The Research System

[Goldminermac]

How attached are the community and developers to the game's current research system? I personally greatly prefer the first game's X-COM based one where you can allocate scientists in any way you like across different simultaneous research projects, as granting the player additional freedom creates more opportunity for strategy. While there are benefits to only having one project at a time, like the ability to more easily plan out you research order and being able to cut down on small underwhelming projects this system creates many annoyances. Only being able to research one topic at a time definitely reduces the desire to ever research smaller projects like autopsies and story projects for example, as you will feel the need to always be putting effort into the next tech that will upgrade your troops, aircraft, bases, etc. In the prior system, you could always have a few autopsies on the backburner with a tiny amount of scientists while still focusing most of your resources on the next armor or tier of weapons. Scientists have also been done really dirty, now only being worth a 5% speed bonus on top of a flat 100% rate. Individual scientists feel worthless now. I have some ideas.

MY IDEA: Revert The System

Just make it like the last game, multiple projects at once, and science working with man hours instead of the percentage system. While I don't believe this will be adopted due to there likely being a large amount of intent behind the current system, I do believe this would be an improvement and I want to hear the opinions of the community on the matter.

 

COMPROMISE: Merge The Systems

Remove the percentage system and make research work with man hours like engineering, making every scientist equally as important to research. While each base will still only be able to have one research project at a time, each base will still be able to choose independently, so while multiple bases can work on the same project they can also choose to work on different ones, allowing multiple projects at once. This would allow the additional freedom of the old system while still keeping a unique identity similar to what the developers have implemented so far.

 

[SoftwareSimian]

I'm not too upset by the inability to split research (although I liked that too), but what I find frustrating is the lack of a research queue. We can queue engineering projects, why not research projects?

[Skitso]

Old system gets my vote. If I remember correctly, @Chris once justified the new system by saying that splitting your scientists to multiple projects just postpones everything and it's always the most optimal to focus to one one project at a time. I kinda disagree, as there was a diminishing returns in play in X1 and it was a cool little detail to try to optimize research: As the research was closing it's completition, I started to move scientists to other projects where they could contribute more effectively.

[Raffik]

20 minutes ago, Skitso said:

Old system gets my vote. If I remember correctly, @Chris once justified the new system by saying that splitting your scientists to multiple projects just postpones everything and it's always the most optimal to focus to one one project at a time. I kinda disagree, as there was a diminishing returns in play in X1 and it was a cool little detail to try to optimize research: As the research was closing it's completition, I started to move scientists to other projects where they could contribute more effectively.

I actually like both systems, although I agree with Skitso, it would be a nice little detail to be able to allocate different numbers of scientists to certain projects, working on multiple ones at once, while the others would be queued.

[Pietje666]

With a small tweak you can research more items at the same time. Yet by doing it, it's kinda cheating, (every project got full resources) x-com you had decide how many scientists for which project

[SoulFilcher]

I will say it time and time again, there was nothing wrong with the original system in X-Com, so why change it? Only the people playing the new XCom would prefer a simplified system, but this game will not win those people let's be honest, not because this isn't a good game, but simply because it goes in a different direction. Xenonauts 1 was an update for people who don't get hooked by the new XCom, people who can still enjoy the original because they couldn't care less about graphics, or even clunky, old UIs. That is why for example a whole lot of people "voted" against removing strength as a soldier stat. People playing Xenonauts in general don't want unnecessary simplification of game mechanics.

[Twigg]

I am one of those people who came to Xenonauts from the Firaxis Xcom games and have never played the original 90s X-COMs. I loved both the Firaxis games and Xenonauts 1 even though they had different design philosophies and therefore different strengths/weaknesses.

The idea that these 30 year old games are the pinnacle of how this genre can be done is bonkers to me. It has been three decades since they originally released, nearly every mechanic and decision from those games should be questioned to ensure that we don't miss out on more than a quarter century of technology and game design advancement.

[Goldminermac]

13 hours ago, Twigg said:

I am one of those people who came to Xenonauts from the Firaxis Xcom games and have never played the original 90s X-COMs. I loved both the Firaxis games and Xenonauts 1 even though they had different design philosophies and therefore different strengths/weaknesses.

The idea that these 30 year old games are the pinnacle of how this genre can be done is bonkers to me. It has been three decades since they originally released, nearly every mechanic and decision from those games should be questioned to ensure that we don't miss out on more than a quarter century of technology and game design advancement.

I don’t think we should just keep the old research system to be more like X-COM, but the new system just feels worse and we need to accept that this game is still a sequel to a direct remake of that game. Changes like air combat that improve the experience aren’t questioned but some things don’t need to be changed.

[SoulFilcher]

13 hours ago, Twigg said:

I am one of those people who came to Xenonauts from the Firaxis Xcom games and have never played the original 90s X-COMs. I loved both the Firaxis games and Xenonauts 1 even though they had different design philosophies and therefore different strengths/weaknesses.

The idea that these 30 year old games are the pinnacle of how this genre can be done is bonkers to me. It has been three decades since they originally released, nearly every mechanic and decision from those games should be questioned to ensure that we don't miss out on more than a quarter century of technology and game design advancement.

Age means nothing, how old is chess? You should definitely question game mechanics yeah, and try to improve on them. If there was nothing to improve there wouldn't be an Open X-Com project going on with frequent updates. Can Xeno2 attract those players? I believe it can if it goes in the right direction.

[Twigg]

Chess is an interesting example as I am pretty sure it took hundreds of years for it to turn into the game we know it as today, it is not something that came out of the game perfect.

My general point is that this game shouldn't base it's mechanics off of what lovers of a 30 year old game prefer because not only is that limiting the audience but it also limits the scope for the designers. The best example is squad size. I know the original games let you throw a ton more bodies at missions but I really prefer the more limited squad size and limitations it puts on the player. 

[Dren608]

1 hour ago, Twigg said:

Chess is an interesting example as I am pretty sure it took hundreds of years for it to turn into the game we know it as today, it is not something that came out of the game perfect.

My general point is that this game shouldn't base it's mechanics off of what lovers of a 30 year old game prefer because not only is that limiting the audience but it also limits the scope for the designers. The best example is squad size. I know the original games let you throw a ton more bodies at missions but I really prefer the more limited squad size and limitations it puts on the player. 

The Squad size in the original X-com and in X-1 x-2 was always based on the Assault ship Technology, that was one of the biggest things to get that Tech up and build a bigger more diverse Assault team.

The research, which is in question here, was allowed to progress down multiple paths in the Earlier game. It encouraged extra Scientists and even different Bases so you could hose them all. Even if the Ultimate design is just on project at a time in X-2, I would at least like to "queue" several projects so I don't lose time because I forgot to assign a new Research project (because of Missions and New Toys I want to build). The Engineer screen allows for that I don't see why the Scientists can't have a to-do list of projects.

[Jorlem]

Personally, I'd just like it if my scientists wouldn't destroy their notes if I tell them to switch to a different research project midway. I think that progress should not be lost if I decide something is a higher priority at the moment than what I'm currently doing. (Admittedly, I haven't played the most recent builds for the last few weeks, so if this was added, then ignore this.)

[delor]

  Splitting only really makes sense if there's diminishing returns on the research.*  @Chris is right that if there are no diminishing returns, there's no reason to split.  So, unless the design decision is made that diminishing returns are advisable implemented there's no reason to offer players the chance to shoot themselves in the foot with what will always be a sub-optimal decision.

 

  That said, queues are a no-brainer QoL enhancement and not preserving progress if the project switches also seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do unless the design intent is to punish a player for switching.

 

*Making this an aside because we needn't limit ourselves to "what classic X-Com did"...  @Skitso, I don't think actually was the case in classic X-Com if that is the benchmark.  The only game guide that I can find that gives a research time formula for the old games, at least, just gives time as "project days / number of scientists" which is a formula that doesn't reward splitting your scientists.  Do you have a source for your claim?

[Komandos]

On 19.09.2023 at 05:00, Twigg said:

The idea that these 30 year old games are the pinnacle of how this genre can be done is bonkers to me. It has been three decades since they originally released, nearly every mechanic and decision from those games should be questioned to ensure that we don't miss out on more than a quarter century of technology and game design advancement.

New fashion is often shown on TV. And although jeans were invented 150 years ago, almost all new models of jeans do not stand up to any criticism compared to the classic model.

I agree with the fact that people always strive to experience something new, but "new" is not a synonym for the word "best".

 

[Alienkiller]

Splitting would be OK when you have a lot more Researches like in Hoi 4, Stellaris, UFO ET-Series or similar Games of different Directions.

In Xenonauts 2 it makes atm. no Sense, there the R & D-Projects are to less to make an splitting. Only if the Timeline get longer (not integrated yet) and more R & D (what get tested in Milestone 2-Prototype until it get recalled for Bugfix-Reworks) and special Combacks on the Geoscape (like Outpots, UFO Recoverys etc.) comes in, then it makes Sense to Splitt the R & D about new Features / Content or more interesting other Content.

Interessting it will be, what differences we will get in the Platinum-Version of UFO ET (9 Days remaining) and the big Gapfillers for UFO 2 ET (unknown when they comes out) to Xenonauts 2 in that and other Parts. The R & D-Part of the UFO ET-Series is like the old X-Com Part, but with some big differences.

Where Xenonauts 2 have an big advantage to it´s Rival-Series is in the Production-Line and Upgrades-Line about the Storages and the Resources you need. What the Research-Parts belongs, so we have to wait what Milestone 2, 3, 4+ will bring in.

[Komandos]

11 hours ago, delor said:

Splitting only really makes sense if there's diminishing returns on the research.*  @Chris is right that if there are no diminishing returns, there's no reason to split.  So, unless the design decision is made that diminishing returns are advisable implemented there's no reason to offer players the chance to shoot themselves in the foot with what will always be a sub-optimal decision.

The separation makes sense if Xenonauts 2 is also done with the expectation of the possibility of modifying the game. You can, of course, reduce the entire Xenonauts game to "special cases" (which were found among a wide variety of classic X-COM variants), motivating this by the need to optimize the gameplay, but this will make the game too specialized (focused only on the tastes of one audience) and make the modification process more difficult, and sometimes impossible.

[Skitso]

13 hours ago, delor said:

@Skitso, I don't think actually was the case in classic X-Com if that is the benchmark.  The only game guide that I can find that gives a research time formula for the old games, at least, just gives time as "project days / number of scientists" which is a formula that doesn't reward splitting your scientists.  Do you have a source for your claim?

Have I mentioned original X-Com somewhere? 

[SoulFilcher]

4 hours ago, Komandos said:

The separation makes sense if Xenonauts 2 is also done with the expectation of the possibility of modifying the game. You can, of course, reduce the entire Xenonauts game to "special cases" (which were found among a wide variety of classic X-COM variants), motivating this by the need to optimize the gameplay, but this will make the game too specialized (focused only on the tastes of one audience) and make the modification process more difficult, and sometimes impossible.

Modding the game, and being more specific, people who are probably planning to port over mods from Xeno1 will be very difficult with this research system. Mods often add a ton of research projects with varying priority levels, with the assumption that players can try different paths for each campaign save.

I've never heard of a mod that removes research, or make them more streamlined. If those exist please link them. So I take that as a strong evidence of what players want from a game.

[delor]

On 9/21/2023 at 6:59 AM, Skitso said:

Have I mentioned original X-Com somewhere? 

Ah, I misinterpreted "the old system" because of the context of other people discussing the original games.

 

On 9/21/2023 at 5:30 AM, Komandos said:

The separation makes sense if Xenonauts 2 is also done with the expectation of the possibility of modifying the game. You can, of course, reduce the entire Xenonauts game to "special cases" (which were found among a wide variety of classic X-COM variants), motivating this by the need to optimize the gameplay, but this will make the game too specialized (focused only on the tastes of one audience) and make the modification process more difficult, and sometimes impossible.

Eh, disagree.  Making a bad interface on the grounds that "a modder might do something that makes this UI meaningful" is bad design.  If there's no reason to research multiple projects, don't offer the user an interface that lets them research multiple projects.

I'm all for the game making it easy for modders to *add* an interface that supports researching multiple projects, but the shipped product should present a UI designed for the shipped product, not some hypothetical thing that someone might add to it on the further hypothetical that your end user might then have that mod installed.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I liked splitting up the research , just because it gave things a better simulated feel;. With different scientists with different specialties, researching different things in a busy lab. Things are more immersive that way, and it feels more like running an actual base.
Being able too put  all your scientists into researching a plane, and then they finish it in one,day, and then the engineers can can get the plane up in 1 day, just feels fake.

[Komandos]

35 minutes ago, Sir_Dr_D said:

Being able too put  all your scientists into researching a plane, and then they finish it in one,day, and then the engineers can can get the plane up in 1 day, just feels fake.

Scientific research in the game is NOT balanced by scientific research of aliens (aliens simply do not have scientific research). If the aliens could also gather scientists and investigate a new type of UFO in one day, and then gather engineers and build a new type of UFO in one day, then the player would consider this a very strong imbalance of the game.

Also, the imbalance of the game is the fact that aliens may not appear for several weeks, and during this time the player can survive several technological eras without applying the scientific achievements of this technological era in practice. (For example: explore Gauss weapons, then explore laser weapons, then explore plasma weapons. When, finally, there is a tactical battle, then, of course, there is no longer a need for the use of Gauss weapons, there is no need for laser weapons, because plasma weapons are more effective.). The speed of scientific research, in the game, exceeds the speed at which there is a practical need for new technologies.

[Grobobobo]

On 9/18/2023 at 5:14 PM, Skitso said:

If I remember correctly, @Chris once justified the new system by saying that splitting your scientists to multiple projects just postpones everything and it's always the most optimal to focus to one one project at a time

And chris was right. The new system does not lose out on any depth.

[Komandos]

7 minutes ago, Grobobobo said:

And chris was right. The new system does not lose out on any depth.

A thousand scientists will not be able to solve the problem faster: "how much is 2 + 2 =?" compared to one scientist. A thousand electricians will not be able to replace one light bulb faster than one electrician. Each scientific (engineering) project should have an optimal number of researchers (engineers). If the number of researchers (engineers) is less than the optimal number, then the work slows down or stops altogether. If there are more researchers and engineers than the optimal number, then most employees simply do nothing at their workplace. That's fair enough.

Without this, it is impossible to regulate the permissible speed of projects in the game. With an infinitely large number of scientists and engineers, the player can explore everything in one day. And also less than one day to produce everything necessary for victory.

Setting the optimal number of employees for scientific and engineering projects is a better solution than limiting the player to finances, places for housing and places in scientific laboratories and factories.

[Grobobobo]

1 hour ago, Komandos said:

Without this, it is impossible to regulate the permissible speed of projects in the game.

It's already done by

A) Making recruiting scientists barely worth it, and really expensive. You don't have infinite scientists, you're limited by funding you could spend on other things.

B) Gating the most important projects behind missions. For example in x1 alienium explosives were not gated behind a terror mission.

The autopsies and interrogations are very much worth it, the damage increases are basically a new weapon tier, and the training rate stacks up fast.

[Komandos]

2 hours ago, Grobobobo said:

Making recruiting scientists barely worth it, and really expensive. You don't have infinite scientists, you're limited by funding you could spend on other things.

It's like making the services of an electrician very expensive, so that the player cannot hire thousands of electricians and thereby unscrew a light bulb at superluminal speed. The financial limit for limiting the speed of scientific research is a "crutch" to maintain the lame mechanics of research.