Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: ardem
« on: May 19, 2014, 02:39:55 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on April 26, 2014, 05:19:14 PM
The 'scientist' is the head of a very large research team supported by thousands of people. The admin rating represents just how large an organization he or she can effectively control. I have considered replacing scientists with companies in a similar way to Hearts of Iron, which would be more realistic, but from an RP perspective it's easier to identify with a specific person.


Its funny you said this steve as I restarted my Benkei campaign and done that excatly, renamed the scientist into company names. In RP turns on accidents I put this down to market crashes or company mismanagement. On retirement I put this down to corporate takeover or just rename a new scientist to that company.
Posted by: Rastaman
« on: April 28, 2014, 05:31:14 PM »

I'd like to remind you of another concept which fits into this topic, namely that organizations lose know-how if they don't use it. Scientists and engineers retire or die, or get other jobs and move on, and if no new ones are trained in new projects, hands-on know-how is lost. That means that you can never stop development for longer time frames or your people lose research points and components or techs must be researched anew partially.

That means know-how is not represented by individuals but on an institutional level. It also means that the loss of knowledge is gradual as other people in the institution take over.

It means you have to build ships and equipment and throw taxpayer money at weapons conglomerates even if you don't really need the product. As another incentive for actually building stuff, it gives you research points in the next tech level of the techs the component is based on, while not building means you lose RP (and construction rate BP...). This could actually be the only way private industry can produce RP points! Just researching out of the blue is state research. This sounds like a possible differentiation between state and private. And one cross-pollinates the other.

The more complex stuff people build, the better they get, yielding more RP, and in turn, research the next level quicker. This is capped by the research rate tech.

One way to establish private companies is to sell production factories (or shipyards...) to the civilians. But this can actually be roleplayed right now. It would be just immersive if you could (must...) parcel out a number of installations (or partial installations...) and name and specialize them. They also have a place where they are located. They can be broken up (or partially destroyed in the fighting...) but then lose know-how which makes them lose RP rate and construction rate.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: April 28, 2014, 10:19:22 AM »

I like the idea of civilian research facilities as it provides another aspect that could introduce roleplay, as well as make the game somewhat more dynamic.
Perhaps unlike CMCs which are worth 10 mines each, a CIV lab could be worth 1/10 of a research center and have an option to purchase the research output from it, albeit at a higher cost than your regular labs, if purchased the lab would select a project your scientists are already working on and add their output to it. Otherwise the lab wouldn't require any funding and would be left to randomly design components similar to what is produced when you start with pre researched ship systems, but weighted slightly towards making something that might be useful to you, maybe it could compare what's being made to what you already have, and unless it's either very different to what you're already using, range/power wise etc, or if it's similar to what you're using, but with newer technology, then the script rerolls for a new component.
The Lab could be named after one of the companies you've designed a component with already, and maybe it could specialise, for instance if you have earlier made a "weyland-yutani search sensor" the game could later roll a weyland-yutani Sensors research lab, which might design a bunch of totally useless sensors and fire controls, but eventually it might make one that actually fits some need you have, you could then use that system in your designs.
In order to not clutter your class design and ship systems page you might need a new window listing available components from the CIVs, sortable by company and type, the systems should go obsolete after a year or more if you don't use them. From this window you could select a component and use a button labeled "Obtain License for this system" or something, which allows you to use it in your designs, BUT it should cost more than if you had designed the thing yourself, I mean they have to fund their labs somehow right?
For added complexity you might make the CIV shipping companies contract out new ship systems to CIV research LABS when they start popping up, for instance say the AI designs a new sorium harvester which needs a larger engine then any ships the company already has, if there are no power and propulsion labs around then the game just does whatever it is it already does now, but if there happens to be a P&P lab somewhere, then the shipping company sends that new system to them. After the system has been designed then for every ship that company launches using the system the Engine company makes royalties equal to say 20% the cost of the engine, AND you make some tax credits. Then like CMC's or shipping companies they can expand when they get enough capital. Also they become a source of income but only as long as you have a thriving shipping industry. Perhaps you could abstract out the tax income in order to reduce complexity/required coding, also it would allow all types of CIVs to provide revenue not just those being used by the shipping companies.
Posted by: xeryon
« on: April 28, 2014, 09:17:14 AM »

Limits are always a good thing but I think the more actions that civilians can perform on their own the more realistic the entire game becomes.  Why can't a civilian corporation found a research lab on an available body with enough population?  That lab would then produce small amounts of research.  Maybe just have it be generic research and you would be able to buy the research (akin to buying the output of CMC's) to have it add to your research rate as opposed to specific technologies.  Or take it a step more granular and have the facility be specialized to a particular field.  Like CMC's you could assign your own scientist to the facility.  Your scientist would improve output a little and receive experience.  This would give a training ground for scientists to improve skills so that when your lead P&P scientist with 65% boost dies you are not back to the guy with 5% as a shock to your research program.
Posted by: Zed 6
« on: April 28, 2014, 07:47:11 AM »

I would be against this. I prefer to control my research. If this was implemented, I think it should be severely limited or a very reduced research rate, as I wouldn't want hundreds of civilian labs operating ( just like civilian ships), cluttering up everything.
Posted by: wilddog5
« on: April 28, 2014, 12:48:08 AM »

i think that civilian research should be hidden from the player /empire NPR (what evil mega corporation tell the government of their revolutionary technologies) maybe acting like an allied race on the sameplanet.

you would get a message like "civilian company "X" has developed Fuel-Efficiency 0.9x" or "civilian ion drive 300" having a {CIV} note on the techs to remind you
using these of course costs more than if you did the research yourself both in designing/building components with civ tech so continuing/starting the research yourself would still have some benefit resulting
in a using now at greater cost vs DIY for less
Posted by: NihilRex
« on: April 27, 2014, 05:42:08 PM »

Suggestion - Direct vs contract research

Direct research uses government labs and has a single team lead.  RP\year is higher, but more expensive.

Contract research is handled like contract transport.  You put up a request for Fuel-Efficiency 0.9x, and it costs X wealth per RP performed by the civilians.  You have no idea when it will be finished, and at any time you can cancel the contract and assign the project to one of your own teams, keeping the RP you have paid for on that topic.

Id suggest 1 Wealth\RP for civilans and somewhere between 2 and 5 for government RP.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 27, 2014, 11:23:09 AM »

I think there can be room for both. Civilian research are done by corporations or institutions while government science are done by science teams lead by a personality.
Posted by: Owen Quillion
« on: April 27, 2014, 11:09:20 AM »

I agree with Theo - individual scientists are one of the few ways to have an actual character involved with the at-least-not-necessarily military side of the game. I appreciate that the game essentially generates these narrative prompts at present.

I do think it would be neat to have a civilian aspect to research where you don't have total control, but I also want to have the opportunity for bleeding-edge mavericks working directly for the government.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: April 27, 2014, 10:38:03 AM »

I like individual scientists, so please don't get rid of them.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: April 27, 2014, 09:16:54 AM »

Lot's of nice ideas there Steve... now back to coding that... ;)

We already had a thread about this recently, perhaps check that one out. But having the civilian sector provide most of the background research would be great. Things such as ship components should mostly be state controlled in some way. I wouldn't mind if there were some part of science you as a player have no direct control over but perhaps you could subsidize different fields you think are more important to you.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 27, 2014, 08:33:48 AM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on April 27, 2014, 05:00:03 AM
This would be a pretty natural way to evolve the game considering you already implemented company names for components.

It would also solve my main problem with scientists, how you overnight can lose pretty much you entire nations specialization and experience ( which can be up to +65*4 =+260% ) in a single research field when you lose a scientists by accident. That is far from realistic and immersion breaking for me.

I guess if it was companies instead of specific people, you could have an event where they lose a key scientist and the company research bonus falls by some amount. Or you could have companies with bonuses in more than one field. Of course, taking this further you would have labs permanently dedicated to specific companies and perhaps they would increase their labs in the same way that mining companies increase the number of civilian mines. There could still be state-controlled labs, perhaps with smaller bonuses but in more fields, but you would rely a lot on the civilian sector. The state would contract specific research projects to each company.

Just thinking out loud :)
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: April 27, 2014, 05:00:03 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on April 26, 2014, 05:19:14 PM
The 'scientist' is the head of a very large research team supported by thousands of people. The admin rating represents just how large an organization he or she can effectively control. I have considered replacing scientists with companies in a similar way to Hearts of Iron, which would be more realistic, but from an RP perspective it's easier to identify with a specific person.

This would be a pretty natural way to evolve the game considering you already implemented company names for components.

It would also solve my main problem with scientists, how you overnight can lose pretty much you entire nations specialization and experience ( which can be up to +65*4 =+260% ) in a single research field when you lose a scientists by accident. That is far from realistic and immersion breaking for me.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 26, 2014, 05:19:14 PM »

Quote from: Montecchio on April 26, 2014, 03:21:41 AM
I started the game with 5 Propulsion scientists and no other scientists. "Great", I thought, all my ships are going to be very fast, have no armor, and armed with short ranged, inaccurate, low-damage missiles.

Except without the "very fast" part. Since my scientists all have low admin ratings, I was not able to expedite any specific project, so I ended up with slow, poorly armored, and generally ineffective warships. Of course my ship designs may have contributed to the ineffective part.

I think the ability to assign multiple scientists to the same project will alleviate this frustration. The scientists' research bonus shouldn't stack fully lest someone puts every scientist on the same project and research one tech a day. Maybe you can only "stack" scientists in their field of specialty. Maybe the highest admin rating of your best scientist determines how many scientists you can stack. In any case, I don't understand why only one scientist may work on a project at a time. Are they that jealous of each other?

The 'scientist' is the head of a very large research team supported by thousands of people. The admin rating represents just how large an organization he or she can effectively control. I have considered replacing scientists with companies in a similar way to Hearts of Iron, which would be more realistic, but from an RP perspective it's easier to identify with a specific person.
Posted by: 381654729
« on: April 26, 2014, 04:29:58 PM »

I cannot imagine many research processes that cannot be split up into smaller processes, with a different lead scientist for each part. This can be abstracted by assigning more than one scientist to the overall project.