Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Eretzu

I think it would make sense to hide the structural roll before doing some actual field testing.

It feels stupid that you just design a tank and immediately can see that you need a new model, instead of a new model.

At the same time I think that the scale of 70-130 is too high and at least an option to use 90-110 would be great.

Every design is ready to be ordered by the day you finish it.
All testing and prototyping that could be done, has been done.
A finished design is not just some blueprint or designers feever dream - but something that can be ordered right this month.

Vic has indicated he is consindering a game variant with more hidden information. But that is about it.
And not everyone is on board with such a mechanic.

I've finally just come to understand this mechanic (Structural Design Stat), and discovered how frustrating it is. I started Googling, and discovered multiple threads and comments saying the same thing: This sucks!

The current way it works seems tailor-made to piss you off. There's a fundamental stat, that you can see from day 1, that if rolled poorly, will permanently hobble this model. The obvious response is to try again. Except... The cumulative cost increases with each subsequent attempt!! Wut??

I understand the argument about randomisation adding to the character of each empire you play. I like that idea. I like the interesting choice of either A: just dealing with a weak unit type in your army's roster or B: spending more to fix things, at the cost of doing something else. I don't think the current system does that at all. Instead you end up with the following:

• Option A has the problem that you can immediately see that you've got a weak model. There's little incentive to go ahead with something that the game is telling you in black and white is substandard. You haven't built any units yet, so there's no cost in terms of reorganising and replacing units if you make a new base model. So the game is motivating you to go with Option B. (If you don't believe me, take as an anecdote all the forum posts and comments and guides advising people to just keep making new models until they get a good score.)
• Option B has escalating costs each time, as if the game is saying "Haha, F*** you!". I don't mind making the decision to pay the same again for another crank of the slot machine, but when the costs keep escalating it's incredibly aggravating. I'm already paying the opportunity cost of delaying the rollout of this new unit, and the opportunity cost of not researching something else, and you're going to hit me with another penalty on top of that? Why? It makes no sense! Adding some in-game logic here: surely they'd have an easier time on subsequent attempts? Or at least the same difficulty. What part of the process of doing something again would make it take longer and cost more? It flies in the face of common sense that says that things will tend to either take the same time, or go faster as you repeat them. It's this disconnect between common sense and how the game treats the player that makes it so especially annoying, I think.

So, with that off my chest, I really think something needs to give here. I'm clearly not the only one with a problem, and it's pissed me off enough to quit playing for a while, and spend my evening writing this post instead. For a game that is so innovative, and has so many cool systems, I really want to see something constructive here.

Suggestions:

• Have the Structural stat be shown as a range, with uncertainty. E.g. 75 - 115, with the true score somewhere in that range. Have the range converge on the true score based on the percentage of field testing completed.
  • This would result in a sunk-cost effect if you find out after operational testing that the design has structural flaws. The decision at this point of whether to start over, or stick with that model line would be much more interesting.
• Get rid of the aggravating escalating costs for creating new base models. Honestly I tried to think of something more constructive here, but I just can't see any way that it can be justified. Personally I think something like a cost reduction on each subsequent new model, with diminishing returns, would make sense. Something like the following function acting as a multiplier to new base model cost, where n is the number of existing base models, starting at zero:
  This would see costs get closer to half the original cost, but never quite get there. See the curve shown at this link: https://i.imgur.com/53MDjIk.png
  • If the existing cost penalty to the player is (as I've speculated) a game balance measure against constant re-rolls until a desirable score is rolled, then it wouldn't be required any more: If you eliminate the penalty, or even give a cost reduction, at the same time as the above change to the displaying of the Structural Stat, then you won't have to worry about people constantly re-rolling, due to the time it takes to field test.

I echo Snoman's input on the lost opportunity costs and was going to be making a post to basically say the same thing but as he's already done it I'll just +1 his statement. It would be one thing if there was something the player could do to improve their chances but to my knowledge it's complete RNG on the roll which isn't fun... If it's going to be that way then just let us chalk it up as a failed design, remove it and start again from scratch. We've already lost the time researching it, delaying new units into the field, AND having to start research all over from scratch without any assurances that what we'll get will be any better. There are already an abundance of negatives at play to disincentize players from trying over and over again as they're already delaying upgrades to the rest of their forces entirely without any kind of guarantee that your next model will roll any better. I mean, with any real world comparison you wouldn't be limited to working on a single design for any sort of hardware. The fact that you're limited to a single design at a time, combined with all the opportunity costs, the penalty of getting nothing more than a bad RNG roll, and then slapping on an addition HAHA penalty on top of all of that just isn't fun IMHO. Love the game, but hate this specific part.

Some tech advances could be modelled as in combat, only gaining knowledge ground or achieving advantage over scientific/ engineering obstacles.

This would create a more intuitive and immersive advancement, it seems. Also generate the tech strengths and weaknesses of AI opponents in a good way. They have all conquered different ground from a tech point of view, and from where they are various other ability terrains are more or less accessible.

More simply I have a thought that the way breakthroughs work in combat could be applied similarly to tech advances.

I know that would mean re-working a lot of stuff and changing a lot of core concepts. This isn't really a suggestion - more of an idea of something that would avoid this issue.

ORIGINAL: deMangler

Some tech advances could be modelled as in combat, only gaining knowledge ground or achieving advantage over scientific/ engineering obstacles.

This would create a more intuitive and immersive advancement, it seems. Also generate the tech strengths and weaknesses of AI opponents in a good way. They have all conquered different ground from a tech point of view, and from where they are various other ability terrains are more or less accessible.

More simply I have a thought that the way breakthroughs work in combat could be applied similarly to tech advances.

I know that would mean re-working a lot of stuff and changing a lot of core concepts. This isn't really a suggestion - more of an idea of something that would avoid this issue.

I had some ideas for a Scientific Progress based on being exposed to a problem (fighting a lot of armor, opearting in Radiaiton fields):
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4847761

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: deMangler

Some tech advances could be modelled as in combat, only gaining knowledge ground or achieving advantage over scientific/ engineering obstacles.

This would create a more intuitive and immersive advancement, it seems. Also generate the tech strengths and weaknesses of AI opponents in a good way. They have all conquered different ground from a tech point of view, and from where they are various other ability terrains are more or less accessible.

More simply I have a thought that the way breakthroughs work in combat could be applied similarly to tech advances.

I know that would mean re-working a lot of stuff and changing a lot of core concepts. This isn't really a suggestion - more of an idea of something that would avoid this issue.

I had some ideas for a Scientific Progress based on being exposed to a problem (fighting a lot of armor, opearting in Radiaiton fields):
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4847761

Exactly! reminds me of the old days constantly adding to and improving the rules for table-top and pen and paper games

ORIGINAL: Way2co0l
...
Love the game, but hate this specific part.

Exactly

What you seem to be missing is that the solution to Option A ("sucking it up") involves looking for another model type able to play a similar role (Motorbikes instead of Recon Buggies, Medium Tanks instead of Light Tanks, Bazooka instead of Anti-Tank Gun, Mechanized Artillery or Rocket Launcher instead of Artillery, Trucks instead of APCs, Quad MG instead of MG...) and a different army composition.

We *already* have a sunk cost effect in that designing the first model of a model type has a bunch of pre-requisites : all those BPs needed to unlock, discover and research the required techs and models.

Hiding the structural stat would make it *even worse*, because you would have to either delay *committing even more* for a specific design type (delaying getting related OOBs and related tech upgrades), or risk ending up with lots of BPs (and XP) invested in a model type for a model line that is a dud, and then being even more than now *forced* to try to go for Option B ("re-rolling trying to get a better model line").

And how else would you suggest that the game should dis-incentivize you from going for the "optimal" model type and the "optimal" army composition every game ? You have glossed over that.