Very Slow Research Rates on Large, Huge, Immense Maps...

Too fast while on too slow...

from GalCiv2 Forums
I implore you to read through the OP by Uranium - 235. He has many points that I may not be able to express in my offshoot post.

Source of OP.
https://forums.galciv2.com/308604

I figured another post on the topic of Research speeds/rates would be appropriate as the following didn't seem to fit within the confines of the OP topic of discussion of tech trading.


During my deployment, I'm going to work on a tech tree mod that will simply make the 'costs' of them astronomical. I despise the current tech speeds - on Very Slow, even on a very average (immense) galaxy, by the halfway point I'm getting new techs in two or three turns - I'd like to be forced to use a tech BEFORE it's obsolete. As it is right now, I build a fleet of little crappy ships to protect myself, and then I'm building Dreadnoughts with Doom Rays and BHEs on them.

As it is, weapon and defense techs are fundamentally flawed. It usually plays out like this:

Laser I - 10 weeks
Laser II - 6 weeks
Laser III - 6 weeks
Laser IV - 7 weeks
Laser V - 7 weeks
Plasma I - 12 weeks
Plasma II - 7 weeks
Plasma III - 7 weeks

etc. This is logically absurd. I have no motivation to EVER use an inferior tech as it'll take longer to BUILD the ship then it will to simply research a new level, thus making it instantly obsolete.

It should be something along the lines of:

Laser I - 10 weeks
Laser II - 18 weeks
Laser III - 25 weeks
Laser IV - 31 weeks
Laser V - 37 weeks
Plasma I - 51 weeks
Plasma II - 64 weeks
Plasma III - 76 weeks

I simply used 10 as the base for Laser, and for every level, did +10, with a 10% reduction in the overall cost. For the leap to Plasma, I used +20. These are entirely arbitrary, but reflect the progression technology should have, rather than the linear crappy curve it DOES have. For Phasors, I could use +30. The idea is that it becomes easier to refine a technology once you know it, so the curve slackens a little, but the jump to a new technology is a little intimidating.

Phasors I - 104 weeks
Phasors II - 132 weeks
Phasors III - 160 weeks
Phasors IV - 172 weeks


Technically it should be an even more robust curve, so that even WITH upgrading research labs, the costs of them never drop to anything short of 'really long'. This is what I think the problem with the current tech tree is - you upgrade one level of research labs, suddenly older technologies are terribly easy to get, they're almost free. And find a +700% planet with rings on it, dump a bunch of labs on it, and suddenly I'm getting vital technologies in a week. Lame. Such a planet should give an advantage, sure, but not the slippery slope 'i win' slide it is now.
End of quote





The problem is, it comes down to a matter of what level of research is 'appropriate'. Frankly, it should be a 1:1 ratio. Lasers and Xeno labs, Plasma and Research Academies, Phasors and... whatever is after Research Academies....
End of quote


I dislike with a passion the research snowball effect in Large+ maps. It's even more noticeable in the new TA immense size maps.

The only moments I have experienced where "Very Slow" Research speed feels right on large+ maps would be during the colony rush and initial buildup phase...when your empire's research isn't the white hot stallion it will soon aspire to be...

Imo, that the "Research Speed Option" should scale with map size. And if possible # of habitable planets, and so on. The farther up the tech tree, the more expensive techs should get, even more so than what is currently implemented on "Very Slow."

As another poster (Scintor) mentioned in the very same thread:

The problem here is that research...is optimized for small maps and larger maps are just an add on.
End of quote



If another research speed was added, such as a "Mega slow" or "Petrified Snail" would you be happy?

If research costs scaled according to map size and research speed would you be happy?
33,064 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I completely agree with the quoted text. There should be an option of ridiculously slow to avoid immediately making ships obsolete before they get built.

Actually, the person who wrote the quoted text wants more than just a slower tech rate. He wants each tech to become more expensive than it is as it goes down the tree. That makes sense. At the beginning of the game, research speed is slow, but as your empire grows, the cost of the tech doesn't keep up.

That means a "Mega Slow" setting would just make the beginning of the game extremely painful.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That means a "Mega Slow" setting would just make the beginning of the game extremely painful.
End of quote


I couldn't agree more. ;) I'll edit the above final question to reflect this.

I would like to point out what I posted in my third section:

Imo, that the "Research Speed Option" should scale with map size. And if possible # of habitable planets, and so on. The farther up the tech tree, the more expensive techs should get, even more so than what is currently implemented on "Very Slow."
End of quote
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I would also like to see the tech tree take much longer to research. By the time I have finished upgrading my research buildings, I often have nothing left to research that will still benefit me for the game.

I am typically an economic player in RTS and 4X games, and I'd like the game to match the possible economy a bit better.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Imo, that the "Research Speed Option" should scale with map size. And if possible # of habitable planets, and so on. The farther up the tech tree, the more expensive techs should get, even more so than what is currently implemented on "Very Slow."
End of quote


Well, it becomes a question of how much control to give the players when they decide the game settings. If it scales with map size automatically, there is a level of logic that bypasses the player. If it is the same with all map sizes, but the player has the option to make it extremely slow, that's a better choice, IMO.

A player might want an immense game with a very fast tech speed. If it automatically scales, you are taking that option away.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A player might want an immense game with a very fast tech speed. If it automatically scales, you are taking that option away.
End of quote


I agree with that completely. The nice thing is that such a scaling option could be added via a simple checkbox or just an 'automatic' option in with the tech speed.

The checkbox would be the better choice since then the scaling could be controlled as well since it is based off of the tech speed choice.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A player might want an immense game with a very fast tech speed. If it automatically scales, you are taking that option away.
End of quote


I have had a vision:

It entails a radio button or check box..."Scale Research with Map"



(The above statement is an attempt at humor, which is most cases in forums, is not "caught")

But your point is entirely all too true, Mr. City.

With all the core changes with how the game is played coming with Twilight, changing this tidbit,imo, is a bit much. The player-base already knows what to expect when you choose any of the research options.

Perhaps with a scaling option, instead a total revamp of a "working" but less than satisfactory game setting.

But then again, this is asking a lot for the self-proclaimed, tiny "very slow tech" niche of players.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Are you sure it doesn't scale already? I thought I read somewhere that it did, and that makes sense considering many techs on very slow still take more than a week even with dozens of research dedicated planets (that would correspond to a year per tech on small/medium...I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen!) Perhaps it just doesn't scale fast enough?

Anyway, I'd quite like an even slower speed, but not with the current tech cost balance. I already find the early techs too expensive relative to early research ability, I just put up with it so it isn't ridiculously quick by mid game.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Just tested it. There's definitely *some* scaling. Terran on normal speed, 100% spending on research - 5 turns for basic logistics on "gigantic", 3 turns on "tiny". Must agree that doesn't seem like much scaling given the enormous difference in habitable planets between the two.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
..."Scale Research with Map"
End of quote

It already does. IIRC on a tiny map it is a half of medium, and on huge it's 2 times the medium (gigantic has the same settings as huge). The main problem is a gigantic galaxy is ~10 times larger than a medium map. So the rate with which it scales should be exponential, not linear, and also a fuction of amount of habitable planets. The more of them, the bigger the research costs.

If you really want a slow tech game, start a huge, rare everything game, You'll get maybe 4 habitable planets (HW included). Do research with that, and you'll feel the difference. But I will not do that again. One experience was enough. I'd like to play the game, not just keep pressing End turn while waiting 20 turns for each tech to arrive.

BR, Iztok
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Horray I'm awesome!

I'd like to play the game, not just keep pressing End turn while waiting 20 turns for each tech to arrive.
End of quote


That's a flaw in your reliance on the absurd hyper-tech that is in GC2 already. Apply that to a real example.

"Guys we should really bomb Germany, but these planes are kinda old."
"Well let's just wait for the new Mitchells to be finished and we can use those."
...
"Okay the Mitchells are ready, but their Mk42 bombs are a little weak compared to the Mk51s coming out in a few months."
"Well I guess we can wait a bit longer then."
...
"Well the new bombs are ready, and we just prototyped a new heavy machine gun to stick in the dorsal turret, but it's kinda big, and we'll have to strip a little stuff to get it within weight limits. With a little more money and time we could rebuild it out of lighter metals and shrink the gimbal mount a bit, though."
"Uh, okay, see if you can scale down the gun size."
...
"Hey boss, the Germans just sent us a postcard of Big Ben with 'you're next' on the back..."
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
So the rate with which it scales should be exponential, not linear,
End of quote


This is the flaw with the tech tree in the first place. Looking through some of the values, simply, very few techs exponentially scale. Most of them are simply X, X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.

With growing populations and advanced research, you can snowball and utterly overcome this negligible increase.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem with this scheme is exploitability. If all techs take 15-20 turns (just to have numbers to argue with), this throws research entirely in the player's favor. The creativity issue alone (have they fixed this yet? I haven't played the beta since sins came out) will see players getting tech at several times the speed of AIs who lack creativity. Factor in 25% research anomalies for even more player advantage. End result: everyone techs slower than current set up, but players can tech faster than AIs possibly can due to intelligent use of resources.

This may be fine for a mod, but don't make everyone deal with it.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem with this scheme is exploitability. If all techs take 15-20 turns (just to have numbers to argue with), this throws research entirely in the player's favor.
End of quote


Read: the tie 'feature'. The game is already clogged with player number-stacking exploits that aren't ever fixed.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think I like this scaling option best.

It'd be good enough for me though if I could just set a minimum number of turns that techs take to be researched. So even if I have enough resources to get the tech in one turn, it'll still take X turns, whatever the player set X to. And maybe make X grow larger later in the game, i.e. make it definable in the xml on a per tech basis so someone could tailor it however they wanted.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
TA will have editors which you can use to greatly increase research costs.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem with this scheme is exploitability. If all techs take 15-20 turns (just to have numbers to argue with), this throws research entirely in the player's favor.Read: the tie 'feature'. The game is already clogged with player number-stacking exploits that aren't ever fixed.
End of quote


I know all about the tie rules. All too often I find myself on the wrong end of them. The best answer to that is to allow mutual destruction as a result of combat.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
TA will have editors which you can use to greatly increase research costs.
End of quote


You are 100% about the new "Editors" packaged with Twilight. But...

Metaverse anyone?

Modding in such a way will limit the games I will be able to submit :(


Am I mistaken?


I plan on submitting games with the release of Twilight. I prefer the "epic" feel of long games and am eagerly looking forward to the new immense size maps.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

This is the flaw with the tech tree in the first place. Looking through some of the values, simply, very few techs exponentially scale. Most of them are simply X, X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.With growing populations and advanced research, you can snowball and utterly overcome this negligible increase.
End of quote

The values in the XML file are the base value. The engine itself modifies these values.

You know, you guys who post as if you're experts on the game engine and all could at least verify that you know what you're talking about.

I don't mean to be cranky but you could just load up a game, look at how much research you're doing, see how many turns it takes and then recognize that the cost of a given tech fluxuates greatly based on a large number of criteria. There is exponential relationships in the cost of techs based on many different factors.

Example, I am playing on a large map. with the rate set at normal with the number of habitable planets set to common, the number of stars set to occasional and the number of total planets set to common.

I am producing 6 research points.

Hyperdrive will take 12 weeks to research.

So the game has calculated that Hyperdrive costs 72 total points to get.

But the base cost in the XML of hyperdrive is 30.

As you can see, the game adjusts the base cost greatly.

 

 

Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't mean to be cranky but you could just load up a game, look at how much research you're doing, see how many turns it takes and then recognize that the cost of a given tech fluxuates greatly based on a large number of criteria. There is exponential relationships in the cost of techs based on many different factors.

Example, I am playing on a large map. with the rate set at normal with the number of habitable planets set to common, the number of stars set to occasional and the number of total planets set to common.

I am producing 6 research points.

Hyperdrive will take 12 weeks to research.

So the game has calculated that Hyperdrive costs 72 total points to get.

But the base cost in the XML of hyperdrive is 30.

As you can see, the game adjusts the base cost greatly.
End of quote


I actually already beat you to it, but the formula made no sense.

The XML value for Universal Translator is 50. I started a new immense map, normal research, common/common/common, as terrans, with zero research upgrades. Logically it should take 10 weeks (as you start with 5 research) to get this technology. If the game scaled, it should take OVER 10. Instead, it takes 8. Future technologies seemed to indicate a 20-22% reduction in technology cost, with just 5 research points. I was rather lost by this.

In the end, however, how much difference is there between the technologies as a whole? In all my games, I've noticed that the rate of progression follows an inverse exponential curve, or at best, a linear one. For 'very slow', including advancement of my civilization and more advanced technologies, I'd expect, and desire, an exponentially increasing curve.

A good example is the Government line of resesarch. Off the top of my head, the values for Starrep is something like 200, Stardem is like 600, and starfed is maybe 12 or 1500. That's the curve I'd like to see more often, but alas, it doesn't exist in very many places.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

As the guy who actually decided how much the techs cost, I can assure you the values weren't chosen arbitrarily. Moreover, the algorithms that adjust these values are not simple.

It would take all of 5 seconds for you to see that the values scale. Load a tiny galaxy, look at the cost of a tech. Load an immense galaxy, look at the cost of techs.

 

Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ok I tried to test this. I loaded a tiny map, dip translators takes 5 weeks. I loaded an immense map dip translators = 5 weeks. I built 2 labs in both cases it became 4 weeks. Is it supposed to be slower on immense without changing the research rate or is it not noticeable until later in the game?

Maybe thats not how it works.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Diplomatic Translators aren't a tech.

Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
What about the other settings? Were they all identical as well?

I did a quick test (higher up this thread) in research times by map size and noticed a definite difference for one of the early techs.

It might even be *very* complicated, ie each tech scales in its own unique way. The point is, scaling is definitely there.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Any chance of one more speed below "very slow"?
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Testing with Gamma 6:

Tiny, everything set to "common". Hyperdrive takes 4 weeks to research.

Immense, everything set to "common". Hyperdrive takes 8 weeks to research.

I should also point out that a tiny % of the cost of each tech gets added to the cost of the next tech after a certain number of techs have been researched so that it gets progressively more expensive down the line.