Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

Multiple RC Penalty to Tech Advancement


Hiver

What do you think about the "diminishing returns" handicap imposed when you assign multiple research centers to a single tech advance?  

48 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I've seen a few people mention this topic lately, and I thought it deserved its own poll. We all knew that multiple research centers gave diminishing returns to tech advances, but from what I've heard here, the consensus is that everyone was surprised with just how heavily diminishing those returns would be. What does everybody here think?

 

....Are you happy :D with the "penalty" as it stands,

or are you angry :( about the whole affair?

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm no fan of the diminishing returns on the multi RC. It doesn't make sense.

 

I think somebody willing to waste the resourses to double or triple up shouldn't be resticted by diminishing returns. The inherant(sp) branching tech tree has a built in check system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diminishing returns is a fact of life and I think it's great that the game has these twists which add a little realism.

 

Surely the thrust of concern is that the speed of research is too slow full stop, not diminishing returns?

 

Personally I am happy with the pace, though always impatient for further breakthoughs. I hope as we research better labs and horizon techs are completed research pace will increase (well at least for some of the older simpler projects).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it. Since we have known about the diminishing returns since the beginning, I have structured my research accordingly. I cetainly hope that RTG has NO intentions of changing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it. Since we have known about the diminishing returns since the beginning, I have structured my research accordingly. I cetainly hope that RTG has NO intentions of changing it.

I agree with that. Changing it at this point would be ludicrous. People who started the game would be seriously penalized relative to newcomers, which is already a problem in some areas. I just wish the diminishing returns were a bit less steep from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I side with wolfe ... I voted crippling when I would have preferred a choice like diminishing returns are acceptable, but the return curve for RC's is devastating. I have never seen a game that so drastically penalizes the player on diminishing returns, to the point it is virtually NOT worth it.

 

I want to at least see the formula fixed on a go forward basis. While that does nothing for those folks who lost lots of RC, at least it would improve the pace of the game .. EXACTLY what RTG wants to see happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Eternus .. what did you mean you knew about it? Where in the rules does it state something like "When adding more than one research center per turn to your research you lose at a minimum of 50% of the extra research, with ever increasing amounts lost the more you add".

 

It might say something about decreasing returns. But when I see decreasing or diminishing returns, I do not expect 50% of the first extra RC to be lost. 10%, yes. 20% maybe. 50% ... no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I side with wolfe ... I voted crippling when I would have preferred a choice like diminishing returns are acceptable, but the return curve RC's is "blank" where blank is the choice of words like moronic, idiotic, pathetic, sickening, or any other such word  (Sorry -- but I have NEVER seen a game that so drastically penalizes the player on diminishing returns, to the point it is virtually NOT worth it).

I can appreciate and understand your opinion and I realize how strongly you feel about it but is this sort of thing really necessary?

 

We do listen to player feedback and incorporate it into our evaluations without being beaten over the head with it. Insulting commentary just serves to hurt and irritate the guys on this end and I don't honestly believe that was your intention.

 

Russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the diminishing return curve seems a bit severe, especially in light of the facts --

[1] We're flying blind up the research tree. I understand that we shouldn't necessarily know the whole tech tree. However, some of the descriptions for ANZ results don't always infer some of the possible items that can follow a successfully researched technology. In other words, we have no clue that one thing leads to another unless you (or someone else) happen to stumble upon it.

[2] The likelihood of 'Improved' Research Centers becoming available is about zero.

[3] No matter the size of your position, you have 25 Research Centers, whether you have conquered four of your neighbors, colonized seven systems or stayed on your homeworld -- no more, no less.

 

I don't think changing it will be catastrophic to the game as a whole. Yeah, the older empires probably won't be happy about it, but that's the bonus that comes with being in a game in the early developmental stages. It's not like things haven't been changed before - setups are different, extra technologies are available, its now 40 Orders/$6 instead of 30 Orders/$6, etc. Things will probably be changed in the future. If SN:ROTE is to survive it will have to evolve.

 

YMMV

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WKE-

 

To clarify :cheers:

 

We all knew that putting 5 RCs on one tech wasn't the same as putting 1 RC on 1 tech per turn before we scratched out our first or second turn.

 

I figured out the appoximate diminsihing return -- like most of the old timers -- around March/April because I tested it out and compared results with a few other empires. I also tested out EXPL bonuses to lines of research (1 RC at max return each find?)

 

What I like about the diminishing returns are threefold:

 

1) We are forced to make research choices. There is no perfect cookie cutter design out there. It promotes diversity amongst empires.

 

2) The diversity and slower research pace encourages trade

 

3) The diversity and slower research pace allows "younger" empires to remain a factor in overall galactic balance

 

We can't - and shouldn't - be able to research it all (and I know thats not your aim...but imagine a game with 3x the speed in research....)

 

With that said - not having SRPs after 13 turns is quite a party pooper. However, I'm pretty stoked about my racial design and the trade-off in delayed research will be worth it in the long run.

 

If what Woolfe suggests is correct about NTWD's, my main concern for player contact is severely quashed. I was terribly misinformed regarding NTWDs. :P Those responsible have been sacked.

 

Regardless of the aura of tension - I think this thread has been very productive and enlightening for us all and I hope that others chime in.

 

Compared to other gaming forums, the suggestions/critiques of SNROTE are pretty sane and the company response is totally appreciated. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...