Can I Have Loads Of Free Research, Too?

Login

Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS General Discussion » Can I Have Loads Of Free Research, Too?

Can I Have Loads Of Free Research, Too?

Previous 1 2 3 [4] Next

Innocent Bystander RJ: Matthew Matician Post Rating: 6 + / - Total Posts: 76 Karma: 54 Joined: Apr 2, 2012	Posted on Apr 25, 2012 I still think there's a huge game-breaking flaw here. I also think that Nick had an excellent observation with the boost or penalty not for newbies, but for anyone in the industry. To take an example, let's say I'm in a field that everyone is actively researching. For the sake of argument, let's say it's me and 4 other folks. If we all advance from q10 to q20 in a day (hypothetical), then the next day the world average goes from 10 to 20, which means that next day's research from q20 to q30 costs the same as the previous day's research from q10 to q20. This process would repeat provided every active researcher is going at approximately the same pace. This is a terrible consequence in that, for industries that are dominated by only a handful of people, their R&D costs are no longer tied to (level)^1.2, but are constant with respect to level. What this is doing is giving everyone a massive advantage in industries that are dominated by only high-quality items (to be fair, it also makes it easy on those entering these markets, but they'll never come close to catching up because high-quality people get the same massive benefits too). On the other hand, if I'm in an area that no one has researched at all, I get a massive penalty -- even if I'm only researching q0 to q1. I agree with the above opinions that this will drive players into researching popularly-researched things and avoid areas that are already avoided, which will ultimately decrease diversity. For things like the jewelery market, which is dominated by a small handful of well-established players (and thus, super-high quality items), this change means their quality levels can go up dramatically faster than they are now, which is exactly what we don't want. Another part of the problem (I think) is the '20' or '15' in the equations. This is, effectively, a statement about what the average quality is expected to be long-term--assuming the equations aren't meant to help long-term players. This being your game, you are obviously free to do as you wish, but I can't stress enough that I think the recent change to research will drive a lot of players away. One crude alternative would be something like: Let 'ratio' be a number between .5 and .75 and 'base' be a number between 0 and .5 if yourQuality < ratiomaxQuality: cost = [(1-base)(yourQuality/(ratiomaxQuality) + base] (xlevel^1.2) price = [(1-base)(yourQuality/(ratiomaxQuality) + base] (ylevel^1.2) and if yourQuality >= ratiomaxQuality: cost = origCost := xlevel^1.2 price = origPrice := ylevel^1.2 What this should do (if I modeled the equations correctly) is make it so that the current cost/price is a fraction of the original values, proportional to how close to maxQuality you are. The percentage that it costs you relative to the original values before yesterday's change scale so that from q0 to q1, it costs you baseorigCost and that fraction scales linearly until you reach 'regular' cost at quality level ratioMaxQuality. If maxQuality = 60, ratio is .5 and base is 0 (for example), here's a list of the cost it would take to research from one level to the next as a percentage of the original cost: Researching from q0 to q1 --> cost is 0% of orig cost (that is to say, free) Researching from q10 to q11 --> cost is 10/(.560) = 33% of orig cost Researching from q20 to q21 --> cost is 20/(.560) = 66% of orig cost Researching once your level is above q30: 100% of original cost If maxQuality = 60, base = .5 and ratio = .75 (for example), then we'd have: Researching from q0 to q1 --> cost is 50% of original cost (due to base = .5) Researching from q15 to q16 --> cost is (.515/(.7560) + .5 = .166 + .5 = 66% of orig cost Researching from q30 to q31 --> cost is (.530/(.7560) + .5 = .333 + .5 = 83% of orig cost Researching from q45 to q46 --> cost is (.545/(.7560) + .5 = .500 + .5 = 100% of orig cost 'base' and 'ratio' could be tweaked to give any sort of sliding scale desired.
Chandler Hill RJ: Chandler CO: Chandler Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 54 Karma: 113 Joined: Mar 25, 2012	Posted on Apr 25, 2012 the thing is, there is no maximum quality. quality can go to the hundreds, thousands even. once people start passing Q100, that's when things will probably get completely ridiculous and difficult for any industry. I do, however, feel like there should be some incentive for people who do the research first. Right now it's more incetivizing to just sit back, let someone else research, and then you research to finish it faster and cheaper. There's just no incentive to be the groundbreaker, so to speak, since everyone else benefits from your hard work.
Innocent Bystander RJ: Matthew Matician Post Rating: 32 + / - Total Posts: 76 Karma: 54 Joined: Apr 2, 2012	Posted on Apr 25, 2012 Adding to Chandler's point, I think the real disincentive to research (at least for average levels below 30-40 -- or for people who have levels below 30-40) is that the import market means your items are competing against much higher quality items in retail, even if you have the highest level of research in town. Perhaps we could have a discussion about tweaking the import market. I would be very much in favor of seeing the highest quality of goods offered on the import market move from near 30-40 to something like max(currentImportQuality,maxResarchQuality/2) (or so). I think this would make running your own supply chain and doing your own research more valuable, which is a good thing considered how easy it is to make money in import-to-retail businesses relative to running your own supply-chain.
Spoor Wishfull RJ: Spoo Drunkenpass Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 2 Karma: 45 Joined: Mar 27, 2012	Posted on Apr 25, 2012 I feel a better way to do this would have been to implement a simple formula of cost/time * (1 - researchLevel/worldAverage) clamped with an upper value of 1. This would have allowed you to keep the existing curves whilst still discounting lower levels of research. It would also fix the current problem where techs which are poorly researched have ridiculous time and costs associated with them. If you want to keep your current method then you need to deal with the fact many companies are skewing the average by having no research, as well as dead companies from players who stop playing as that will become a greater issue as time goes on. You could calculate your average only from companies with an appropriate research building, or calculate a second 'real' average from only those companies with a tech level above the standard deviation of the whole population (or from those with research facilities).
Mister Death RJ: McFlono McFloninoo Post Rating: -2 + / - Total Posts: 266 Karma: 300 Joined: Feb 6, 2012	Posted on Apr 25, 2012 Since there are at least two threads I'm aware of where people are putting forth new (and quite good) ideas for improving the R&D system, I've decided to start a third one (-: Seriously, to make Scott's life easier, please make your improvement suggestions in the Club Rats Den thread so he only has to follow one thread instead of 3.
Nick Wright RJ: Marx Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 8 Karma: 15 Joined: Apr 1, 2012	Posted on Apr 25, 2012 You're worried about two threads being too many, so you start a third? lol Really, it's not a difficult discussion to follow!
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 4 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Apr 26, 2012 I jumped from Q1 to Q20 in many resources and goods yesterday. I never broke the minimum time allotment on most of them. This was, I think, a great idea gone way over board. Like banging from first to third gears in a Ferrari, or something.
Herb Derpman RJ: Herb Derpman CO: Herb Derpman Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 35 Karma: 28 Joined: Apr 15, 2012	Posted on Apr 26, 2012 I have to agree. My costs for outsourcing dropped by about 75 - 80%. So much that I blew most of my money on researching because I can't see it staying this cheap for long. I'm starting to think that maybe the average tech level should only affect the time to research stuff instead of also affecting the cost and outsource cost. That way things are sort of indirectly cheaper, because if things are faster to research, the outsource cost drops faster as you make progress, but people aren't going to want to sit there and buy research up to Q40 gaining a level every 10 seconds like I was doing this morning.
Guy Hungerford RJ: Lucidia Less Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 3 Karma: 10 Joined: Apr 20, 2012	Posted on Apr 27, 2012 If everyone's research is rocketing up, we'll all end up on more-or-less a level playing field... but... I think if the main restriction on how much research you can do is the fact that eventually your clicking finger gets tired, something's awry.
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 4 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Apr 27, 2012 "If everyone's research is rocketing up, we'll all end up on more-or-less a level playing field" Which is not, necessarily good for the game. I felt down right guilty grabbing all that tech so cheaply, so fast. I have spent years in another game getting tech to higher levels. And I never felt badly, nor cheated by having to do so. It was part of the process. These kinds of games are about the process. Otherwise, you have to build a round-based game and let everyone go for the gold over just a few weeks of play. I am in one of those now, and it sucks, I doubt I will play the next round.
Art M RJ: Matrix CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 11 Karma: 13 Joined: Apr 2, 2012	Posted on Apr 27, 2012 Ya, i am with BB, this is very bad. I feel R&D now way to fast, it was good and felt natural before. Now i can get ALL my tech up without worry. Very bad for the game. I have only one food plant, and i can outsource everything up to level 30 all day long since outsourcing is very cheap now up to higher levels..... just doesn't feel right. I think the R&D should be reverted to what it was, and then solutions should be tested and debated upon, it would be much better then where it is at now.
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012	Posted on Apr 27, 2012 So far I don't see anything wrong with the logic, researching Q38 engine still takes me millions and 4 hours on a 1000 Automotive R&D. I'll tweak the benefit from 0.3 down to 0.25.
Art M RJ: Matrix CO: Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 11 Karma: 13 Joined: Apr 2, 2012	Posted on Apr 27, 2012 I think its more so for less developed tech, with high end tech it still takes a lot of time, but with low level its very very fast, which in a way mitigates advantage of large R&D early on and only might pay of later on. I am curious to see how it will be with .25 EDIT: I think i see difference now. Research takes longer now. Did anyone else notice it?

Previous 1 2 3 [4] Next

You need to register or login to post a reply.