Iron Ghost Iron Ghost

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

▼

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 #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Heh, VV, are you sure you did it correctly? That's pretty funny.

In any case, it works fine in DA, for me anyways. 3 turns:6 turns for Tiny:Gigantic at very slow or 1 turn:2 turns at very fast. Interesting.

In any case, I have never had a game where I completed the tech tree. I never even came close. I can definitely see how it's possible at huge/gigantic/immense or whatever settings, though. People who love empire building can rack up some crazy numbers.
Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top
Diplomatic Translators aren't a tech.
End of quote


Xeno communications is what I was meant to say. Space militarisation is the same, 5 weeks for both. I don't have gamma anything though. I'm on beta 98c[b].001. Havn't tried it in DA.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
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.
End of quote



The core of my post is flawed and I apologize for not doing my own testing.

The reasons why I am so "passionate" about this subject still stands.

the rate at which tech costs are currently scaling with large+ map sizes does not feel "very slow" in the late/mid-game.

As a large+ player who enjoys "slow tech", and is greatly looking forward to Immense maps, I would just like to see one more level of "slow" without modding, if possible. However this is a request from a small pod of players, not an outward cry of outrage by a community.



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.
End of quote


Is the above quote a change or a current factor?



Now this is a loaded situation as I have not specificed the game options I currently prefer to play with. The short version?= All options but "rare" are popular with myself.
In closing, Twilight looks/is awesome ;)
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is a bit off-topic, but I'd like to ask.

Is something bothering you lately Brad? You seem a bit shorter than usual with the riffraff around here. Not that I don't think most of them deserve it.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is a bit off-topic, but I'd like to ask.Is something bothering you lately Brad? You seem a bit shorter than usual with the riffraff around here. Not that I don't think most of them deserve it.
End of quote


I'm glad I'm seen as 'riffraff'.

Everyone has a bad day, and frankly, I think everyone reserves the right to NOT be all happy-slappy let's-hold-hands on the internet all the time. Nothing he said offended me any more than if someone else said it (that isn't to say I was offended at all - thick skin, and the internet, and all that).

Still, I don't know. 'Very Slow', with a common/common/common galaxy just isn't slow ENOUGH in an overall sense, especially on bigger galaxies, at least not for me. I think many people choose 'very slow' not because it's as slow as they want it, but because it's as slow as the game GETS. For me, it's just way too runaway by even the midpoint for me to notice or care much about the difference between very slow and very fast.

As I said in my original post, however, my complaint really had not so much to do with the cost of techs but the progression of the defense and weaponry technologies in particular.

In a common/common/common/very slow galaxy, with 99TP (it should've been 100, but there's a rounding error in there - had 90TP, then I got +10% research, for 99TP?) produced by one planet:

Interstellar Warfare: 3 Weeks
Space Militarization: 5 Weeks
Space Weapons: 3 Weeks
Beam Weapon Theory: 8 Weeks
Laser I: 5 Weeks
Laser II: 8 Weeks
Laser III: 10 Weeks
Laser IV: 12 Weeks
Laser V: 15 Weeks
Particle Beams I: 12 Weeks
Particle Beams II: 24 Weeks
Particle Beams III: 29 Weeks
Plasma I: 24 Weeks
Plasma II: 24 Weeks
Plasma III: 24 Weeks
Phasors I: 48 Weeks
Phasors II: 48 Weeks
Phasors III: 43 Weeks
Phasors IV: 48 Weeks
Phasors V: 50 Weeks
Phasors VI: 52 Weeks
Phasors VII: 57 Weeks
Doom Ray: 213 Weeks

The simple fact of upgrading my Research Labs (it was 11 research labs, 100% funding / 100% research), dropped the cost of Doom Rays to 144 weeks (that's what, a 47% reduction?)

Plotted on a chart in blue, with a rough outline of how I think the tech progression should be in purple...

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

QuickPost Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Uhhh... last I checked, 10% of 90 is 9, so that 99 tp you got wasn't a rounding error.
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Uhhh... last I checked, 10% of 90 is 9, so that 99 tp you got wasn't a rounding error.
End of quote


Hush, I win at math.
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Is the above quote a change or a current factor?
End of quote

A current factor.

Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Is something bothering you lately Brad? You seem a bit shorter than usual with the riffraff around here. Not that I don't think most of them deserve it.
End of quote

20 hour days make me cranky. Especially when I'm working on stuff that a vocal minority seem to be begrudging (i.e. we're doing this polish this week because we care about the game).

I apologize for being a jerk. So that we're clear, I am a jerk but I'm usually better at covering it up when I've had more sleep. :)

Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
20 hour days make me cranky. Especially when I'm working on stuff that a vocal minority seem to be begrudging (i.e. we're doing this polish this week because we care about the game).

I apologize for being a jerk. So that we're clear, I am a jerk but I'm usually better at covering it up when I've had more sleep.
End of quote


Brad, most folks around here have thanked you time and again for your hard work on the game. I know I certainly appreciate it. On the other hand, some seem to forget that that hard work they thanked you was actually that -- hard work.

While I don't enjoy the company of grumpy people, I've spent 20+ hours in front of code for days on end before myself, and I can understand why that would make a person not feel like putting on the happy face.

In short, thanks for the hard work! I appreciate it and recognize that it is incredibly draining to be a CEO and a coder and a project manager and the complaint department. Keep up the good work, and don't feel too bad about letting the drain show a bit.