's particular strengths and weaknesses, which can't be overcome by "research."

In a great many 4x-style games, any deficiencies you have can usually be overcome, all you have to do is "throw money at it." Either you research your way out of a technological hole or you buy your way out. In SotS, there are some things you can't do that with. Tough, you'll just have to learn how to do without or learn to live with. Luckily, SotS has enough different routes to viability that this isn't a problem. Instead, it's a wonderful opportunity to play a slightly different sort of game, every time you play, making most playthroughs pretty unique.

So, in gameplay terms, and "on topic", any "research-like" activity in a game needs to be meaningful. It can't just be "you get better doing things over time." If that's the case, then one may as well not even have anything called "research" to bother with at all.

Everyone knows when a game's tech tree and research has limited uses. It's the "follow this research route in order to win the game" sort of problem. Of course, that's not going to be the issue with X4, as we've likely already prognosticated what "research" will likely be. But, in the future, or if Egosoft ever decides to branch out its IP into a 4X game... Well, at least they now have a decent idea of what demanding players would expect.

(A 4X game in the X-games setting would be pretty neat. It'd be a nice way for them to go deeper into establishing a good base of lore for their franchise to build from. X3TC always had some feelings of a 4XRTS sort of game, for me. I'd like to see it hybridized into sort of 4X hybrid that Sins of a Solar Empire became or, perhaps, something like SotS was in its first incarnation. Both are outstanding designs.)

[Morkonan]

That was possibly Sword of the Stars. Awesome game.

A very awesome game! (SotS II doesn't exist... :/)

It's so awesome, I thing I'll be playing it later, just because I've been reminded how awesome it is, today.

... What's I'd prefer is different items that have different characteristics, as we had with weapons in X3 - do you want something slower firing that does lots of damage, or the fast firing pea shooter? Improvement should be through different models of item, with slightly different advantages and disadvantages. The idea that you just get "better things" should be left to the kiddies who are only interested in being better than everyone else "for teh win".

Exactly. Tech "research" needs to be meaningful. It needs to have a palpable result on gameplay and the tools the player has. That's really what it is, after all.

"Research" isn't... research. On it's face, "research" is about a player devoting game resources towards a goal to obtain new game mechanics to use in playing the game.

When viewed properly, like that, we can see what research mechanics really need to do. Yes, there can be "fluff" or certain things that are necessary, but don't really provide "new mechanics" themselves. For instance, as a 4x game progresses, one usually needs additional ways to increase the size of one's colonies. So, some fluff, bookkeeping, research is necessary to "improve crop yields" or "develop new terrain to be habitable."

The true game-mechanic inducing tech that provides the player with new ways to play the game or new tools to use in gameplay is what the gamer really wants. Like you stated, research feels more rewarding when you can decide what sorts of tools you want to use, like further-farthering guns that might be slightly weaker than others or short-range, powerful guns, that lose their accuracy over long distances.

You can work with that sort of research advance. You can plan for it and how it will impact your choices and the tools you will use. In that sort of research tree, you're not just developing Laserx10, which you'll just end up slapping on all your ships, without any changes to how you use them or how they're constructed. That's.. boring and a waste of development time. Sure, some games get along just fine, because they've got tools and game mechanics the player can fiddle with in other parts of the game. But, if that's the case, then why have tech research at all?

I'm like you in that I appreciate "research" being for something I can actually feel has an impact on my gameplay and the tools I can use while playing. I want to be able to integrate research into my playstyle and I want it to have an impact on how I play the game, not just fluff going on in the backgroun that doesn't change the tools I have access to.

Yeah, lurching a bit off-topic, but it's a really interesting game-design concept that can truly make or break a game. For already good games, it can propel them into the realm of the fantastic, like SotS. Or, it can cause them to plummet into the depths of the mundane, like too many titles to count.