Research & Technologies

The fact is, there is no feasible way for one person to standardize research. Research simply is far too broad, and could take many forms. Restricting it to only one man could potentially limit what a Player wants to do.

Right, but I'm just talking about basic research. It's like letting 10 people build things in Minecraft when everyone has different blocks. Then those creations have to somehow be similar, because if one guy builds a sword and another guy builds a machine gun, they won't be "balanced". William has the task of balancing what is feasible anyways, so why not give a clear (even if it may seem to be restrictive) path? The answer is what you said: it's too broad. Even with the proposed general fields, I have to assume that some of the things players will try to propose will A) Not fit in any of them, or B) Fit in more than one. The only way to maintain fairness is to have standards. I'm just proposing we make those standards clearer instead of leaving it all up to William.

Siroki, as you can see, attempted to do just that. The difference is his suggestions were more like applied research projects, so they'd need to be a bit more general or much more numerous to be theories/knowledge/methods.

Clear standards for basic research also give us an idea of how to progress.

ahh, I see what yo mean now. So instead of applied ones like what we have now, you want trees of the THEORIES behind those ideas to allow custom research in the field!

I can get to work on that when I get home from work

It's not easy if we want research to be as expansive as it is proposed right now. As DEVELOPER of the game, I can't be afraid to restrict some things if leaving them open-ended would hurt balance or make the game too complicated. Nothing frustrates a player more than being confused. As GM of the game, William wants to leave as much as possible to player choice and offer incentives to not do something, rather than simply saying "You can't do that." We're really trying to balance each other out, here. I've no problems with the system for applied research, but basic... we should try to cover as many bases as possible. Perhaps we will not limit basic projects to ONLY the things we come up with; if players need to invent something to fit a need for an applied research project, that's fine.

Alright, it looks more like the problem is William saying, "How can I judge which theories/knowledge/methods came before others? Why should we look at the historical progression as the only one?" I agree with this - but I also think it's one of those things we restrict. We can offer several "branches" as paths for players to move forward through basic research more than one way.

Jasband wrote:

As creator of the game, I

Lime, it's rude to hack onto Ascertes' profile and post in his name.

Ninja-edit!

^ Power abuse!

suppose for a minute, as a mechanic of restricting various custom researches in early game? using the research heptagon as an example there would be three or so *tiers* of concepts that can be researched. the first tier could be really basic concepts, the second could be combined concepts, and the third can be advanced, complex concepts. the second and third tiers would be locked at the beginning and then they would be unlocked at the gamemasters discretion?

too complex? yeah I know. haha.

Sirok wrote:

suppose for a minute, as a mechanic of restricting various custom researches in early game? using the research heptagon as an example there would be three or so *tiers* of concepts that can be researched. the first tier could be really basic concepts, the second could be combined concepts, and the third can be advanced, complex concepts. the second and third tiers would be locked at the beginning and then they would be unlocked at the gamemasters discretion?

too complex? yeah I know. haha.

It's not going to be simple no matter how we do it. One thing I'm thinking of right now is having more basic research fields. At the very least, something like "Social Code" to complement Military Code and provide a way to develop Diplomats and other people who just talk all day (Missionaries?).

Let's throw around some basic examples and see if they can fit in the fields we have now. I'll start:

Basic Research: Strong Forging
Stages: 1 (Discovery)
Length: Variable (chance to succeed: 42.42% each season)
Field: Engineering?

Applied Research: Strong Tools
Desired Effect: +0.1x modifier increase for all Region Improvements
Stages: 3 (Concept, Variation, Delivery)
Length: Variable (chance to succeed: 60% Concept, 22% Variation, 90% Delivery)
Field: Engineering

So, that one's not so bad. The problem is, what if someone decides to do this instead:

Applied Research: Strong Saws
Desired Effect: +0.1x to Region Improvements that increase Wood modifier
Stages: 3 (Concept, Forging, Delivery)
Length: Variable (60% Concept, 50% Forging, 90% Delivery)
Field: Engineering

Applied Research: Strong Pickaxes
Desired Effect: +0.1x to Region Improvements that increase Stone modifier

Etc., etc. William will have to ensure that if Lime uses option A (Strong Tools), while I use option B (splitting Strong Tool's effect into individual projects), both of us will have similar chances to succeed.

So, we can say we have one basic technology down for the Engineering field: Strong Forging. If need be, we can have Tier II Strong Forging, Tier III, etc. Or, we could be more specific and let people come up with what they think constitutes stronger forging (like starting with "Bellows" and advancing to "Blast Furnace"). But what about when the progression isn't clear like that? If we don't define something (in a broad sense) to give some guidance, how is anyone going to know how to move forward?

I think we'll fully see the problems with such an open-ended system when we playtest.

We could do example paths of like 3 or so basics that show clear progression, and have something like 1 or 2 applied researches for each example basic. We can do that, I don't mind, but at no point is a player forced to research any of them (unless they want to do something that requires those...)

Well, that's a start. It'll be good for playtesting, and if we find it lacking, we'll have to try something else.

I am currently working on the trade octagon and will post it in a tad.

one new thing that came up while talking to a coworker (the same who gave me the idea of quests and abilities) was a new concept to add.
instead of ruinic studies, since it's so similar to arcanics, why not combine the two and call it good. now that we have this open spot, lets fill it with the concept of Religion!

you may be wondering: isnt religion a philosophy? well, kinda - but its application will be more based around devotion to the factions god, missionary work, faction abilities and paragons - all of which have to do with the factions religion

concepts could include orginization, hymns, or thaumaturgy. applications could include missionary buffs, priest buffs, or faction/god based abilities, spells or troops.

eh? EHH???

research octagon*

I'm fine with that. I was going to roll it into Social Code (which could use a better name anyways), but in reality, the more fields we have, the better. This is just due to the sheer number of possible theories/methods/knowledge that players will try to come up with to enable their applied research projects.

Hard Sciences:

Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Engineering
Math

Soft Sciences:
Philosophy
Religion
Military Code
Espionage
Social Code

Arcanic Sciences:

Thaumaturgy(Resources rather than military)
Combat Magicks
Summoning
Runic Constructs
Dimensional Theory(Stuff relating to Infernal Realms, The Void, Teleportation, Abyssal Magic, Shadow Realm, etc.)

Hard Sciences Mathematical-natural sciences:

Chemistry
Biology
Life science
Physics
Engineering
Math

Soft Sciences Humanistic sciences:
Philosophy
Religion
Military Code
Espionage
Social Code (?)

Arcanic Sciences:

Thaumaturgy(Resources rather than military)
Combat Magicks
Summoning
Runic Constructs
Dimensional Theory(Stuff relating to Infernal Realms, The Void, Teleportation, Abyssal Magic, Shadow Realm, etc.)
Arcanics (Spellcraft)
Runic Physics

Okay, post your questions and I'll answer them after I'm back.

I won't have many questions until I start developing playtest scenarios. I want to do some that reflect a more mid-game setting, but the problem is that with research as player-dependent as it is right now, I'll need help with coming up with stuff "mid-game" players might have.

At the pace of a Seasonal Report every 2 days, I'd expect "mid-game" to be about where we are in GW4 - Season 30-40. For me, mid-game is defined when each player has a pretty sizable faction, has established armies with some unique or different units, and are starting to pursue more ambitious technologies.

Guess I'd better reply to William's "improvement" of Lime's list:

1. I prefer Hard and Soft sciences, but so long as everyone knows what everyone else is talking about, the terminology isn't major.

2. We can have Chemistry. We have Herblore in-game. Biology, eh... inb4supersoldiers. I'm fine with cutting it out.

3. Life Science sounds boring. Unless you were trying to include both Biology and Chemistry under Life Science.

4. Engineering can indeed include Physics.

5. Religion can be rolled into Philosophy.

6. Agreed on all the Arcanic Sciences. Spellcraft can be the specific field name, and it covers basically everything William crossed out.

[list=1]I'm calling it Hard Sciences, just like how I call Scientists "Scientists," Goddammit.[*]
[list=2]Chemistry needs to happen when making bombs, creating new alloys, etc.[*]
[list=3]Biology Flows Better[*]
[list=4]I'm gonna call it Soft Sciences because that's what they are.[*]
[list=5]Religion is technically a subcategory of Philosophy, but wouldn't you agree that it is big enough in its own right to merit its own category?[*]
[list=6]Social Code = Military Code, but for Civilians. Essentially, you talk/act better infront of other delegates. It's also a major subcategory of Philosophy, so it deserves its own category.[*]
[list=7]I feel like we should split up Arcanics so that we can be a little more focused, as Jascertes stated. Right now, all of the topics are really broad.[*]

1. Chemistry ain't gonna happen in this damn game. Too advanced. For the record: Chemistry is not herblore. If you want to make a bomb, consult herblorist in this game. (That's life science.)

2. Religion is a Philosophy subcategory, hence it goes under philosophy.

3. Thanks for clearing social code up, under philosophy it goes!

4. Arcanics are the studies of spellcraft. It's just fine how it is, as it majorly does two things: Creates new spells, improves the magic of magic-based units.

Yes, the point of the fields are to be big and broad, just like in real life. We can just post descriptions of each of those fields in the front page and explain different subcategories that go under them, like how religious studies are under philosophy.

Oh, and for material studies, yes, I think that needs to be its own separate study (like smithing, carpenting, crafting and such). Doesn't belong under engineering, imo.

Well, it's good William addressed my Chemistry/Life Science concern while I was editing my post .

Once again, it's a case of William thinking the same damn way I do, especially that last part about material studies.

Okay, what if I wanted to make a new metal, or a new fuel?

Herblore =/= Chemistry

Additionally...

"We need to make the topic less broad!"

*makes the topics more broad by lumping them all together*

Limes wrote:

Okay, what if I wanted to make a new metal, or a new fuel?

Herblore =/= Chemistry

Additionally...

"We need to make the topic less broad!"

*makes the topics more broad by lumping them all together*

If anything I said came across as "make the fields less broad", it wasn't intentional. The only reason I suggested ONE, maybe TWO more fields (one of which being Social Code) was because I didn't see anything to cover diplomacy and other talky-things in the fields on the first page. The problem with having these broad fields only applies if we try to chart out a progression path for basic research, which some of us want and some of us don't want.

Well, now we don't have anything to cover bombs/Metals

If Life Science = Herblore, then I'm fine with bombs falling under it. Although it'd be kind of funny to have "Bomb Theory" under Life Science... not very good for life.

As for "creating" new metals, that can be under one of the material science fields we come up with - say, Forging? I mean, all it takes to create a new metal (in RS) is to add coal to some exotic ore.

Ah, a bit off-topic, but I need to add a section in the Resources draft about new resources potentially being found. Coal is a good example; it may not be super-useful on its own (when it's combined to forge metal, it's counted as Metal), but if a player develops technology which could use Coal to fuel something, it'd become its own resource with modifiers in certain regions and everything. I seem to remember Lime doing something like that with... what was it, Swamp Gas or something...? in GW3. Maybe Tar... probably for my Janissaries. Whatever it was, I went to Ullek to get it.

NO! It was SULPHUR! Yeah, that's it.

There's more to materials than metal. I'm also talking about cloth, wood, hides, etc.

Okay.

I still think we should split up the Magic Fields, though. It's simply too broad of a topic.

It is split. Magic in the energy form (runic physics) and spells.