Minimum feasibility

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

Moderator: Erinys

Post Reply
User avatar
Zweistein
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Minimum feasibility

Post by Zweistein » Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:24 pm

So yesterday I was playing Tarka against hard Zuul who had a 500k savings and 6 colony advantage on me. Needles to say it's taking me all my power just to keep them at bay. Invading their systems is a nightmare. So I decide I'm going to get AP rounds since my regular ones aren't quite cutting it anymore. My feasibility comes back at 3% even though my race is inclined towards Ballistic weaponry. Now I'll have to spend the next 12 turns researching and failing it to hope I don't get another bad roll on them and am thus forced into energy tech which has a greater chance of low feasibility rolls and where I have 0 research labs build.

This game can clearly destroy you with randomness and though this does give it a special charm I suggest that this be mitigated by introducing "minimum feasibility", but only in fields/techs where your race excels at (Ballistic for Tarka, Bio-tech and psionics for Liir, political science for Morrigi, Industrial tech for Hivers, etc). I think 25% should do. That means you still got pretty screwed by randomness but it prevents a situation where you fail in you primary weapon type and are forced onto sub-optimal secondary type just to fail again and realise that you will never be able to out tech your enemy because all of your high tier weapon techs keep getting 1%.
We will sing their nightmares to them.

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:07 pm

I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking for. Tarkas already have a minimum chance of 45% for Ballistics (for Tumbler, other Ballistics are much higher). And there are so many different weapons available that failing one of them shouldn't be the end of the world.
I don't understand why you would persist researching a tech you most likely have failed (and what "another bad roll" you're talking about), when you could just do feasibility for another weapon, for instance Stormer or Burster or the medium/heavy energy cannon line which Tarkas have good chances for.
And there's always salvage.

User avatar
Zweistein
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Zweistein » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:32 pm

BlueTemplar wrote:I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking for. Tarkas already have a minimum chance of 45% for Ballistics (for Tumbler, other Ballistics are much higher).


Then how did I roll a 3% on a ballistic tech as Tarka (AP bullets)? Should I post this as a bug?
We will sing their nightmares to them.

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:37 pm

AFAIK this is just an indication on whether you rolled the tech or not (AP rounds for Tarka is 95%). 3% pretty much means you didn't, though I've heard that in very rare cases people had 1% feasibility techs succeed and 99% fail.

User avatar
Resok
Kerbicron Cleric
Kerbicron Cleric
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:58 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Resok » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:38 pm

Feasibility is just an expansion of the random tech tree that is core to Sword of the Stars (1 and 2).

For Tarka I'd recommend going Fusion cannons - if you're blocked on AP -> HEAP then Fusion cannons are a very strong alternative (and is guaranteed).

Either way - the random element of the tech tree forces players to think outside the box in order to defeat your enemies. AP -> HEAP is *not* the only valid strategy to defeating your enemies. Heavy Drones, Battle Riders, heavy missile setups are all viable solutions to destroying your enemies - just require differing tactics to make effective.
Image

ScoSteSal118
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by ScoSteSal118 » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:16 pm

Zweistein wrote:
BlueTemplar wrote:I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking for. Tarkas already have a minimum chance of 45% for Ballistics (for Tumbler, other Ballistics are much higher).


Then how did I roll a 3% on a ballistic tech as Tarka (AP bullets)? Should I post this as a bug?


hopefully some clarification on that question here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=50620

User avatar
Zweistein
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Zweistein » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:42 pm

That topic is fine, but what would really put feasibility to rest one and for all is if someone from kerberus explained it to us. They really know how it works.

Pretty please, with sugar on top?
We will sing their nightmares to them.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38177
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Mecron » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:00 am

have done so a few times ;) What EXACTLY are you having trouble with vs what's in the manual (so I can give you the answer you are looking for as opposed to rambling on about the whole system ;)

olmio
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:08 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by olmio » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:30 am

Hmm i rolled 1% for phalanx PD with Tarka on my newly patched game. But what the heck, that´s what repair ships and salvage projects are for.

User avatar
Zweistein
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Zweistein » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:19 am

Id like to know what the connection between percentages stated in wiki and real feasibility is. And what happens when you fail a project and do another feasibility study?

And mostly how do breakthroughs work, how does feasibility come into play before you reach 100% and after you've done so?
We will sing their nightmares to them.

ForceUser
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by ForceUser » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:19 am

Every tech links to another tech. So techs have multiple links from multiple techs. These links have a certain % to exist. For example 95% chance for them to exist for Tarka for the AP tech. In laymans terms this is the % chance the tech exists in your tech tree from a specific tech. This is IDEANTICAL to Sots1.

Also all of this is decided at the START of the game.

Now, this is all hidden behind the feasibility interface in SotS2. The feasability interface has nothing at all to do with if a tech exists or not. It is purely your sientists telling you how sure they are that they can research the tech or not. There are techs that increase the accuracy of the feasibility but again, feasibility does not dictate if you have the tech or not, only how sure your scientists are that you ahev the tech available and there is a certain factor of randomness invovled that introduced a risk/reward mechanic.

Now if you 'fail' your feasibility the first time by rolling a low % but the tech has another link to it then you can research the tech to 200%, fail it and then get ANOTHER feasibility available to do. This represents the scientists aprouching the tech from another angle based on another tech's principles. Each of these links btw has a different % chance for the tech to exist along that line usually.

There is also salvage that sets your feasibility to 99% if you complete the special project.

Basically feasibility is the representation of a binary value (1 or 0, yes or no) in a % form with some added randomness.
Perspective Man: Much like common sense, it's so rare it's a gorram superpower.
Agent.nihilist wrote:Ooo! Whats the gesture for ramming!?
Korgan wrote:probably a pelvic thrust
Mecron wrote:oy that is wrong at so many levels...well done! :P

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Posts: 3131
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by BlueTemplar » Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:43 am

Feasibility (which is purely "cosmetic") doesn't affect breakthrough chances, which are dictated mainly by the % of completion of the tech.

User avatar
Karu
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:49 am

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Karu » Fri Sep 06, 2013 1:45 pm

ForceUser wrote:There is also salvage that sets your feasibility to 99% if you complete the special project.


It will be a yellow line if you salvaged a tech and did the salvage research - also known as a 100% techlink - not 99%.


Sincerly

User avatar
Aranador
Posts: 597
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:30 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Aranador » Sun Sep 08, 2013 4:53 am

Crikey - a clear case of not knowing what feasibility actually does, and what the numbers mean.

So - here we go.

Every race has a certain chance to get a tech, and if there are multiple branches into a tech, there are multiple chances, each with their own rate of success.

At the start of the game, every single one of these branches is determined via a hidden dice roll. If you have a 75 pct chance for your race to have X, then roughly 3 in 4 games you will have X.

Later in the game, you test a tech for feasibility. After spending research points about equal to 10pct of the total cost, the game generates a feasibility score to present to the player. Note that the game already knows if you have succeeded or failed, but you, as the player, are presented with a 'fuzzy' result. You still have to make a judgement call as to if you will allocate research or not. Feasibility is an abstract number that in and of itself has nothing at all to do with the chance that you have the tech or not. Usually, if you can get the tech, feasibility will be high. If you can not, it will be low. Other factors appear to influence this - more expensive techs seem to report a lower feasibility, or rather, reflect greater uncertainty.

What feasibility really is, is a somewhat uncertain indication as to if you should bother fully researching a tech, or giving up on it or moving on. What it abolutely is not, is the true probability that you will get the tech.

Use feasibility to your advantage, to test a range of techs, then select the ones that will likely work and deliver what you need.

It is a lot more 'realistic' than SotS 1 - where before you even started to investigate a tech, you knew for certain you would get it, because if you could see it in your tree, you were going to get it. SotS 2 requires you to actually investigate a concept for - omg you guessed it - feasibility. Then you get to decide if you will commit.

User avatar
Zweistein
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Minimum feasibility

Post by Zweistein » Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:12 pm

Aranador wrote:Crikey - a clear case of not knowing what feasibility actually does, and what the numbers mean.

So - here we go.

Every race has a certain chance to get a tech, and if there are multiple branches into a tech, there are multiple chances, each with their own rate of success.

At the start of the game, every single one of these branches is determined via a hidden dice roll. If you have a 75 pct chance for your race to have X, then roughly 3 in 4 games you will have X.

Later in the game, you test a tech for feasibility. After spending research points about equal to 10pct of the total cost, the game generates a feasibility score to present to the player. Note that the game already knows if you have succeeded or failed, but you, as the player, are presented with a 'fuzzy' result. You still have to make a judgement call as to if you will allocate research or not. Feasibility is an abstract number that in and of itself has nothing at all to do with the chance that you have the tech or not. Usually, if you can get the tech, feasibility will be high. If you can not, it will be low. Other factors appear to influence this - more expensive techs seem to report a lower feasibility, or rather, reflect greater uncertainty.

What feasibility really is, is a somewhat uncertain indication as to if you should bother fully researching a tech, or giving up on it or moving on. What it abolutely is not, is the true probability that you will get the tech.

Use feasibility to your advantage, to test a range of techs, then select the ones that will likely work and deliver what you need.

It is a lot more 'realistic' than SotS 1 - where before you even started to investigate a tech, you knew for certain you would get it, because if you could see it in your tree, you were going to get it. SotS 2 requires you to actually investigate a concept for - omg you guessed it - feasibility. Then you get to decide if you will commit.


While I am grateful for your explanation I'm not sure it works that way. How would I then be possible to get a tech on the second try and why would techs go over budged and then succeed if the game already knows what will happen, moreover why would people get 99% and fail then if the game was supposed to give you a low percentage to ward you off?

I've always thought that once you reach 50% the game halves your feasibility and rolls for an early breakthrough until you hit 100% where the game rolls for a breakthrough at your normal feasibility.

Anyone from the kerberos cared to shed some light, please?
We will sing their nightmares to them.

Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests