Research Overspill

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Research Overspill

This topic contains 78 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by  NINJEW 6 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 79 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #219443

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    It’s no micro management…

    I don’t care what you think micromanagement is. Like at all. For me it is a micromanagement. And definitely a chore. So you just invent some meaningless definition and on this ground call another post nonsense.
    Which means, your whole “Micro management is nonsense” claim is simply nonsense.

    Ok, so you are not dishonest, but simply clueless.
    Fine with me.
    I mean, shouldn’t you have learned by now that you cannot call things and people everything you want to, because YOU THINK they are, and expect to be taken serious, right?
    So acquaint yourself and look whether you can find the issue in question here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement_%28gameplay%29

    #219477

    NINJEW
    Member

    lack of overflow isn’t really a problem. it presents a unique situation with regards to decision making and presents a different and interesting approach to balance.

    i’d say the biggest weakness is that this isn’t really explained anywhere, so new players have some trouble catching on when the standard is to have overflow.

    #219488

    skragx
    Member

    Completely against the idea. It’s unnecessary, and only caters to power-gamers. Seeing tier-4 units and army-destroying spells researched in ridiculously few turns, because someone calculated the best research route and heavily micro-managed their research using an overspill mechanic, would be pretty sad.

    If anything, research should be slower! Let those smaller units and weaker spells get more of a look-in, before the more powerful stuff takes over.

    #219492

    Taykor
    Member

    I mean, shouldn’t you have learned by now that you cannot call things and people everything you want to, because YOU THINK they are, and expect to be taken serious, right?

    Are you asking this yourself? Is this a joke? Because absolutely nothing in that article contradicts naming these plays with remainders ‘micromanagement’. Actually, it just proves that it is. 😀

    Seeing tier-4 units and army-destroying spells researched in ridiculously few turns, because someone calculated the best research route and heavily micro-managed their research

    Eh? You are now describing exactly the current situation, to the letter. It is now you can (and therefore must) micro-manage your research to get such results. With overspills no such luck, all would be linear and simple. And by the way research speed has nothing to do with the topic, it can be easily changed by changing research costs (or income).

    #219499

    NINJEW
    Member

    yeah research overflow wouldn’t benefit vets over noobs. any system is going to benefit someone who knows the game better over someone new to the game, and any system can be min-maxed.

    i wouldn’t say that currently you need to micromanage your research much to get results, you just need to be aware of the mechanic and how it factors into your decisions. the random spell book makes pre-planned min-maxing fairly difficult, so while i’m sure there’s uberplayers who are min-maxing every aspect of the game it’s not like that’s required to perform well in multi. having a general plan for what you want to achieve is much more important than the fine details of research breakpoints.

    i’m much more interested in not allowing someone to just gut out every t1 spell from the spellbook after they hard tech to summon horror or something.

    #219512

    ephafn
    Member

    I really don’t understand the arguments against the research overflow. Especially since any source of RP except for the basic income per turn has overflow.

    Unlike the lack of overflow for production, which creates interesting gameplay where you are encouraged to build troops according to your current production instead of always making your preferred ones, I don’t see the lack of RP overflow as bringing any benefit to the game.

    What is the gameplay impact (so not including balance aspects such as slower overall research) of the mechanic?
    – Encourage with fiddling with producing research to shave a single turn of research.
    – Encourage delaying cheap technologies if your research output is larger than their cost, until you get an overflow of RP through an happiness event, scrolls, or clearing a site.
    – Make producing research pointless if not at very specific RP threshold (and unlike building a Siege Workshop, the bonus is only for the turn, so no long-term considerations).
    – Encourage players to research not the best technology, but the most efficient one RP-wise.
    – Encourage players to research low-cost techs first, to avoid late game waste in researching them (if they don’t want to wait for overflow sources).

    Does any of these consequences actually make the game better? I can see an argument to be made for the last one since encouraging the research of low-level techs is not something I’m against, but the current spellbook mechanics already does that to some extent.

    #219515

    I really don’t understand the arguments against the research overflow. Especially since any source of RP except for the basic income per turn has overflow.

    It is that research overflow would make hard teching a mandatory strategy (especially with the ability to reset the spell book). There would just be no downside to unlocking horrors/gods and then getting all the little stuff in one or two turns.

    As it stands now, you have a choice between going Manhattan project (for a super duper wonder weapon unit or tech in small amounts) or a “There is always an 11th Sherman tank” strategy with lots of units just good enough to beat the enemy.

    Research overflow would be “ok, atomic bomb is done, now lets instantly study twelve different tank and rifle improvements”.

    production overflow, on the other hand, is doable with super extensive testing. I think you could do it in a limited fashion where tier 1 units only can double if you have the production (connecting it with advanced logistics). Goblins could get tier 2 units as well, or up to 3 tier one units.

    #219516

    NINJEW
    Member

    research doesn’t have the same minor variations in cost, so this isn’t as important an aspect of balance here. still, no overflow does affect a few things:

    opposing viewpoint: lack of research overspill discourages hard teching, and encourages researching early spells early in the game, when they are meant to be used

    in particular, the thresholding prevents players with very high research (such as sorcerer players) from suddenly shifting gears off of hard teching and immediately researching half their spellbook in a single turn. it makes choosing to hard tech for a more powerful research a more interesting decision, as you are not only giving up having your early spell options early, but are also delaying them unnecessarily once your hard teching is done. this allows for players who didn’t choose to hard tech a greater opportunity to leverage the tech advantages they invested in instead, as a way of dulling the instant-win button that, say, early access to horrors might grant you (since you’re losing out on smaller techs like cp, star blades, chain lightning, glyphs of warding, and other such smaller techs), since you also don’t immediately gain access to half the spells you skipped over on the very next turn. it makes hard teching come with a higher opportunity cost, which makes for a more interesting game.

    #219517

    NINJEW
    Member

    – Encourage players to research not the best technology, but the most efficient one RP-wise.

    better tech will always be more valuable than saving precious rp points. to think otherwise, you’d have to be either a crazy person or specifically gunning for that research every tech first empire quest.

    – Encourage delaying cheap technologies if your research output is larger than their cost, until you get an overflow of RP through an happiness event, scrolls, or clearing a site.

    maybe if you don’t care at all about cheap spells cockblocking the expensive spells you actually do want and are currently barred from selecting to research

    #219536

    The Mentat
    Member

    So basically the main argument against overflow is:

    Research gets too powerful if players that invest heavily in the respective buildings can unlock five skills or more in a single turn. Then every player will have to go for research.

    Whereas the argument for overflow is:

    It’s extremely microintensive to optimize research and (IMO more important) it’s hardly possible to boost research for several turns (by using Seek Knowledge). You just can increase research in general (through buildings) but not situational.

    These arguments are not completely contrary; I think there are solutions that take both sides into account. For example:

    Why not make overflow possible, but just for the following research. IE there is no overflow to a third skill. This way knowledge is usually not wasted except it would be abused to get lots of low tier skills in a single turn.

    Such a limited overflow makes it even more viable to go first for skills with low research cost because you will have more use of overspill (every time a research is finished).

    #219538

    NINJEW
    Member

    meh

    could work

    i think a good compromise might be “research overflows, but only 1 thing can be researched per turn”

    #219555

    Fenraellis
    Member

    Or Knowledge overflow at a diminished yield(for passive per-turn Knowledge, not instant triggers), such as 50% or some such.

    #219561

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I mean, shouldn’t you have learned by now that you cannot call things and people everything you want to, because YOU THINK they are, and expect to be taken serious, right?

    Are you asking this yourself? Is this a joke? Because absolutely nothing in that article contradicts naming these plays with remainders ‘micromanagement’. Actually, it just proves that it is. 😀

    In that case you won’t have a problem to quote from the article to underline your claim, right? So, please, go ahead.

    So basically the main argument against overflow is:

    Research gets too powerful if players that invest heavily in the respective buildings can unlock five skills or more in a single turn. Then every player will have to go for research.

    Whereas the argument for overflow is:

    It’s extremely microintensive to optimize research and (IMO more important) it’s hardly possible to boost research for several turns (by using Seek Knowledge). You just can increase research in general (through buildings) but not situational.

    These arguments are not completely contrary; I think there are solutions that take both sides into account. For example:

    Why not make overflow possible, but just for the following research. IE there is no overflow to a third skill. This way knowledge is usually not wasted except it would be abused to get lots of low tier skills in a single turn.

    Such a limited overflow makes it even more viable to go first for skills with low research cost because you will have more use of overspill (every time a research is finished).

    No, your premises aren’t true.
    1) The main against overflow is that without overflow there is an opportunity cost for every technology that makes sure you cannot optimize research. Between randomized tech book and no research overflow, even with a rather obvious research sequence, high opportunity cost may make a different one just better.
    With overflow, it wouldn’t take long until everyone would always follow their optimized research sequence, variations being made only due to randomness of appearing.
    So the main point is that the opportunity costs that come with overflow prevent the game from being too repetitive in the research (and production) area.
    2) The argument against overflow is simply, that some people don’t want the opportunity cost, because that ponly distracts them from straightlining their research (after all, no one is FORCED to consider “loss”.
    The complaints involving “Produce Knowledge” as micromanaging option to save a turn are somewhat ironic, because – think about it – with research overspill no one would ever select Produce Knowledge except in a town founded exactly for that purpose with Vaults and Libraries to make it count and significantly and permanently increase research. You’d never switch to a momentary Production of Knowledge just to add 10 Research.

    Anyway. While you may think, having overflow under the premise that you may end only 1 research per turn would a good compromise – on the contrary. This would stop the good thing – the fact that research comes with an opportunity cost preventing straightlining research to boredom – while it would NOT stop what some call micromanagement, because you still couldn’t research what you want: if you finished a research, you MUST now pick something that needs at least so much research that it finishes only next turn, because otherwise you waste research: say, you have 300 research, and this turn you finish a research using 50 research of this turn’s allocation only. If you don’t want to wast research, you MUST nowpick a tech costing more than 250. If you would pick a 200 tech, you would waste 51 points, because the system would use only 199, not finishing research, and next turn, you’d finish the tech having 299 research left.

    I’m pretty certain, some people are against the current system only because they are too lazy to apply the math involved, having to actually waste time with mentally computing research loss, and these people don’t see why they should either be forced to sub-optimal play or do something they don’t want to be bothered with.

    Surprise, surprise, fun gaming isn’t in automatism, because automatism is senseless repetition, which is AI level. You should be better than that.

    #219589

    The Mentat
    Member

    Yeah I didn’t mention the argument about opportunity cost because both sides use it. As I understand it, the idea is:

    The decision what research you choose depends on the ratio between produced knowledge and research cost.

    The positive side is that this makes research decisions more complex (and maybe less repetitive).

    The negative side is that you’re feeling forced to research skills you actually don’t want to get because they don’t contribute to your current strategy. (That eventually reduces the motivational factor of the research)

    IMO both sides compensate each other. But if you have a different opinion I guess I couldn’t convince you even if this thread gets 10 pages long. Instead this would require an actual test of overspill mechanics to see how much it really contributes to repetitiveness.

    i think a good compromise might be “research overflows, but only 1 thing can be researched per turn”

    That’s not a big difference to my proposal. I agree with it!

    #219597

    Taykor
    Member

    i’m much more interested in not allowing someone to just gut out every t1 spell from the spellbook after they hard tech to summon horror or something.

    I even remotely can’t see how this could be a problem. Moreover I make it happen all the time in the current situation (with knowledge from structures, science breakthroughs and other things). You say that as if it was something bad.

    What is the gameplay impact (so not including balance aspects such as slower overall research) of the mechanic?
    – Encourage with fiddling with producing research to shave a single turn of research.
    – Encourage delaying cheap technologies if your research output is larger than their cost, until you get an overflow of RP through an happiness event, scrolls, or clearing a site.
    – Make producing research pointless if not at very specific RP threshold (and unlike building a Siege Workshop, the bonus is only for the turn, so no long-term considerations).
    – Encourage players to research not the best technology, but the most efficient one RP-wise.
    – Encourage players to research low-cost techs first, to avoid late game waste in researching them (if they don’t want to wait for overflow sources).

    Well-put.

    In that case you won’t have a problem to quote from the article to underline your claim, right? So, please, go ahead.

    Well, it doesn’t work this way. It is you who must first do that, it was your statement that my use of the word was bad and not correspondent to the article. Though the article doesn’t have a very articulate definition.
    And as I said, even if used the word incorrectly (which I din’t) it doesn’t matter at all. The problem is not in the word. Why so serious?

    #219600

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Yeah I didn’t mention the argument about opportunity cost because both sides use it. As I understand it, the idea is:

    The decision what research you choose depends on the ratio between produced knowledge and research cost.

    The positive side is that this makes research decisions more complex (and maybe less repetitive).

    The negative side is that you’re feeling forced to research skills you actually don’t want to get because they don’t contribute to your current strategy. (That eventually reduces the motivational factor of the research).

    Imo, what you describe as the negative side is part of “decisions are more complex”. Silly example (to make it obvious). You are Necro, pre-1.607 and you have Fire spec. At one point the only perfect fit research is Domain of the Sun. Even though it’s the best tech to research for efficiency it would be a silly move.
    So actually “feeling forced to…” would be described as “bad decision”: you shouldn’t research those. You might be annoyed about having to pay higher opportunity cost, but you SHOULDN’T research something that will help you maybe in the long run, but not now.
    If you consider that researched techs are “out of the way” though, you may hope that the new tech would be great, so even then it might be a good move to “make room”.

    What I find strange, though, is that you don’t answer to what I said to your suggestion, because I think it invalidates it as a compromise, since actually no one would be satisfied.

    #219605

    NINJEW
    Member

    I even remotely can’t see how this could be a problem. Moreover I make it happen all the time in the current situation (with knowledge from structures, science breakthroughs and other things). You say that as if it was something bad.

    research doesn’t have the same minor variations in cost, so this isn’t as important an aspect of balance here. still, no overflow does affect a few things:

    opposing viewpoint: lack of research overspill discourages hard teching, and encourages researching early spells early in the game, when they are meant to be used

    in particular, the thresholding prevents players with very high research (such as sorcerer players) from suddenly shifting gears off of hard teching and immediately researching half their spellbook in a single turn. it makes choosing to hard tech for a more powerful research a more interesting decision, as you are not only giving up having your early spell options early, but are also delaying them unnecessarily once your hard teching is done. this allows for players who didn’t choose to hard tech a greater opportunity to leverage the tech advantages they invested in instead, as a way of dulling the instant-win button that, say, early access to horrors might grant you (since you’re losing out on smaller techs like cp, star blades, chain lightning, glyphs of warding, and other such smaller techs), since you also don’t immediately gain access to half the spells you skipped over on the very next turn. it makes hard teching come with a higher opportunity cost, which makes for a more interesting game.

    #219622

    The Mentat
    Member

    it would NOT stop what some call micromanagement, because you still couldn’t research what you want: if you finished a research, you MUST now pick something that needs at least so much research that it finishes only next turn,

    That’s correct but it occurs just for skills that can be finished in 1 turn. As long as research lasts for several turns the player doesn’t have to care about micromanagement. And that’s the usual case.

    Players that ignore for a long time many tier I skills (because of hard teching) will waste later some research but that’s okay as a compensation.

    with research overspill no one would ever select Produce Knowledge except in a town founded exactly for that purpose with Vaults and Libraries to make it count and significantly and permanently increase research. You’d never switch to a momentary Production of Knowledge just to add 10 Research.

    To switch to Seek Knowledge to add only 10 research reminds me on moving workers. IMO that shouldn’t be the purpose of Seek Knowledge.

    On the other hand Seek Knoewledge can contribute to more diversity between cities. If it gets a solid option (even without counting candles every turn) the player can build up some cities as the research centers of his empire.

    Imo, what you describe as the negative side is part of “decisions are more complex”.

    It can’t be always be the best solution to take the skill that fits better to your current strategy. (Otherwise there’s no decision and no complexity.) If it’s better to choose the skill that contradicts the player’s strategy, he can be somehow frustrated.

    So complexity in this case has a positive and a negative side – that’s what I said.

    #219632

    Taykor
    Member

    in particular, the thresholding

    Well, I can do exactly what you did and repeat my previous post. In short: and what of it?
    There’s nothing bad in what you wrote except it’s additionally completely wrong. With an overspill sequence of research won’t really matter, in both cases they would have both high and low-level techs at the same time. But this ‘hard teching’ guy would be actually at a disadvantage all this researching time and even after because without, for example, CP he can’t even efficiently use T4 summons. High-level techs are not an instant win button (both with and without supporting low-level techs). But gradually researching guy would have the most useful and efficient techs all this time. So again, there’s no problem at all.

    #219636

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    If it’s better to choose the skill that contradicts the player’s strategy, he can be somehow frustrated.

    So complexity in this case has a positive and a negative side – that’s what I said.

    You mean, players get frustrated when things are not the way they would like them to be? 🙂
    I was under the impression that this is from where the fun comes. Untoward happenings. Cosmic events, say? Opponent appearing at your doorstep on turn 13?

    Something else: Don’t you think, that the factor opportunity cost is – as with production – is mitigating the whole area of balancing a bit?

    #219644

    Dr_K
    Member

    Or Knowledge overflow at a diminished yield(for passive per-turn Knowledge, not instant triggers), such as 50% or some such.

    I generally hate overflow mechanics, but I liked the AoW2 method of ‘overflow’ which is similar to this. The unused mana was just added to your pool.

    I’d much prefer this type of utilizing the “lost” production/knowledge instead of implementing actual overflow mechanics.

    #219645

    Outis
    Member

    As a comprosmise, ‘seek knowledge’ could be the key to Research Overflow. Only cities that are producing ‘seek knowledge’ are allowed to overflow a percentage of their research depending upon research buildings present. Say +25% city research carried over if lab if present and +50% if observatory present.

    ‘Seek knowledge’ is active research and involves opportunity cost/benefit to the city and empire when doing so; however, since it is active research, and not passive, research overflow is allowed for that city only.

    #219648

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    That would sounds actually like an interesting idea – if there wasn’t a flaw: why would you Seek Knowledge, if you have unused research anyway anyway?
    Conversely, if you DO use that option, you won’t have significant overflow.

    So that will become interesting only very much later in the game, when you have many towns and a high research production – but in that case it might be better to find a way to use or otherwise profit from research, when everything is researched.

    #219650

    Of course, for a possible mod, remove research altogether and revert to the use of mana.

    #219663

    NINJEW
    Member

    Well, I can do exactly what you did and repeat my previous post. In short: and what of it?
    There’s nothing bad in what you wrote except it’s additionally completely wrong. With an overspill sequence of research won’t really matter, in both cases they would have both high and low-level techs at the same time. But this ‘hard teching’ guy would be actually at a disadvantage all this researching time and even after because without, for example, CP he can’t even efficiently use T4 summons. High-level techs are not an instant win button (both with and without supporting low-level techs). But gradually researching guy would have the most useful and efficient techs all this time. So again, there’s no problem at all.

    I even remotely can’t see how this could be a problem. Moreover I make it happen all the time in the current situation (with knowledge from structures, science breakthroughs and other things). You say that as if it was something bad.

    research doesn’t have the same minor variations in cost, so this isn’t as important an aspect of balance here. still, no overflow does affect a few things:

    opposing viewpoint: lack of research overspill discourages hard teching, and encourages researching early spells early in the game, when they are meant to be used

    this allows for players who didn’t choose to hard tech a greater opportunity to leverage the tech advantages they invested in instead, as a way of dulling the instant-win button that, say, early access to horrors might grant you (since you’re losing out on smaller techs like cp, star blades, chain lightning, glyphs of warding, and other such smaller techs), since you also don’t immediately gain access to half the spells you skipped over on the very next turn. it makes hard teching come with a higher opportunity cost, which makes for a more interesting game.

    the differenc eis that under the current system, if you hard tech to horrors but don’t grab, say, any cp, no star blades, no chain lightning, no glyphs of warding, or anything else, it’d take you 1 turn per tech minimum to research one of those. so even though you hard teched to horrors, it could be another 6-12 turns before you’ve gotten all the basic spells/cp that you need to be effective anyway, that the other guy already has.

    under research overflow, you’d be able to research 3 t1 techs in a single turn if you had 180 RP per turn (not unlikely with a hard tech strategy). which makes the “doesn’t have basic shit and is still vulnerable” period shrink from 6-12 turns to 3-6 turns. by eliminating the cost associated with leaving basic researches for later, you put someone who DID leave those basic researches for later at a disadvantage, since the person who hard-teched can also catch up on the basic research much quicker than they can without overflow.

    does this make a little more sense now?

    #219680

    Lykus
    Member

    the differenc eis that under the current system, if you hard tech to horrors but don’t grab, say, any cp, no star blades, no chain lightning, no glyphs of warding, or anything else, it’d take you 1 turn per tech minimum to research one of those. so even though you hard teched to horrors, it could be another 6-12 turns before you’ve gotten all the basic spells/cp that you need to be effective anyway, that the other guy already has.

    under research overflow, you’d be able to research 3 t1 techs in a single turn if you had 180 RP per turn (not unlikely with a hard tech strategy). which makes the “doesn’t have basic shit and is still vulnerable” period shrink from 6-12 turns to 3-6 turns. by eliminating the cost associated with leaving basic researches for later, you put someone who DID leave those basic researches for later at a disadvantage, since the person who hard-teched can also catch up on the basic research much quicker than they can without overflow.

    I think this is a pretty good point. I am also against the overflow, but this sounds also promosing (would require some balance though)

    I generally hate overflow mechanics, but I liked the AoW2 method of ‘overflow’ which is similar to this. The unused mana was just added to your pool.

    I’d much prefer this type of utilizing the “lost” production/knowledge instead of implementing actual overflow mechanics.

    #219681

    quo
    Member

    How about instead of true candle overflow (which I think would require a lot of rebalancing), “lost” candles continued to stack in a separate resource pool. When this pool reaches a certain threshold, it unlocks a random tech using the same mechanics that Lost Libraries use. Even the name “Lost Library” matches up with the concept of “lost candles.”

    The threshold for triggering the Lost Library mechanic would increase each time it triggered. The first trigger point might be fairly low (300 candles or so?) and it would increase each time.

    #219688

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    First good idea I read in that regard. Might be worth it’s own avatar tech, actually.
    Kudos, quo. 🙂

    #219690

    NINJEW
    Member

    yeah that sounds like a pretty alright idea, i like it

    #219697

    Mourioche
    Member

    No more lost RP, no more research t1 60RP spells in late game and wasting 200RP doing so, no more!

    I’m totally agree with you.

    Explain me why i should chose a “xx RP” reward in a spot when it is useless for my research plan ?
    Just for this reason i convert this kind of reward to gold.

    Production overspill should be count too.

    Why keep this.. for “Micromanagement”.. tss.. i’d prefert something more interesting as micromanagement to deal with in games.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 79 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.