blind research vs directed

[hellrazor]

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.

[Chowlett]

I play direct, but I'll probably try blind sometime for the challenge. That comes after braving Transcend though - I always find some excuse not to play it. Most recently that excuse was SMACX - I'm still trying the new factions and rules.

------------------
The best way to avoid errors is not to do anything - Dr Beardon (Maths)

("Something is worth doing"=>"It is worth doing properly")<=>("Something is not worth doing properly"=>"It is not worth doing") - A truth first expounded by Murgatroyd

[Hydro]

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

[Googlie]

I'm a "double blinder" myself, for many of the reasons given by Hydro. The game is just too easy even on transcend to keep the advantage of directed research.

Try double blind on an OCC, as the Believers and see what a tough game is (but still possible).

I've taken recently as well to randomizing faction agendas and personalities and, of course, while accelerated start can 'rob' you of the first up to 80 years (when a competent human player should know that he/she has the AI whipped anyway) it's a great leveller - 7 SP's not quite randomly allocated (as morgan you won't get the ME, as zak you won't get the VW, etc)

But back to your question:

The only time I play directed research now is in PBEM's, where you really want the randomizing effect nullified as much as possible.

G.

[Blunderdog]

I play blind, although it can be frustrating. Plus I just assume that's how you should play SMACX, since directed research is one of the aliens' faction advantages.

I play MP with a friend a lot, and we've noticed that the AI factions almost always get D:AP and the restriction-lifting techs way before the human factions. I doubt that this is coincidence, so in a way it's just another cheat to help the AI compete.

[VoodooChild]

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.

[Skanderbeg]

I always play blind research (but not double blind) because it seems most realistic to me.
Blind research also makes diplomacy more important, because sometimes the AI has the tech You urgently need but You can't direct research for.
Additionally, blind research gives every new game a different direction.
But it is true, sometimes blind research can be frustrating, if You need some tech very urgently.
Ever played Morgan and tried to get hab complexes by blind research?

[Velociryx]

Past tense here, since I've not had a game in a while, but when playing for fun, I *always* love the blind or double blind approach, but if I'm working with a specific test or goal in my head (ie - how fast can I get to a specific tech or project), then I play directed.

-=Vel=-

[mark13]

It depends entirely what mood I'm in. If I'm in a raw strategy mood, I'll play directed. Blind research is for when I want that sense of uncertainty - I usually play with random events on when I play blind.

BTW, Googlie, I had a PBEM accelerated start in which the Gaians got the WP - I'm not sure whether this is regarded as a faction-specific SP, but there we have it....I was less than impressed, to say the least!

[cbn]

I normally played directed research but have gotten to the point where a greater (SP) challenge is needed. I actually started my first ever double-blind research game last night and can attest to the fact that it is both challenging and fun even as it frustrates you. I am currently stuck on a small landmass connected to the south pole and am praying/ begging for the tech to build a boat . It really changes things when you cannot simply decide to research that boat. I have changed my planned approach a couple of times already based simply on what is available to me.

cbn
[This message has been edited by cbn (edited November 30, 2000).]

[Hydro]

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).]

[Velociryx]

This consensus is so good and refreshing to see. I remember when I first started out on this board, those who were in favor of blind research were badly outnumbered, but I have to agree, it adds an element of uncertainty and realism in it that really cinches it for me.

When I first got the game, I can't tell you how many nights I sat up with most of the lights off, letting the whole room be lit up by those eerie colors and otherworldly music as the map was slowly revealed. That, plus the not knowing what tools I might have at my disposal at any given point in the game really added something to the replay value....

-=Vel=-

[hellrazor]

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.

[Googlie]

hellrazor:

when we play double blind we select all four categories, so it truly is random within the permissible techs.

The only games I'm playing (game actually) where I am selecting within the four choices is RP1, where I have left the research preferences exactly as they were offerend for my faction (Morgan) when they first appeared (and I don't even remember what the two were - wealth and infrastructure was obviously one, but the other - explore?)

and cbn, I've had that too - playing once as Morgan on one of my humungus 800 x 800 maps, 90% water I started on an island that supported 3 bases each 3 tiles from the others. tech stag as well. Didn't get doc flex until around 2300, but did get the WP, so terraformed my island into a continent until I had a dozen or so bases. Half the precious techs i was getting were useless - polysoft when i didn't meet another faction until the late 2200's, so nothing to bombard.

The challenge definitely is different.

G.

[mark13]

800x800. Now I would like to see that. Actually, on scond thoughts, I wouldn't - my poor p200 will probably seize up and refuse ever to play SMAC again....

I haven't ever tried double blind before - maybe I should have a quick go....I can imagine you would have to adjust your playing style even more so than 'single' blind....

BTW, Vel, that's another factor to throw into the UBC equation
[This message has been edited by mark13 (edited November 30, 2000).]