Blind Research vs. "Normal" Research

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Blind Research vs. "Normal" Research

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Blind Research vs. "Normal" Research

LoD posted 05-01-99 10:34 AM ET
It was the time I first had contact with SMAC (demo). I started my first turn by building a city. Next turn, the popup with EDBC research priorities appeared. My first thought was: "What the sh*t?" Fortunately, the other game features were very good, so I kept playing for a couple more games. Then my natural curiosity caused me to look at the "customize rules". I ticked off Blind Research immediately - this is the way I play currently.
So, my question is: who prefers which, and which is better? You know my opinion, now here are the arguments to it:
-realism - Blind research, although it may seem realistic, is IMHO not proper in a sci-fi game like SMAC. Even now researchers are focussing on specific problem, not a broad aspect. When they want to launch a manned space mission, they produce a way to manufacture needed materials and extract needed supplies from the Silver Globe.
-too much randomization - this is basically self-explanatory.
LoD
-has a horrible feeling that he surfaced an old thread-

Singularity posted 05-01-99 05:22 PM ET
Normal research is better. That way you can go after specific things instead of broad categories. However, if you want a more challenging game, then blind research is the best.
Nell_Smith posted 05-01-99 10:03 PM ET
Yeah, it's a matter of how hard you want the game to be... because even if you set Blind Research to "on", the AI players still head straight for their favourite techs, so Yang gets his PBs just as quickly, while the human player is wandering around somewhere in the Build 2 area... hehe
Nell
Darkstar posted 05-02-99 05:53 AM ET
I have prefered "Blind" in SMAC. It makes it fell more like a different game from Civ for me. Using "Choose" just looses some of the flavor for me. And makes the game too easy...
-Darkstar
LoD posted 05-02-99 09:56 AM ET
Darkstar: IMHO blind should be in Civ. As I have said before, "normal" research is much more realistic in SMAC.
Blind research makes the game too hard .
LoD
Urban Ranger posted 05-02-99 12:23 PM ET
However, nobody knows where the next breakthrough will come. Sure, concentrating more resources in specific areas does help, but bear in mind that many important discoveries and inventions are accidents. So SMAC does seem realistic.
BTW, I play with blind research on.
Urban Ranger posted 05-02-99 12:29 PM ET
Another thought.
By looking at the tech tree, can anybody tell, beforehand, that Gene Splicing leads to Synthetic Fossil Fuels. Yeah, just as I thought. So why should computer players be allowed not to use blind research? IMHO, it should be hardwired into the code.
Although I think the way the MoO/MoO 2 does it is better. You actually get to assign a percentage to various branches of research.
LoD posted 05-03-99 03:48 AM ET
Urban Ranger:
On your first post: As I have said, it's hard to discover something accidentally. Looking at a spiral staircase will not cause a University researcher to discover Gene Splicing. Getting hit by an apple (unless it is *very* hard ) will not help on producing Applied Gravitonics. Nor did Santiago (or one of her subordinates) come up with Doctrine: Flexibility in a bath. I find the "Network Node at $Nameofyourworstbase experienced a research breakthrough" sufficient to depict such occurrences.
On your second post: I agree on your remark on the Moo/Moo2 research system. It is better than the current "blind" option. If that would get incorporated in SMAC - well, I'd be even willing to switch on the (INHO) Worst Rule in The Best Strategy Game.
LoD
Shining1 posted 05-03-99 04:55 AM ET
The blind research idea is much more realistic, but gameplay suffers because of the way it's implimented.
CivII was great - you got a bunch of techs that you learned quickly and which made for an agonizing choice sometimes - like when you got the option of either mobile warface or electronics (i.e either get armour OR the hoover dam).
SMAC sucks in this respect - not only do you get no idea of what might be available under each research area, but you're actually allowed to do an "I dunno" and check all four boxes.
What would be good is this: A blind selection that forced you to choose from one of the four types and which listed the possible results under each.
For instance:
X Explore
Doctrine: Mobility
Centauri Ecology
X Discover
Biogenetics
Secrets of the human brain
X Build
Industrial base
X Conquer
Applied Physics
You get to choose one of these, and get the result shown below the tech (meaning that sometimes less than four options will be shown). In cases where one option has more than one result, there is a random selection done to decide which tech the player ends up at the end of 18 turns research or however long it takes.
(I may have the preqs wrong for some of these. It doesn't matter).
Aredhran posted 05-03-99 07:26 AM ET
Until my last game, I have always played with "Normal Research", but I decided to give blind a shot and actually quite like it. It's a different game experience, more challenging. It forces you to adapt your strategy to whatever your scientists discover, with very little influence on what they'll discover. I mean, select "Conquer", and discover Secrets of the Human Brain (true story) ? Gimme a break.
One more thing I've noticed: In the middle of researching something and using SHIFT+R to change the focus of research to a new area does not seem to change anything for me. In the F2 screen, you see the current area (CBED) since the progress bar is colored accordingly. I've never seen that color change after switching research targets.
Bottom line is: YMMV - I now usually go for the added challenge of Blind.
Aredhran
Bingmann posted 05-03-99 09:39 AM ET
I'm a big advocate of playing with the game "the way the designers meant it to be played", so since blind research is part of the standard rules, that's what I use. Not using blind research ranks up there with saving/reloading when pod-popping in my book. I think they added the directed science option just to keep civ2 addicts happy.
Tip: Set research priorities based on what you want *after* the current research is done, not what you want for the current research. The game picks which tech you are researching based on your priorities when the research starts; changing your priorities in the middle does not affect which tech you are currently researching. The only exception to this is when the priorities screen pops up right after you get a new tech; the game is about to select a new tech to research, and the priorities entered at that time will have immediate effect.
Aredhran posted 05-03-99 10:15 AM ET
That's exactly what I meant.
If you're using Directed Research, you can switch to another tech (at a cost). But when using Blind Research, you can change the criteria at no cost but what you're researching does not change. I'd like to be able to start researching some (available) weapon technology *immediately* when I change my preferences to CONQUER ('cuz if I do so it's because I need it *now*, not in 16 turns).
Aredhran
LoD posted 05-03-99 11:56 AM ET
What have you people done! You've actually made me change my mind!
I no longer state that blind research is a bad idea. It's just the current implementation in SMAC that is (IMHO) faulty.
Oh, and it *does* make the game harder; but, as UR pointed out the computer has no such restrictions. On the other hand:
"[..]. By 'situations' I mean that he should act expediently in accordance with what is advantegous and so control the balance"
Sun Tzu "The Art of War" Ch. 1, v.16, Samuel B. Griffith's translation
LoD
David Johnson posted 05-05-99 02:53 PM ET
I thought "blind" sucked. I normally just slap on all the hardest settings, but this one reduces your ability to make decisions -- and isn't that the point of the game?
I would have gone for it IF the blind research delivered what it promised. If I ask for an explore-tech and there is one availible I expect to get it [and feel clever for figuring how to manipulate the system to what I wanted despite the added difficulty]. What I get instead is some other tech [sometimes]. If it's going to be random where's the challenge?
David Johnson posted 05-05-99 04:53 PM ET
After a little experimenting it seems you get the colour you asked for about half the time [given that you have a choice of colours at all]. You can't change what colour you are going to get, but you *can* see what colour it will be [probably not what you asked for...] simply by looking at the colour of the research progress bar.
My results were not inconsistent with blind equal chance of each availible tech, but it seems likely there's a bonus towards getting availible techs of the "chosen" colour.
The "choose" system doesn't let you choose from all availible techs of couse, but I don't think this can explain the colour problem [ie you want red, there's one red, it isn't availible so you get some other colour]. Several times I wouldn't get my colour of choice despite there being *two* different techs of that colour availible.
It's not simply tech at random, but it's close.
Jythexinvok posted 05-06-99 01:17 AM ET
Personaly I never got along with blind research. I do think it has some slavagable aspects though. A crossover between the two styles might be nice, for instance, putting a % into dirrected research (or possibly multiple research projects simultaniously) then putting the leftover into blind research. blind would deserve a bonus then to reflect how people, when left on their own, can accomplish great things.
Lloyd posted 05-06-99 06:15 AM ET
I love blind research. I've wanted it since CivII, and they finally handed it over. I disagree with the notion that it takes away decisions in what is, of course, a strategy game. Rather, it requires the player to make *very* difficult and complex decisions, taking an uncertain technological future into account. For my strategy gaming dollar, that just kicks the ass of the obligatory "sprint to Monotheism" in Deity CivII. Sometimes when I play the Spartans, I don't get what I need to mercilessly rain death on my hapless competitors. When that happens, I improvise. It's fun--more fun than being able to estimate the discovery date of Doctrine: Airpower to within 3 years. It also introduces more interesting game situations that give me the chance to see how flexible the various factions actually are--again, it's fun. I'm not sure which setting is more realistic--there are arguments for both--but I am sure that technological advances represented in games like this are so granular in their effects that realism is a bit of a moot point anyway.
Lloyd
Fakktor posted 05-06-99 06:32 AM ET
IMHO, the main thing that we should focus on is the question: What do I like? How do I want it to be. It is a game and I think that the developing team wants us to enjoy the game, not babbling about whats the most realistic gamesetting. But OK, I admit, I love to go on and on babbling about realism. Thats why they opens these kinds of forums. Anyway, before i read this thread I always went for controlled research but now... Well, i don't know any more. I will give it a try with blind research and I think i will enjoy it.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Blind Research vs. "Normal" Research
LoD	posted 05-01-99 10:34 AM ET It was the time I first had contact with SMAC (demo). I started my first turn by building a city. Next turn, the popup with EDBC research priorities appeared. My first thought was: "What the sh*t?" Fortunately, the other game features were very good, so I kept playing for a couple more games. Then my natural curiosity caused me to look at the "customize rules". I ticked off Blind Research immediately - this is the way I play currently. So, my question is: who prefers which, and which is better? You know my opinion, now here are the arguments to it: -realism - Blind research, although it may seem realistic, is IMHO not proper in a sci-fi game like SMAC. Even now researchers are focussing on specific problem, not a broad aspect. When they want to launch a manned space mission, they produce a way to manufacture needed materials and extract needed supplies from the Silver Globe. -too much randomization - this is basically self-explanatory. LoD -has a horrible feeling that he surfaced an old thread-
Singularity	posted 05-01-99 05:22 PM ET Normal research is better. That way you can go after specific things instead of broad categories. However, if you want a more challenging game, then blind research is the best.
Nell_Smith	posted 05-01-99 10:03 PM ET Yeah, it's a matter of how hard you want the game to be... because even if you set Blind Research to "on", the AI players still head straight for their favourite techs, so Yang gets his PBs just as quickly, while the human player is wandering around somewhere in the Build 2 area... hehe Nell
Darkstar	posted 05-02-99 05:53 AM ET I have prefered "Blind" in SMAC. It makes it fell more like a different game from Civ for me. Using "Choose" just looses some of the flavor for me. And makes the game too easy... -Darkstar
LoD	posted 05-02-99 09:56 AM ET Darkstar: IMHO blind should be in Civ. As I have said before, "normal" research is much more realistic in SMAC. Blind research makes the game too hard . LoD
Urban Ranger	posted 05-02-99 12:23 PM ET However, nobody knows where the next breakthrough will come. Sure, concentrating more resources in specific areas does help, but bear in mind that many important discoveries and inventions are accidents. So SMAC does seem realistic. BTW, I play with blind research on.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-02-99 12:29 PM ET Another thought. By looking at the tech tree, can anybody tell, beforehand, that Gene Splicing leads to Synthetic Fossil Fuels. Yeah, just as I thought. So why should computer players be allowed not to use blind research? IMHO, it should be hardwired into the code. Although I think the way the MoO/MoO 2 does it is better. You actually get to assign a percentage to various branches of research.
LoD	posted 05-03-99 03:48 AM ET Urban Ranger: On your first post: As I have said, it's hard to discover something accidentally. Looking at a spiral staircase will not cause a University researcher to discover Gene Splicing. Getting hit by an apple (unless it is very hard ) will not help on producing Applied Gravitonics. Nor did Santiago (or one of her subordinates) come up with Doctrine: Flexibility in a bath. I find the "Network Node at $Nameofyourworstbase experienced a research breakthrough" sufficient to depict such occurrences. On your second post: I agree on your remark on the Moo/Moo2 research system. It is better than the current "blind" option. If that would get incorporated in SMAC - well, I'd be even willing to switch on the (INHO) Worst Rule in The Best Strategy Game. LoD
Shining1	posted 05-03-99 04:55 AM ET The blind research idea is much more realistic, but gameplay suffers because of the way it's implimented. CivII was great - you got a bunch of techs that you learned quickly and which made for an agonizing choice sometimes - like when you got the option of either mobile warface or electronics (i.e either get armour OR the hoover dam). SMAC sucks in this respect - not only do you get no idea of what might be available under each research area, but you're actually allowed to do an "I dunno" and check all four boxes. What would be good is this: A blind selection that forced you to choose from one of the four types and which listed the possible results under each. For instance: X Explore Doctrine: Mobility Centauri Ecology X Discover Biogenetics Secrets of the human brain X Build Industrial base X Conquer Applied Physics You get to choose one of these, and get the result shown below the tech (meaning that sometimes less than four options will be shown). In cases where one option has more than one result, there is a random selection done to decide which tech the player ends up at the end of 18 turns research or however long it takes. (I may have the preqs wrong for some of these. It doesn't matter).
Aredhran	posted 05-03-99 07:26 AM ET Until my last game, I have always played with "Normal Research", but I decided to give blind a shot and actually quite like it. It's a different game experience, more challenging. It forces you to adapt your strategy to whatever your scientists discover, with very little influence on what they'll discover. I mean, select "Conquer", and discover Secrets of the Human Brain (true story) ? Gimme a break. One more thing I've noticed: In the middle of researching something and using SHIFT+R to change the focus of research to a new area does not seem to change anything for me. In the F2 screen, you see the current area (CBED) since the progress bar is colored accordingly. I've never seen that color change after switching research targets. Bottom line is: YMMV - I now usually go for the added challenge of Blind. Aredhran
Bingmann	posted 05-03-99 09:39 AM ET I'm a big advocate of playing with the game "the way the designers meant it to be played", so since blind research is part of the standard rules, that's what I use. Not using blind research ranks up there with saving/reloading when pod-popping in my book. I think they added the directed science option just to keep civ2 addicts happy. Tip: Set research priorities based on what you want after the current research is done, not what you want for the current research. The game picks which tech you are researching based on your priorities when the research starts; changing your priorities in the middle does not affect which tech you are currently researching. The only exception to this is when the priorities screen pops up right after you get a new tech; the game is about to select a new tech to research, and the priorities entered at that time will have immediate effect.
Aredhran	posted 05-03-99 10:15 AM ET That's exactly what I meant. If you're using Directed Research, you can switch to another tech (at a cost). But when using Blind Research, you can change the criteria at no cost but what you're researching does not change. I'd like to be able to start researching some (available) weapon technology immediately when I change my preferences to CONQUER ('cuz if I do so it's because I need it now, not in 16 turns). Aredhran
LoD	posted 05-03-99 11:56 AM ET What have you people done! You've actually made me change my mind! I no longer state that blind research is a bad idea. It's just the current implementation in SMAC that is (IMHO) faulty. Oh, and it does make the game harder; but, as UR pointed out the computer has no such restrictions. On the other hand: "[..]. By 'situations' I mean that he should act expediently in accordance with what is advantegous and so control the balance" Sun Tzu "The Art of War" Ch. 1, v.16, Samuel B. Griffith's translation LoD
David Johnson	posted 05-05-99 02:53 PM ET I thought "blind" sucked. I normally just slap on all the hardest settings, but this one reduces your ability to make decisions -- and isn't that the point of the game? I would have gone for it IF the blind research delivered what it promised. If I ask for an explore-tech and there is one availible I expect to get it [and feel clever for figuring how to manipulate the system to what I wanted despite the added difficulty]. What I get instead is some other tech [sometimes]. If it's going to be random where's the challenge?
David Johnson	posted 05-05-99 04:53 PM ET After a little experimenting it seems you get the colour you asked for about half the time [given that you have a choice of colours at all]. You can't change what colour you are going to get, but you can see what colour it will be [probably not what you asked for...] simply by looking at the colour of the research progress bar. My results were not inconsistent with blind equal chance of each availible tech, but it seems likely there's a bonus towards getting availible techs of the "chosen" colour. The "choose" system doesn't let you choose from all availible techs of couse, but I don't think this can explain the colour problem [ie you want red, there's one red, it isn't availible so you get some other colour]. Several times I wouldn't get my colour of choice despite there being two different techs of that colour availible. It's not simply tech at random, but it's close.
Jythexinvok	posted 05-06-99 01:17 AM ET Personaly I never got along with blind research. I do think it has some slavagable aspects though. A crossover between the two styles might be nice, for instance, putting a % into dirrected research (or possibly multiple research projects simultaniously) then putting the leftover into blind research. blind would deserve a bonus then to reflect how people, when left on their own, can accomplish great things.
Lloyd	posted 05-06-99 06:15 AM ET I love blind research. I've wanted it since CivII, and they finally handed it over. I disagree with the notion that it takes away decisions in what is, of course, a strategy game. Rather, it requires the player to make very difficult and complex decisions, taking an uncertain technological future into account. For my strategy gaming dollar, that just kicks the ass of the obligatory "sprint to Monotheism" in Deity CivII. Sometimes when I play the Spartans, I don't get what I need to mercilessly rain death on my hapless competitors. When that happens, I improvise. It's fun--more fun than being able to estimate the discovery date of Doctrine: Airpower to within 3 years. It also introduces more interesting game situations that give me the chance to see how flexible the various factions actually are--again, it's fun. I'm not sure which setting is more realistic--there are arguments for both--but I am sure that technological advances represented in games like this are so granular in their effects that realism is a bit of a moot point anyway. Lloyd
Fakktor	posted 05-06-99 06:32 AM ET IMHO, the main thing that we should focus on is the question: What do I like? How do I want it to be. It is a game and I think that the developing team wants us to enjoy the game, not babbling about whats the most realistic gamesetting. But OK, I admit, I love to go on and on babbling about realism. Thats why they opens these kinds of forums. Anyway, before i read this thread I always went for controlled research but now... Well, i don't know any more. I will give it a try with blind research and I think i will enjoy it.