Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Summary:

Dynamic "Production" steps to each level.

Soft vs Hard Research Tree

WhistlingMountain 1192348548|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I'm unsure of how vast the research tree will be, but one of my pet peeves with research trees is that everything is so hard and limited.

For example, if doing a very basic example

Transportation: Horseback -> Carriage -> Train -> Car -> Plane -> Spaceship -> "Warpspeed"

I keep hoping for games to instead implement more incentives to research a certain tree item further to actually have a better car say than someone else. This may already been in games, I don't play enough to comment on all of 'em.

in a Sci-Fi example, say, Weapons

say you have Photon Torpedoes and they're before Hypo Torpedoes

rather than have two armies fight, and have a very limited set of possibilities of weapons, have it be that once Photon Torpedoes have been hit you can keep researching and produce better, stronger, faster photon torpedoes until at some point in research you hit production/deply and then can start adding them to your existing ships and new ships. You could keep putting time and resources into photons or when you're happy put that time and effort into Hypo Torpedoes. You could decide whether to keep your now out of date Proton Torpedoes, sell them to another player, or ditch them all together and eat the loss. Or try to use them in battle against weaker opponents to not waste your new ones.

That way when two people fight, one person could have stayed on Photon research a bit longer, hit someone who has played a similar time and decided to rather try to get to Hypo right away, but when they fight, it's Photon v3.3 vs Photon 1.0. Make Photon 10.0 say slightly worse than Hypo 1.0. Could also open up a market if you have certain weapon systems capable of handling certain ammo. Say a system can handle photons of any level, but you're only producing 1.5, about to go into battle with someone using 4.5, you can buy some 7's off the market. Would also help add some unknowns going into a battle. First off if you scan their ships you can only find they're armed with Photon weaponry until you get hit and then measure the damage, so if they purchased some higher than their current usage, maybe the first couple shots could scare off an attack. Without them ever figuring out that you only had 2 of them and the rest are much weaker.

Would also be cool to be able to name/nickname your stuff once you put it into production.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Havoc 1192379692|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I love this guy (in a manly, not gay, sort of way! …) and I love these ideas.

The softer research tree has been done, but not nearly enough, and tends to be only in turn based and obscure games. What I hate about normal tech trees is the finality of them. Once you've done all the tech, that's it, nothing new until the developers throw something else in, but if you can find a way to make the tree infinite, it would be so much more interesting. Therefore, if the level of tech researched could be infinite, you would have that situation. The problem you run into there is new players start out way behind the game. I'm not sure how to deal with that, but hopefully someone else has an idea!

The ammo idea for an RTS is, wow, just deep. I don't know how harsh that would be on the server, to need to calculate ammo amounts and types for every unit nearly constantly, but guys, I would certainly look into it if you aren't already. Of course, perhaps there should be a class of weapons, like lasers, or other radiation weapons which don't use ammo, or just get loaded up once in a great while, so that players who don't want to deal with that, won't need to, but of course there'd be some disadvantage to using them, like a shorter range, increased power consumption, etc., etc., etc…. I'm not sure how involved you're looking to make the unit scheme in this game, from the custom units discussion, it seems fairly deep already, adding more would be great, and challenging.

Also, while thinking about this, I had a random idea springing from the idea of an ammo-less unit class… Melee units are almost unheard of in space games, and I don't really like that. They could be fast little ships that ram the enemy ship and attach, boring through the hull, or a big slow, possibly cloaked, ship that's able to plow right through an entire swath of ships. As an engineer in real life, I'm not entirely sure that any type of melee ship would really be a good idea, ever, but it would be fun, and different. Currently in space games, it just seems like two groups of ships shooting at each other for a while, this would create more variance! It's just an idea to think about.

Rock on guys, rock on!
(If there are any females involved, dictionary.com says "guys" is "Informal" and refers to "Persons of either sex." hehe)

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

tbg10101 1192469643|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

On the conceptual commands list that I made for the developers there is a ram command. This way you can do a suicidal, last ditch attempt to defend your planet or just make a fleet of ships and use them actively against the enemy. Top make an ammo-less ship you simply construct a hull with engines on it and use the ram command.

Sound good?

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Matt R 1192406925|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

You guys are certainly talking about some great ideas here, and you'll be happy to know most of them have already been included in our discussions on game design!

I personally have had the exact same attitude towards research/technology in all games as you have mentioned. It annoys me how research, which in real life is incredibly diverse, expansive, complex, and interesting, and has been the subtle driver behind basically everything in human history, is so often boiled down to a simple list of 50 or so types where you click on one and *poof!* you've advanced 100 years technologically in the blink of an eye. Even more aggravating is when you play games and someone manages to research the next weapon type and suddenly your completely powerless against their ships, or vice versa, where a band of 50 axemen is somehow able to take down a battalion of tanks through sheer probability.

We devs all gamers too, so we share much the same aggravation at most of the market as you do. The advantage for us is that we're not a multi-billion dollar popular game company (doesn't sound like much of an advantage, huh?), which means that we have to really work hard to make games that are fun, innovative, and not just pretty to be successful. Because of this I can assure you we will be implementing some great ideas, taking examples from previous games along with adding on them and improving them. Along with this, however, we're inventing some features of this game, and the combination of tried and true with fresh ideas will make for some great gameplay.

With that said, going back to technology, and now I'm talking about FG itself, I have to be honest and say that although we plan to have a great research system the details have not been worked out yet. We have a pretty expansive tech tree, and we have discussed and included aspects of "soft" design that you talked about, but how research will truly function in the game I cannot say at this point. Us devs talked a lot about technology way back a couple months ago, but since then haven't addressed it in detail besides the tech tree. Right now we've been focusing on economy, resources and their usage, the dynamics of ground and space combat, as well as other issues. This thread may spawn some new discussions amongst us however and revive the issue of research in FG.

I can talk to you all about weapons, ships, and more specifically this idea of ammo being a major part of the game. We do have different types of ammo in the game, which is manufactured along with weapons and other ship-related modules. As for limitations such as ammo amounts, I can't say. I think at this moment we hadn't really thought about having an ammo amount for each weapon, with depletion being a possibility, but don't think its completely out of the question. For things like missiles, its probably more likely that amount caps may be implemented, but like I said, I'll have to check with the other devs on this before I say more. Definitely not out of the question however, and we're open to all ideas no matter how difficult or server-intensive they may seem.

For space combat I can assure you that it won't be a simple system with groups of ships sitting in space firing stuff at each other utnil something blows up. Space combat is going to be dynamic, strategic, and involved, instead of the simple clicking the "attack" button and sitting back to watch. No two battles will be exactly the same.

Each ship has weapon systems, engines, etc, atatched to the hull as modules. When in battle, your ships can target enemy's modules for strategic combat tactics, such as destroying a major weapon system or disabling their engines so they can't move. Some ships will be moving and others may stand still.

Each module has its own properties, such as armor type, weapon strength, etc. Each ship has module "ports" where during the design/customization process modules are attached. Although I am breezing over this customization system, the basic gist is that you will have unparalled control over the designs of your ships, and since each module has its own 3d model to attach to a basic hull type, your ships will look customized as well. Once a ship is built though, it keep its design unless upgraded, so each player will have to stay up-to-date in terms of implementing the latest technology into the production process. This level of customization will make battles interesting, different, surprising, but at the very least entertaining.

I have spoken a ton already, perhaps more than I should have in one post, but I guess I can get carried away sometimes! I could go on but I'll stop here. Hopefully I've at least begun to convince you that FG is not going to be just like any other game, and we are trying very hard to introduce new, exciting features into recently stagnant genre.

Last edited on 1192407125|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover By Matt R + Show more

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Anonymous (204.210.96.x) 1192414481|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

good answers good answers, getting carried away is a great sign of passion! Certainly makes me miss the days towards the end of college when I ultimately decided against getting a job at a game company. ( Small Cog in Big Machine = Not for me, 4 years gone by, I don't regret the decision )

I actually wrote up a big design concept for a fast paced space mmorts, and for a slow broad spore style mmo in which you're mostly making "management" decisions over many millions of years ( by far my most passionate idea, but a deployment nightmare ). I'll have to dig 'em up and see if I had any good ideas that could still be used. I remember thinking how impossible the latter design would be until seeing the great demos of procedural graphics and animation for spore.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Havoc 1192416347|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I must agree, great answers, and I personally know I wouldn't mind if you continued to go on! :) But I understand not wanting to reveal too much before it's finished.

I know I can't wait to see this customization scheme in action, scratch that, this entire game!

Patience Havoc, patience…

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Matt R 1192418259|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I will tell you all that because of this thread I opened up a new discussion in our developer's forum relating to the technology system. So we have begun talking about it and probably will be able to give you more insights into the advancement aspect of this game at some point this week. Hats off to you all for bringing this great topic back to our attention!

And I can personally assure you that I went rambling on and on about this even more in that discussion. Technological development in games is something I'm passionate about and so I guarantee a good, fresh, innovative system will be presented to you within FG. Hopefully the unoriginal approaches of mainstream games will be eliminated and replaced by brand new ideas! At least thats the goal.

I would also just like to express my happiness at the growing community here in the FG forums! We are still very small in number, but it seems every day new people are discovering us and adding their thoughts. This is great! We devs are going to try as hard as possible to stay involved in these forums, since as fellow gamers we know the pain and anger players have felt in the past concerning silent developers who ignore their users. At least as long as I am part of this team I will try to keep the doors open. (And please feel free in the future to hold me to this promise if, in fact, I close the doors)

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

WhistlingMountain 1192421980|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Anonymous (204.210.96.230) is me, this forum really needs a way to login without going to wikidot.com ( unless I'm just an idiot, which.. is sort of true )

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Craig Macomber 1192422404|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

There should be a gray login link in the upper right corner. Maybe I should make it more visible again and some more. You are not the first person to have that issue. It makes me think I might want to disable Anonymous posting (I think it prompts you to log in if I do that)

I will read through this topic when I have time. Thanks for the ideas; I just can't read them all now.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

WhistlingMountain 1192429230|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Ah I see it, thanks, I keep my screen on dark when not doing design work, easier on the eyes over long periods of time =o)

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Craig Macomber 1192589952|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Ok. I personally think I have come up with a solution, but I'm going to bounce it off the other devs befor posting it here. I will provide a summery though:

I guess it is a way to have endless progress (though slowing greatly) with every tech, and an effectivly endless number of techs. The end of the known tree is usally the worst spot intrest wise because there are no more techs, but notice how I said known tree. At the end you get to discover stuff, and brag about being first, or secreatly blast enemies with unknowen weapons of doom (insert evil laughing here).

I'm also going for a high level of interaction between the techs as far as research goes, and take use into account when considering advancement rates.

---

And WhistlingMountain, I keep my brightness around 20%. I just leave the contrast all the way up. Works for me. If anything on this site looks funny, thats likley why.

Last edited on 1192648090|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover By tbg10101 + Show more

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Havoc 1192630333|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I like the hidden techs idea. Without hearing your full idea, I'm going to make an addition, hopefully it doesn't step on your idea. I've always wondered if there was some way to have the player actually do some research some how. Whether it be by capturing enemy tech and bringing it to a research lab, or by combining raw materials in specific amounts at a lab (I'm not really sure about the mechanics on this one, but maybe you can think of something), or scouring the depths of space for remnants of alien civilizations, so that with a lot of work, players can truly have a unique advantage, or they can share what they did with their allies and hope no one sells the secret. Once the game is released, this would also be the perfect avenue to introduce new, higher level technologies down the road. On the other hand, if a player preferred to focus on other aspects of their empire, he/she can stick to the 'known tree' and hope a hidden tech somehow falls across their path.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Matt R 1192646618|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I Like that concept too, but it would need some intensive design. Probably not a first-release feature, but maybe down the road once our initial research plan is all worked out.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Havoc 1192651456|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

That's fine, and I understand. It's the main reason I can't really elaborate any more (you know I would have if I could have!). It's always good to be thinking of how to one up yourself, I always say. Wait… no I don't… but I should start!

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Craig Macomber 1192647684|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

With my plan there is a spot where we could add addational factors such as relations with other nations, artifacts and such. Now that I think about it we could tie some artifacts and the story into it. Prabably not in the first release though.

Crazy C 1192638160|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

{Please Delete}

Last edited on 1193002513|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover By Crazy C + Show more

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Phenoca 1194201341|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

RE: Matt R

It annoys me how research, which in real life is incredibly diverse, expansive, complex, and interesting, and has been the subtle driver behind basically everything in human history, is so often boiled down to a simple list of 50 or so types where you click on one and *poof!* you've advanced 100 years technologically in the blink of an eye. Even more aggravating is when you play games and someone manages to research the next weapon type and suddenly your completely powerless against their ships, or vice versa, where a band of 50 axemen is somehow able to take down a battalion of tanks through sheer probability.

Haha.

Ooh, the ammunition looks good, and complex.
I do not have any experience with ammunition systems,
but if it were up to me, I'd always use energy weapons
or bring a resupply ship.

Perhaps resupply ships could be a strategic target for attackers?

Although I am breezing over this customization system, the basic gist is that you will have unparalled control over the designs of your ships, and since each module has its own 3d model to attach to a basic hull type, your ships will look customized as well.

Very nice. I've played a game where a ship can have a turret
which shoots itself in the cockpit.
Can this be implemented too, or will the AI be above this?

I would also just like to express my happiness at the growing community here in the FG forums!

:D
How many websites have you advertised FG on?
I heard about Fragmented Galaxy from Wikipedia, on November 1st.

RE: Craig Macomber

The end of the known tree is usally the worst spot intrest wise because there are no more techs, but notice how I said known tree. At the end you get to discover stuff, and brag about being first, or secreatly blast enemies with unknowen weapons of doom (insert evil laughing here).

Heh, an unknown tech tree is a good idea, but players will
quickly pick up on it, and start posting newbie guides for
their alliance members (which is good)!
I think that some technologies should give you an advantage
over one technology, but a disadvantage towards another.

Once the first stage of Beta or Alpha is released, I can
give feedback. However, when it comes to PVP, I focus more
on the dynamics of the battle-strategies rather than on
the awesomeness of ship weaponry.

Example of unknown technology:
If you research level 20 Photon Guns and level 30 Laser Weaponry,
then you can unlock Electro-static Pulse Beams.
Erm, "EMP"s.

Or, if you research high level engines, you can unlock
Dark Matter or Anti-Matter weaponry, which is good for
close range combat (thus complementing your fast engines).

Well, the options here are unlimited.

Question: What kind of artifacts are you proposing to have?
Would the artifacts be stationary, or could they be transported
to specific planets?

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

jamoe 1213658574|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

as far as the new players being left behind, i played a game once that based the cost of research off of how rare it was. so if nearly everyone has rock throwing, then rock throwing would be really cheap to research, not to mention that most players would give resources necessary for the research, so new players got caught up with the average pretty quick, becoming cutting edge was very tough though.

out of all the ways i have thought of to do research (as i think we can all agree the norm needs improvement) i never thought of this specifically, which is pretty simple, not to mention realistic (china had roughly the equivalent of mid renaissance level during early roman period, but kept most of it to itself, most technologies that spread to other civilizations didn't get lost when china fell to the mongols).

as for the original poster's idea of improving technologies instead of jumping through technologies, technology has many facets to it, which means that if one were to research say photon torpedoes, they would probably be able to research ways to improve the energy consumption rate, decrease maintenance, improve penetration, boost damage output, increase ammo capacity, decrease load times, improve tracking systems, and probably more that i can't think of. so if you are improving something that exists maybe allowing one to improve specific aspects of the technology in order to suit one's playing style (if all you do is build death stars and sit back and let the enemy come to you, damage at range is far more important than someone who only builds specialized fighters).

for the interface i was thinking of a tree much like explorer with the little pluses, so that if you research a category you research the sub categories evenly, that way no one has to micromanage their research, such would also allow as general a research goal as alpha centauri's discover, conquer, explore, build.

i think that a researching more general should be more efficient, which could be achieved if sub categories were shared between technologies (improving the damage of photon torpedoes would also improve the damage of photon missiles, and such). so if photon torpedoes cost 100 research units, and photon missiles cost 100 research units, researching them both would be cheaper than 200 research units because some of the sub categories are the same.

well like most of my posts this is one large block of text, let me see if i can insert some breaks. let me know if the flow is acceptable. i can also clarify, if anyone is confused about something.

[edit]just read the technology topic, and saw that matt was thinking along the same lines as me, for the second part. sorry for not reading everything fully before i posted.[/edit]

Last edited on 1213661664|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover By jamoe + Show more

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Craig Macomber 1213659622|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

as far as the new players being left behind, i played a game once that based the cost of research off of how rare it was.

That should be easy to add to our planned system and should solve the main issues. Thanks for the idea.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Matt R 1213699094|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

as far as the new players being left behind, i played a game once that based the cost of research off of how rare it was. so if nearly everyone has rock throwing, then rock throwing would be really cheap to research, not to mention that most players would give resources necessary for the research, so new players got caught up with the average pretty quick, becoming cutting edge was very tough though.

What we should do is have the cost be base off of how rare it is among people your nation has contact with. This is realistic, and could allow for some cool developments. Nations that seclude themselves will not gain the research benefits as nations that engage in the community. Also, communities as a whole will develop similar tech levels, giving each region of space its own kind of technological culture.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

jamoe 1213761083|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

as long as contact includes being attacked and raided, that way overly aggressive players that rely on smashing newbs will be helping his victims. the number one problem with mmos is that big players always smash newer players, and thus the newer player never gets a chance to defend itself. you could even make it so that being attacked by certain technology makes you more familiar with it, same with other forms of contact, if you only allow merchants to take resources from you you would only see the trade ships and such, and wouldn't see their military stuff, or infrastructure. if the code looks at objects interacting instead of factions or players then you could figure out what technologies are involved with the objects and thus base the bonus off of what actually is involved. if it is boiled down to tech at the point of interaction then any bonuses can be allocated immediately and avoid hefty cataloging strain on the server.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Matt R 1213768854|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

well, our tech system was already being designed to have tech usage be a factor in development of new technologies. We could apply the same concept, except on foreign objects, so that the tech usage of those objects that are detected by a player also have an affect on tech development. I think it could work well.

Also, since this kind of information is player-specific only, it can be stored mostly client-side with minimal extra processing needed by the server, so server strain should not be as much of an issue here. Definitely possible.

Re: Soft vs Hard Research Tree

Craig Macomber 1213769537|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Also, since this kind of information is player-specific only, it can be stored mostly client-side with minimal extra processing needed by the server, so server strain should not be as much of an issue here. Definitely possible.

Nope. It can not be stored client side, but don't worry about server load. We already have to run observation scans so tacking an additional scan upon ship detection should not place much load on the sever.

The reasons we can't store it client side are that we don't want the chance to cheat, and the information is needed when the client is offline. Also, the information about what techs are on detected ships should not be revealed fully to the client, but is needed to do the computations.