Research for dummies?

Polaris Sector is a sci-fi 4X game that offers exciting exploration, detailed resource management, unique research mechanics and intense tactical combat.
Post Reply
JWW
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:16 am

Research for dummies?

Post by JWW »

Okay, I understand how research is supposed to work. What I don't understand is what I should actually do to optimize research. What research strategy should I follow? Should I pick out specific technologies that I want and set them as priorities? Should I key in on specific applied sciences? That is the one part of the game where I feel lost. I don't really understand how it works, and maybe I'm missing them, but I don't see any research guides out there, except for some how research works guides. And I'm not looking for some magic path to victory through research. I think the system in Polaris Sector creates more of a puzzle than just a straightforward tech tree, and that is good. But I just don't want to spin my wheels for several games feeling completely lost. Thanks for any advice.
Flef
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:31 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by Flef »

Hard to tell.
I think you found the obvious first things (platform, atm. domes, marines farm).
other domes are a necessity but you don't really need to tech them unless you really build your strategy on a faster colonization than the other races.


After it is a lot less obvious. I really act differently between my games and it doesn't really seems to be problematic. There is always a new generator at some point and always some sort of new weapons.
As an example before I was researching the domes(all of them) and hulls as quickly as possible. The last game I didn't really cared and researched more armors and new engines.
the only noticeable difference is how I build my fleets and how I get the sismo- and radiation- resistant domes (through diplomacy).


So there I would say it really depends on what the players estimate a good choice and at this point we lack information on where the research goes and bring at the end.





I'm trying to map the tech tree in order to have myself a better view
...but tech names like "SCCL4" are not very talkative for the common folk :D
TheFlemishDuck
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by TheFlemishDuck »

There is a simple problem youre being faced with: You don't know the cost of research.

I can only decide on what to prioritize when i see how many years it will take me to get there at the rate of science i'm making at point in progression i am. But i don't see any absolute cost of tech anywhere let alone listed in some wiki so that i could make a clear picture of what an optimized research path would be under normal circumstances in terms of development.

Obviously somethings are more usefull at first for when it regards development like simply the abbilety to settle more planets trough domes or farm more types of world so that teran worlds with good modifiers to science or production for ex can be specialized better. Some weapons like IR lasers for ex. are also worth to be prioritized more than other weapons around it' "tier". there seems to be however some tier cost attached, certain research is observingly far more costly than others, like destroyers hulls for ex. are much more expensive a tech than many other early ones.

What you don't know is just how much each tech costs in raw numbers, no'r do you have a good overview of all opportune techs you might get eary if you don't research the theoretical tech. Somewhere for the sake of optimization one would like to have all the opportune apllied development and weapon techs you can have at a reasonable price with researching the minimally required theoretical research. But not only is it a web of this and this unlocks that but you wouldn't know how long it would take you even to research the applied tech before you would first have done the theoretical research, so you will only know if theoretical research to rush a tech would pay if when you researched those techs, at which point you might find that youre desired applied tech would take far to long to research compared to alternative's that could have been helpfull now and in fact thus had been better researched instead of that theoretical tech at this point.

So it would be nice if one day we can have the tech tree with all techs in pure cost of beakers so we could calculate ahead roughly how long it would take to research if we reseearched the theoretical tech to unlock it.
BlueTemplar
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:54 am

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by BlueTemplar »

You already do?
Image
EDIT :
Ok, looks like you have to do some additions to figure out how much unlocking that particular Applied Science costs in the required Fundamental Sciences :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxCzCug-rhA&t=39s
TheFlemishDuck
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by TheFlemishDuck »

Those numbers besides the tech don't seem to denote any tech cost. You see how much beakers you have invested and how many years if you prioritise it but you don't see any beaker cost.
TheFlemishDuck
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by TheFlemishDuck »

BlueTemplar wrote: EDIT :
Ok, looks like you have to do some additions to figure out how much unlocking that particular Applied Science costs in the required Fundamental Sciences :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxCzCug-rhA&t=39s
You mean calculations? How exactly? I didn't see any explenation in the video.
Traianus
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by Traianus »

TheFlemishDuck wrote:Those numbers besides the tech don't seem to denote any tech cost. You see how much beakers you have invested and how many years if you prioritise it but you don't see any beaker cost.
There is no beaker cost that I've seen.

The more research points you generate, the faster research goes.
BlueTemplar
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:54 am

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by BlueTemplar »

What are those (numbers) then?
For instance in that video, he would (still?) need to put 913 beakers into Biology to get Xenobiology?
And 23 beakers in Automation to get Gravity Resonance Tank?
TheFlemishDuck
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by TheFlemishDuck »

BlueTemplar wrote:What are those (numbers) then?
For instance in that video, he would (still?) need to put 913 beakers into Biology to get Xenobiology?
And 23 beakers in Automation to get Gravity Resonance Tank?
No i don't think so, i think these numbers are more like a "tech ID". They don't check out these costs unless i made some mistake, atleast if you take 2 techs with a similar number and prioritize them then 1 might take 100x longer than the other.
Traianus
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by Traianus »

As far as I can determine, it's a countdown of how many RPs you need to invest until it arrives

I could be off base with all this. But RPs is just how many points you apply to whatever.

Don't prioritize, leave everything at 25% and research moves on, slower than frozen molasses, but it goes on.

You don't lose what you put in if you switch research.

This is all just my observation.
freifrei
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by freifrei »

My personal queue

-Biology 100%
Complex design (floating platforms)
>Oceanic planets are the best for food, after all.
Xenobiology (marine farm)
-Physics 100%
Complex design (atmospheric dome)
>destroy mining facilities on terran planets once you get desert\frozen mines
>If you need military power, rush heavy ion for much stronger fighters
get sub-atomic particles
-Chemistry+physics 50%
Sub-atomic particles
Thermonuclear synthesis
Until you get thermonuclear reactor - very efficient
>If you need stronger military ASAP, rush IR laser>baryon, missile traps, bigger turrets
Exo geology
-Biology 100%
Super-deep mine
get domes that you need the most
Hydroponics
Biological Alloys
Orbital Research
Lagon armor,traps, turrets and IR laser\baryon if you didnt get em yet
rush forcefields
destroyer hull, active traps, plasma or muon reactor for fighters
ICU engine
ultra-enriched ore
Photon torpedoes
antigravity
always have either forcefields, bacteria engineering or antigravity selected
postpone antigravity if you dont want bogovans yet

>dont forget, you can get necessary techs using diplomacy, lets you focus on economical development while boosting your future ally
FarAway Sooner
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by FarAway Sooner »

Thought I'd revive an old thread to throw in my two cents / ask a question or two.

First off, I LOVE the innvoative approach to R&D! It feels like a much more realistic model of how technology works, and it's also a very clever innovation off a tech-tree approach that hasn't changed since Sid Meiers introduced Civilization a quarter-century ago. So, two thumbs-up for that. I've played 30-40 hours, so I'm not a noob, but nor am I a veteran here.

However, as a game-play device, it feels too opaque to me. Even after spending 20 or 30 minutes staring at the tech planning screen (or the tech tool), and keeping all sorts of notes on a separate pad of paper about what Applied Technology I want to shut off (or just suspend for a while) at what point, I still have no idea how to evaluate the trade-offs.

It's not theoretically impossible for me to master--I get the technique required; I just feel like I have to channel WAY too much energy into micromanaging my research effectively. I could just "optimize" to acquire whatever tech is next up on my wish list, but that defeats the whole purpose of the more organic approach. Besides, I enjoy knowing whether pursuing Discovery A or Discovery B has any implications for acquiring Discovery C sooner).

As is, past the first half-dozen or so discoveries (Ocean Platforms and Atmosphere Domes; Heavy Ion Cannons; etc.) I just end up spamming my research over almost all my Applied Technologies and hope I get good stuff before my opponents do. Am I missing something?

If not, I think a little simplification of the tech system might go a long ways towards enhancing the game. I'd be happy to throw out some opinions on how to do that, but first, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something really obvious...
Ufnv
SoftWarWare
SoftWarWare
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:19 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by Ufnv »

Hi!

You are generally right. It would be nice to hear you idea on how to do it better.

Currently I am working on two things here:
1. Simplify a little interconnections
2. Introduce a penalty for radical switching. More inertia-like than penalty - so when you concentrate of new direction, this does not instantly move all science points there, but does it gradually.
FarAway Sooner
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by FarAway Sooner »

I like those ideas both. Simplifying the interconnections seems more important to me, and I'd encourage you to go very aggressive there rather than just "simplify a little". I see a few major prongs of attack to make the tech tree more intuitive. These are in no particular order:
  • Ruthlessly strip away the number of techs required for a given invention, so most discoveries only require 2 sciences and the really complicated ones might require 3. (examples below)
  • Reduce the number of applied sciences and compartmentalize them so that most applied sciences have their primary application in two intuitively defined component types or three at most (e.g., Complex Design is an example where you've done this well: It has implications for bigger Spaceship hulls and Buildings and that's about it; in contrast, Automation sprawls across Spaceship Hulls, Hangars, Armor, Fuel Tanks, and Buildings).
  • Embed those general component applications in the descriptions of the applied research and possibly even in the Applied Science names wherever possible.
If I had to guess, I suspect that you let the scientific considerations, rather than game play considerations, drive what techs are required for what discoveries. My sense is that this has led to a system that is not very intuitive. I LOVE the way techs continue to evolve in the mid- and late-game (e.g., the advent of MIRV missiles versus fighters, the advent of missile traps, some of the nasty energy weapons in the late game, etc.). But I have no idea why they've evolved the way they have, and I'm unable to leave my own fingerprints on how they've evolved.

A few examples/details are below:

Why to strip away the number of techs required for a given discovery:
  • To research Battle Platforms, why do I need a specific level in all 4 Fundamental Sciences plus Complex Design plus Bacteria Engineering? Just require Physics, Mathematics, and Complex Design.
  • Why is Themonuclear Synthesis required for advanced Hangar Facilities?
  • Why is Automation required for weapon pylons/turrets and weapons? It makes sense to require it for advanced turrets and repair technologies, but not for many energy weapons, some missiles, and some Fuel Tanks (but not others).
  • I get the scientific reasons why I might need to understand Superconductors for Enhanced Reidium Armor, Plasma MIRVs, Heavy Gravity Resonance Tanks, and numerous types of Energy Weapons, but you're sacrificing intuitive play for scientific accuracy.
Why to reduce the number of Applied Sciences, and clean up the names and descriptions to make navigation of the tech tree more intuitive:
  • I appreciate the fact that you're using real-life scientific concepts to populate the Applied Sciences field, but many of those names aren't intuitive to even many PC-gaming nerds who don't have a strong background in science. I spent the first 40 hours of the game asking myself "WTF is the difference between 'Islands of Stability' and 'Field Theory'?" and only recently learned that Islands of Stability is a real scientific concept.
  • I'd love a tech tree where I'm faced with questions like "Do I want big ships or faster fighters?" but can't figure out how to make those choices in this game beyond the first 100 years. Asking on multiple forums of people who like the game, they seem to feel the same way.
There are just too many interdependencies, and far too many combinations/permutations for me to figure out how to do anything. I can click on the "Research only this technology now" button, but that defeats the elegance of the whole rest of the system.

Hope that all makes sense. If it doesn't, feel free to reply here or PM me.
Ufnv
SoftWarWare
SoftWarWare
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:19 pm

Re: Research for dummies?

Post by Ufnv »

I does, thanks :)
Post Reply

Return to “Polaris Sector”