 |
|
hellrazor
|
|
Portland, OR USA
Feb 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
I fear I'm recycling another old topic yet again, but just out of curiousity, how many people use blind vs directed research? I almost always use blind...I think it adds some uncertainty and variability to the game. It also makes it more difficult to beeline to a specific tech thus forcing you to adapt your playing style. It seems most of the strategies I see here assume directed research.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
HR,
I always play double blind research (setting the game to blind research, then selecting all or none of the research priorities). A year ago I exclusively played directed and had the major b-lines memorized. This made the game a little bland for me, since almost every game, regardless of which faction I played, was very similar. Double blind adds a little spice to SP. After all, it is a little frightening to think of no armor or weapon techs when Marr or Booger comes knocking, or when you can't get Environmental Economics (energy restrictions lifted and tree farms available) for 150 years!! Running around with chaos-fusion weapons while your economy and research are in the stone age is almost surreal. The analogy I use is that every tech is like cashing a artifact at a network node - pure chance!
In the end it comes down to personal preference. Since I role play my SP I'm not as concerned with how fast I can get to a certain level or technology. If you are into Challenges or MP then double blind might not be for you.
Hydro
|
|
|  |
 |
|
VoodooChild
|
|
Atlanta, Ga. USA
Aug 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
depends on why I loaded the game. If I'm looking to play for fun, then I will use double blind, and random -just about anything-, but if I am testing something out then I will go direct for the control.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
cbn,
That’s why I like double blind: just like life, you can’t always get what you want!
Hydro
[This message has been edited by Hydro (edited November 30, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
hellrazor
|
|
Portland, OR USA
Feb 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
In a previous thread someone noted that the alpha.txt files give numbers for each tech in the explore/build/discover/conquer categories. So a certain tech, say TECH1, might be 1 0 3 2. This would be listed as a discover tech but has attributes in three categories. A second tech, say TECH2, might be 0 2 4 0.
I've found that by using two selections in the research categories you seem to get a better chance of getting the tech you want. For example, both TECH1 and TECH2 are discover techs, so if they are at the same level on the tree and you have all prereq's you might have an even chance of getting either one if you select DISCOVER (assuming you get a discover tech at all). OTOH, if you select both DISCOVER and CONQUER, you would have a better chance of getting TECH1.
Has anyone tried this, and have any experience with it? I think there are other factors involved, like how much techs of each type you have discovered and where on the tree you are, but this seems to work. I usually get the tech I want quicker by selecting two categories than by just selecting a single category.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
If playing for fun, single play, blind is fine. Stupid for multi or compare challenges.
I used to use tech stag, blind, no tech goodies, and go into the alpha and adjust the research rate so that it would take forever to get anything.
Then I would play Miriam.
Or I would edit the alpha and increase armor ratings and play a conquest scenario. Anything for a challenge.
jt
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
HsFB,
More realistic? The US and other governments have been funding fusion research for many years, and what do we have? Cold fusion (Oops! Didn’t work? Call back in 20 years, maybe…). By contrast, the internet (like Planetary Networks) was kind of an accident that has more or less created itself.
For game play directed is terrific since it helps you understand what techs lead where, and what they do. Starting off I can fully appreciate how the ‘tech lotto’ would be frustrating, and I used partially directed and then directed before double-blind tech assimilated me.
I suggest experimenting with all three and see which you like best.
Hydro
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
AB,
Point granted on cold fusion. Still, fusion is far in the future and stymies all efforts at a solution, and practical fusion power always seems to be a few decades in the future. As for the internet, did the originator(s) (Al Gore?) intend to create what we now know as the internet? Absolutely not. My understanding is that it was created as a rather limited data transfer and commutation tool between government institutions and some select institutions of higher learning, presumably as a backup in the case of nuclear war. It has evolved way beyond that, and bares no resemblance to what was originally foreseen. That is the point - what you want isn't always what you get. Another excellent example is the global positioning system (GPS, also a US military program), which has evolved from a closely guarded tool of the US military to an indispensable tool worldwide for knowing exactly where you are for everyone from 474s over India to hunters in the back 40 of the Montana.
Hydro
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Christantine The Great
|
|
Massachusetts
Jun 2000 time: 00:13
|
|
Back on topic...
I love blind research because I used to use directed research like a warm blanket to hide under. Now I find it fun to not know what will come next (I use double blind.) It usually doesn't effect Zak too much though because if he pulls a good lead in tech than it doesn't matter what he researches, he will probably know all what the other factions know by then.
------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"
The Viking Archives
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Horus
|
|
Sweden
Nov 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Double blind is my choice when doing SP.
And about the realistic or not issue, this is one of _the_ main issues of debate among historians of sciences. Sure it happens that the gov. points out some Vodoo-features they want in production line soon (WW II was full of such examples), and sometimes they got it too. Often enough they didn't get it but got something else instead (simulated by blind research IMO). Sometimes they got IT and the little extra unexpected discovery.
NASA, as an example, is actually organised as a project, when finished it should dissolve. The thing with NASA is that they invent new causes for their existence and is doing it rather well. It is a centre for blind research one could say, the goals (directed) they put up for themselfs is not the sole prime objective (some say that it is not prime at all). It is the spin off products you get which is the real prime goal.
On the other hand many of the great discoverys were made by people who was completely undirected and on the vegre of being considered dropouts. Newton for example was mostly keen om mystic and arcane litterature, his great discoverys on ligth and gravitation were all made when he was young.
Just my two dimes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|