This sounds good to me. If you are a little "silly" with a project it costs you more stellars at that conversion point, if you are very "silly" you take a step backwards in the project.
Will the "loss of research" categories also incur the -3000 stellars too or maybe the bottom 4 should have stellar costs of 10000, 7500, 6000, 4500 stellars in addition to the mass loss?
How about if the completed mass would drop below zero, e.g. you have 20mus but conversion results in -25 or more, then the project is actually scrapped and you have to pay the 10k stellars to start it again.
I don't see why it should be an annoyance. I think it's pretty well documented what results you can expect from research at the various levels. If you choose to try and fast-track you pay the (possible) price. (IMO)
And if you get annoyed by a stall/fire that you could have reasonably predicted, then wouldn't you also get annoyed by large stellar costs?
The only way to avoid this kind of thing would be to have all research get results every turn. Unless I'm missing something (which is probably likely).
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Jul 3 2003, 01:52 PM) |
| The only way to avoid this kind of thing would be to have all research get results every turn. Unless I'm missing something (which is probably likely). |
yes you are missing something - you are making the assumption that everybody plans to avoid failure by reading and understanding the documentation
Dan
| QUOTE |
| you are making the assumption that everybody plans to avoid failure by reading and understanding the documentation |
Ah, well maybe, but wouldn't removing failure cover that "problem" too? :)
But really, what is the problem with this?
One problem is, the day before maintenance someone makes an honest mistake and sets a research project going for a high level blueprint that they don't have the tach for (therefore with huge penalties to research of -14 or more) and due to the number of complexes they have set it up to do a conversion each week.
By the documented rules, next day they get back a report showing 25% of their starbase destroyed. Now that would be a bit harsh. I expect they wouldn't make the same mistake twice but also they might say enough is enough and stop playing.
| QUOTE (Kragnost @ Jul 4 2003, 05:43 AM) |
| One problem is, the day before maintenance someone makes an honest mistake and sets a research project going for a high level blueprint that they don't have the tach for (therefore with huge penalties to research of -14 or more) and due to the number of complexes they have set it up to do a conversion each week. |
I have done this at least once, by transposing two digits in a blueprint number. Thankfully, it was for item blueprints I had no penalty for.
Dan
I don't much like the idea of diluting the risk entirely into stellars though.
With the rules as they stand, I'm not sure its worth ever starting a research project that has a chance of giving a '% starbase destroyed' result. The potential increase in development speed doesn't compenstate for the risk.
If this is true, then there's no point offering the option as no-one will want to use it. It's at best a white elephant, at worst a trap for new players.
rob
I live in fear that I will miscalculate how many conversion points I need for any negative modifiers I have and end up blowing up my starbase. I would find it very helpful (and very comforting!) to have an order show the modifier your starbase is on for a project - as at the moment you have to do it by hand and (not having completed a project yet) havent a clue if I am doing it right! perhaps this could be added to the TM, in the same place the "local value" shows for unique trade resources? I would sleep a lot easier at night
Mandible
| QUOTE |
| I would find it very helpful (and very comforting!) to have an order show the modifier your starbase is on for a project - as at the moment you have to do it by hand and (not having completed a project yet) havent a clue if I am doing it right! perhaps this could be added to the TM, in the same place the "local value" shows for unique trade resource |
I'll look to improving the research report
Showing the research modifer on the research report for each project would be a good thing. I hope there's room for it.
I don't think anyone could try and use research that way. I'm guessing that if you have the slightest chance of getting the worst result (effectively -8) the best results you could possibly get is +10mus. At 10 mus best case (and highly unlikely) a blueprint is going to take 10 weeks if you get very lucky 10 weeks in a row. More likely than not youd get one of the worst 4 results and this would knock your research back through the loss of mass - as such making if an unviable technique to try and fast track research.
| CODE |
| | GREEK ANALYSIS (XXXX) | Complexes: 18 Mass: 50 mus | Points: 3234 Next Conversion: 6000 points | Bonus: +2 Average Result: +60 mus | -3 Penalty, lacking Some technique (XXXX). | +2 Bonus for copying data. | +3 Bonus for Prof. Monro (XXXX). |
AS for fast tracking i'm not sure the current system support a real research model to allow the inclusion of this, as you really want to know what you are getting....
Oh I do like that. Seeing the average result over the life of the project would be really neat. Just need to it be a piece of information also given when the project completes such as:
| CODE |
Tickle Sticks (10999) research project: 5500 research points were added to the project. Converting 5500 research points into project mass. 40 mus of research complete. The Tickle Sticks (10999) has been completed and installed. Average result +40mus over 3 conversions. |
| QUOTE |
| Maybe we could keep % of starbase destroyed for very extreme cases... just to discourage people who may have more stellars than sense from trying to rush things too much? |
So, any crazy Dr Frankenstein’s out there should build a starbase with a command centre, maybe a security centre, lots of research facilities all covered in caves if needed… This way they have a secret research centre and if things go Pete Tong it just destroys itself as it is not part of a large starbase…
| QUOTE |
| One problem is, the day before maintenance someone makes an honest mistake and sets a research project going for a high level blueprint that they don't have the tach for (therefore with huge penalties to research of -14 or more) and due to the number of complexes they have set it up to do a conversion each week. |
I do think it is a little harsh having the research centres destroy the base though, but I understand that bad research should have a catastrophic outcome. I feel if someone starts a dangerous project there should be some kind of fail safe device there to pause the research. Call it the head scientist, who pauses the research and advises the starbase governor that he has started a dangerous research project. This way the governor can either stop the research safely or take the risk knowingly and continue… This would prevent the accidental mix up of item/blueprint numbers (which happens). I am sure that any good scientist would question an order that might kill him…
Unless I'm missing something (and I may well be), there doesn't seem any point starting a project that has any chance of triggering a '% starbase destroyed' result. The net gain over time just isn't there. It follows that there's no point allowing players to do it, since it's always a bad choice. It's justa trap for careless or inexperienced players.
The only use I can see is when trying to get a blueprint that you don't have principles or techs for. Even if you set the conversion threshold to the maximum, the penalties may put you at risk of getting the explosion result. Does anyone see this as a reasonable strategy? I suppose you can get a lot of mileage out of one good blueprint for an advanced item.
rob