Rant about Feasibility Studies

A lot of gamers means a lot of opinions - share and discuss them here.

Moderator: Erinys

Post Reply
Goekhan
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:52 pm

Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Goekhan » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:35 pm

Take a look at this picture first: Image

Now, why I think it is heavily flawed for weapon technologies.

Firstly, you are spending valuable research time to see what you can get. You want heavy anti-matter cannons? You spend several turns, only to see that chances are very low. Secondly, it doesn't make sense to me as it is now. Having just a single technology to study for feasibility is ok, but anything that goes deeper (upper) in the tech tree should use a different formula. How it should be done? Here are my ideas.

When I use term, feasibility study, you may notice that I'm not using any prefixes like, plasma projector study or x-ray beamer study. I'm just using beamers, projectors. The basics in other words. Those should be studied, the entire possibilities that can be adapted. Not one by one. And the study should either say possible, or impossible. Research chances should be converted to research efficiency, in other words, how much longer it'd take / harder to research.

From the picture above, basics should be Heavy cannons, projectors, and beamers.

Beamers for example. The feasibility study of beamers should apply all of the relative technology. So, when I do the feasibility study for beamers, I should be able to access, in other words, adapt all relative technology with beamers. On the picture above, I have researched X-Ray lasers, so I should be able to directly research X-Ray beamers. Or, heavy cannons. Heavy cannon feasibility study should apply to all relative technology aswell. I should be able to research antimatter heavy cannon directly if my feasibility study is successful. And as you can see there, projector study is failed. That should prohibit me from doing any research into projectors at all.

-With what game currently uses, anything below a set percent should be considered as a failure in this version. Lets say, 35-40% and below is considered failure. I should see those red lines, and a grayed out feasibility study box.
-If study was a success, I should see all relative technologies connected to each other (anti-matter cannon connected to heavy anti-matter cannon for example).
-Instead of seeing 50% chances to get a technology or not, I should see 50% efficiency, costing/taking longer to research, but being able to researched.
-Also, "older" technologies (like heavy plasma cannon and at top, heavy anti-matter cannon) should provide a research bonus into that study, either
--increasing the efficiency (for example, researching heavy plasma cannon first should increase the efficiency by a set amount, or by a calculated amount).
--or, cutting a set amount of research points off of a following technology (instead of spending 100k RP into anti-matter, 90k RP for example)

User avatar
ProjectLevyDelta
Posts: 3945
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:42 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by ProjectLevyDelta » Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:51 pm

This is not about the ability to research everything in the tech tree.

the Tech tree is 100% random you could research feasibility for UV beamers and get 99% chance the research it and find out that your scientists just cant figure it out.

What SotS 2 did from my analysis is what SotS 1 does only right in your face rather then in the background.

SotS1 had all the tech would randomize it and any tech you did not roll or get would be removed from your tech tree before the game started. So if you had plasma projector you could research it once you finished researching it if the "sadorandomizer" rolled that you did not get Fusion Projector, then you would not see Fusion Projector on the list.

In SotS 2 you get feasibility so the feasibility may come back 50% for Plasma Projector and after you research it Fusion Projector feasibility may come back 25% or even 1% or even 99% but you must know that this could actually be a waste of research time if you poor money into it because you may never get that tech.

The way it is now adds a layer of strategy because every tech that is not "core" your are taking a gamble on if you go to 200% over budget you might as well say the tech is impossible until you salvage something from your enemy.

It the same Sadorandomizer from SotS 1 just now you have a feasibility study so you have more options to physically see which techs are more likely to come through and which are not.

I would be shocked if Kerberos ever decided to let you research the entire tech tree in normal gameplay it would ruin the concept of their "random tech tree"
Image

User avatar
LaDoncella
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by LaDoncella » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:03 pm

If anything I would complain that it seems that techs only have one possible path to them.
ie. compare energy cannons research from prime to sots2
Image

Goekhan
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:52 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Goekhan » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:22 pm

ProjectLevyDelta wrote:I would be shocked if Kerberos ever decided to let you research the entire tech tree in normal gameplay it would ruin the concept of their "random tech tree"


And where did I say I want to research everything available in the game?

You miss my entire point. If I'm able to research plasma projector, why cannot I research anti-matter projector too? I'm saying that, studies should be done on basics, theories, etc... If proven successful, I should be able to adapt it to relative technology. As I've said in my example, if I can research plasma projector, I should be able to research anti-matter one too. If I can research UV beamers, I should be able to research x-ray beamers too. That's my point.

And this is also why I hated SotS1 tech tree a little bit. You research anti-matter directly, and you can start researching any anti-matter related stuff directly, even if you weren't able to get any older versions of what you want.

User avatar
Cpt. Awesome
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:12 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Cpt. Awesome » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:45 pm

Well mind you this is a design choice made for these game mechanics. They could easily change it anyway they wanted to.

However in terms of story/internal consistency you could easily argue it either way for any of these fictional technologies in the game. For example projector technology isn't just a matter of plugging it into a more powerful energy source to get a colour change and increased damage/range; you could imagine they would have to completely redesign the projector emitter itself to handle antimater.

Such differences are considered important and non-trivial enough to warrant a whole new tech for research with a new feasibility chance as well. Thats why you place specific plasma weapons on your ship and not just generic "plasma turrets" which automatically upgrade depending on the ship's powerplant, and why there are no guarantees.***

***Notice how some techs for mass drivers or missle warheads DO infact upgrade automatically because you're only changing the ammo not the launch mechanisms.

User avatar
nighthaunt
Posts: 809
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:32 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by nighthaunt » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:53 pm

The idea behind feasability studies is that you can't see at a glance if your going to get the tech or not, unlike SOTS prime. I can get a 25% success rate for UV beamers, research that and then get a 99% rate for Xray beamers.

Having the whole chain as one feasability study would mean that you could quickly at the start of the game, plan out your entire tech development - whereas the current system means you can't plan that far in the future what techs your going to get.

This reflects to me the more random element of the tech tree's - previously you felt in prime that it was all laid out from the start - this time your not as sure, it just feels more random to me, even though the % chance is set at the start of the game.

The % chance also means you can end up wasting research on tech's you will never get - but again thats much more like reality where techs which show much initial promise never pan out into practical applications.
The collected forum saying of the Prophet - the Mecronomicon

Allattar wrote:The princes grow worried and the princesses stir with irritation. They feel you either lack gravitas or are just plain insane. Might we suggest you stop before they rebel?

User avatar
Darkchampion
Posts: 855
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:09 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Darkchampion » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:57 pm

My only gripe is that you can end up wasting turns upon turns of research with this system.

~2 turns for feasibility. Ok 75% chance, sounds good! 12 more turns to research, only to find that you failed the roll and got nothing for your efforts.

Yes, I'm well aware that this happens all the time in real life. However, as a gameplay mechanic it is arbitrarily punishing to the player. Missing techs is fine, but the punishment in this case for missing is too great. I would also prefer if it would flat out tell you yes or no after a feasibility study. Or maybe have the failed techs fail earlier in research (much earlier).

User avatar
AlanF5
Posts: 1492
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:14 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by AlanF5 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:16 pm

Yeah, this is one of those things that's going to be very much varied by individual taste, and as such, there won't be an effort to "please everyone".

I rather like it as is. I can imagine something like researching Deflector Shields early in the game, only getting 50%, and passing on it. Until a 150 turns later when that unfriendly Liir neighbor surprises me with impactor dreads. Now I take a gamble on Deflector, and the possiblity of failure is exiting. :insane:
Download my zombie outbreak mini-sim: unfortunately, it's not Fort Zombie.

Winner of the "Guess what the zerker discs are an homage to?" race. (The Mandarin's ten rings)

User avatar
ProjectLevyDelta
Posts: 3945
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:42 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by ProjectLevyDelta » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:19 pm

I have seen worse punishment in Sots then the feasibility study.

System Killer (totally ruins all Sol Force game play as well as the thing leave a gaping hole where several systems use to be.)

Peace Keeper (Primarly forces you to shrink your fleet or he kills them all off)

Also the VN (they are just evil sometimes)

overall I think this game enjoys punishing its players just for playing the game ;)

Feasibility study is just a % chance of wasting your money. Not like everyone doesn't do that already building large fleets just to scout with them and get mobbed by a much larger fleet.

It also the same concept as getting up to Positron beams and realizing that Meson Beams isn't on the list.

So you usually waist more time searching that way then you do with feasibility study.

Lastly A LOT of this games seems to be centered around "Realism"

Not to say your opinion isn't taken, but over all this game seems to be designed with realism more then with what you perceive as "good gameplay"
Image

Z32
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Z32 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:23 pm

I kinda feel like you should be able to perform feasability studies concurrently with research. It's kinda annoying having to stop all research so you can spend 4 turns and millions of income just so the game will let me research something I want.

Also, From what I've heard, certain techs can be unlocked through multiple paths, but have different probabilities of being available from different core techs. How does the Feasibility study account for that? You can study feasibility after opening a tech up, but you can't study it again if you complete another tech with a path to that same one. Will this change the porbability ot achieving that tech, ir is it locked after the study?

User avatar
Scynix
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:39 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Scynix » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:45 pm

OP: I disagree.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill

Slavjukebox
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:41 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Slavjukebox » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:09 pm

My main issue is that in my two longest games before fatal and unvavoidable CTDs lasted about 163 and 190 turns each, respectively, and both times I'd barely made the progression up the tech tree that I'd expect from the original SotS. I was wallowing in environmental and industrial techs, and while I didn't keep track I'd estimate that fifteen percent of my research time had been sunk into feasibility studies, which in the last game gave me four reasonably achievable techs and two one-percenters.

It slows my research down and leads to frustrating blind alleys that for me personally increases the grind level of the game. What I think would be a better system would to either have some of the study into feasibility convert over into percentage of research once you start actually researching the tech, or more ideally have feasibility studies run like special projects. In the latter case you're still devoting resources to the concept, but you're not getting frustrated by having your main research effort of several turns come back and say "Whoops, no, 1 percent sucka."

User avatar
ProjectLevyDelta
Posts: 3945
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:42 am

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by ProjectLevyDelta » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:12 pm

LoL so you don't like the Sadorandomizers 2.0?? that is udnerstandable :twisted:
Image

Goekhan
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:52 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Goekhan » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:16 pm

^ It is not only that. I've failed to develop some techs with 70ish percents. And I've spent 10-15 turns trying to research it. Seeing something below 30 percent, and avoiding it is fine, but losing valuable research time and then failing to develop something, this just drives me crazy.

Avan
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: Rant about Feasibility Studies

Post by Avan » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:17 pm

I've only ever failed on a 1% item before >.>

Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests