Most important question

[Sombra]

@ Dragonheart: Yes I know that there are more TOP players since they don´t haunt these boards anymore if was refering to the players hte names I knew.

Don´t you think that a little randomness spices up the game?

[ April 15, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[Dragonheart]

Never talked about elimination of luck faktor as its a part of every game and also of real live

But for those who want more luck i would suggest monopoly or back gammon or some kind of card game.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Two conflicting ideas here:

1. Avoiding the Perfect Plans which often plague

games such as SC, 3R, WiF, vs...

2. Avoiding having luck (in its various SC forms)

becoming the main arbiter of victory.

Trying to balance these two is probably a task of

Solomonesque proportions.

SC1 probably had the worst of both worlds in that

respect: early on the Perfect Plans held sway, but

eventually Tech Luck kicked in and became the

prime determinant of success or failure. A good

strategist could hang in there during the middle

and end game despite bad tech rolls, but only to

a point.

Bill 101 already posted a compromise (which

everyone promptly ignored)-I'd imagine Hubert will

institute similar compromises. I don't want luck

as the be-all and end-all, but neither do I want

perfect plans to become refined to the point that

gameplay is highly stereotyped and dull.

John DiFool

[SeaMonkey]

This whole thread is irrelevent.......because SC2 has an editor. Did you guys lose your glasses....become blind or just suddenly become incoherent....READ what Bill(pzgndr) said.

[Kelly's Heroes]

I agree with Exel, Les and many others in this thread:

War is hell and unpredictable. If a person wants to have an "all knowing" game, with perfectly timed moves, then they should play chess.

I am all for random research; new tech upgrades should only apply to NEW units being built; upgrades applied to existing units should cost MPPs; attachments such as arty improvements should cost MPPs; etc, etc. . .

Just think, if the Americans had not known about the Japanese moves, then Midway might have turned out differently.

Sometimes war can be an unpredictable mistress. . .

Cheers!

[Bill101]

I think the main problem with this thread is that those who want less luck to be involved in research are being misinterpreted as being against there being any luck involved at all.

I want luck to play a part in this game, but I also want its role in research to be reduced.

It's just a question of getting the balance right.

From what I've seen so far some steps have been taken to address this in terms of how the research is implemented, but we don't yet know how research itself will be carried out.

[ April 15, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Exel]

Luck and strategy are not mutually exclusive. Of course luck shouldn't be the decisive factor that defines who loses and who wins, but in any case it should play a rather significant role - be it in combat calculations, partisans or research. I just don't get it why you people object to having things not totally under your control. Things weren't like that in real life either. Of course you can be a wise ass afterwards and say "why didn't you develop that and that instead of this", but things just don't go like that in reality. Do I need to retype my flak 88 example?

[Kelly's Heroes]

Research can be highly unpredictable.

Atomic Bomb Research:

Both the Germans and Japanese spent millions, but often went down the wrong road.

The USA was "lucky" to get the uranium oxide from U-234 in May, 1945 as well as being able to use the scientists that Hitler booted out of Germany in 1939. . .

Cheers!

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

This whole thread is irrelevent.......because SC2 has an editor. Did you guys lose your glasses....become blind or just suddenly become incoherent....READ what Bill(pzgndr) said.

Not really.

We still do not know what will, or will not, be hard-coded into the game.

This thread raises issues that may be important while SC2 is still in development.

Cheers!

[Exel]

A compromise suggestion:

Getting tech advances by research depends on luck, but by investing more resources and directing them to the desired branch the probability of gaining the tech significantly increases. Also, each turn you get a negative roll, ie. don't get the tech, the chances of getting it the next turn increase. Now, lucky ones can still get techs with low investment and quickly, but even the most unlucky ones will with utmost probability get the techs eventually, as their chances increase every turn. This prevents the tech race from being an expensive and decisive lottery, but still retains the random element to spice up the experience.

As for the random effect for research results I would suggest the following. Whenever the research calculations give you a positive roll, ie. you get a tech, there is a chance that the tech gained will be something else but the defined goal of research. Meaning that occasionally you'll get other techs than you have been aiming for, ie. anti-air research might produce you better anti-tank weapons (eg. 88mm FlaK 41).

[ April 15, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[Bill101]

Exel wrote:

"I just don't get it why you people object to having things not totally under your control."

This is a clear case of misunderstanding what I've said in my previous post. However, I've just read your compromise suggestion and it is certainly one possible answer to the problem.

Kelly's Heroes' Atom bomb example is useful, but only if we are talking about researching atom bombs. It was such a new technology, reliant on rare components and major scientific breakthroughs that its research isn't in the same league as designing, for example, a more powerful aero engine, or a heavier piece of artillery.

I would concede that atom bomb research, if included, could be more luck based.

[ April 15, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Exel:

A compromise suggestion:

Getting tech advances by research depends on luck, but by investing more resources and directing them to the desired branch the probability of gaining the tech significantly increases. Also, each turn you get a negative roll, ie. don't get the tech, the chances of getting it the next turn increase. Now, lucky ones can still get techs with low investment and quickly, but even the most unlucky ones will with utmost probability get the techs eventually, as their chances increase every turn. This prevents the tech race from being an expensive and decisive lottery, but still retains the random element to spice up the experience.

As for the random effect for research results I would suggest the following. Whenever the research calculations give you a positive roll, ie. you get a tech, there is a chance that the tech gained will be something else but the defined goal of research. Meaning that occasionally your get other techs than you have been aiming for, ie. anti-air research might produce you better anti-tank weapons (eg. 88mm FlaK 41).

I like this approach. It sounds reasonable without being highly unpredictable.

Cheers!

[Kuniworth]

This is a vital issue and needs to be discussed.

Kelly's Heroes is right there.

And yes I'll go away play chess Kelly if you start doing lotto.

[vveedd]

I also didn’t like research concept in SC and I am for decreasing luck in research in SC2 but one fact mentioned above can be true. Maybe was real problem in automatic upgrade of all units. SC2 will not have that as I understood so this is big improvement. Main problem in SC was in 2 crucial tech which had to much influence for a game to my opinion. That was Jet aircraft and anti-tanks. If Hubert and guys will have less influential tech in SC2 maybe the same research concept will work.

[Kuniworth]

Anti-tanks?

Jets and long-range ruled..

[Exel]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Anti-tanks?

Jets and long-range ruled..

Yes. Anti-tank advance in a crucial time has many times changed the tide of battle in my games. Jet fighters have a more long term effect though.

But back to the subject. I'd like some more comments about my suggestion - I really believe it could be a solution to the issue (if Hubert hasn't already come up with a better one).

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill101:

Kelly's Heroes' Atom bomb example is useful, but only if we are talking about researching atom bombs. It was such a new technology, reliant on rare components and major scientific breakthroughs that its research isn't in the same league as designing, for example, a more powerful aero engine, or a heavier piece of artillery.

I would concede that atom bomb research, if included, could be more luck based.

Atom bomb research will NOT be included.

Thus far, there are eighteen (18) different categories, and this is definitely not one of them.

On the bright side...

You can research Infrastructure for instance, which will have some certain effect on your Op Moves.

Kind of like keeping your road & rail in good working order.

I have been campaigning for this latter category for some long, dedicated time, and I am very glad that Hubert has decided to include it! :cool:

[KDG]

Expanding on what Exel said.

This would solve the problem and wouldn't be too difficult to program.

For each turn that you don't get a tech in a research that you have investments, you gain a 1/2% bonus chance per chit.

Example:

4 chits in Jets. Everyone at 0 tech level.

1st turn 20%(zero bonus per chit)

2nd turn 22%(.5% bonus per chit)

3rd turn 24%(1% bonus per chit)

10th turn 38%(4.5% bonus per chit)

20th turn 58%(9.5% bonus per chit)

After you get the advancement, everything is reset back to the 1st level.

I'd also make this an option, which could be turned on or off.

[ April 15, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]