@Geoff I'd like to if I'd know myself
.
AQUITAINE
As I didn't participate in the latest stages of the decision on categories, I have to wait together with you for answers from our glorious team leader. ^^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longhorn poked his fingers in the wound I was to look at together with you first
. Sorry if I was unable to explain that clear enough.
Away from all other implications the learning category will define first and foremost how fast we accumulate RP, and in which way this is done.
As he very correctly pointed out, research is affected by two things: personal genius (population) and usable ressources (money).
Now my intention is to find a consensus together with you, how much each of those two vetors will influence the overall RP development.
I'll try to explain a bit what I mean by those two vectors:
Everyone knows a gauss bell, and also knows that high intelligence isn't the most common in our population. Thus the higher a population of a given nation, the higher the chance to have a shining genius amongst them.
But which parts of research are dependant on personal genius? I'd postulate that theories benefit most from personal genius. Why? Cause to develope a theory you need a very high amount of creativity, which in it self is one sector of Intelligence (read Renzullis three factor modell for more on this).
Looking around me I'd say this vectors is fairly time stable, influenced by only a few factors. The most important for FO in my opinion would be genetics, thus a very uncreative race would have a lower number of personal genius then a creative race. Thus I like the naming in the MoOs ^^.
Another factor would be the way of socialising. You know the PISA study? it shows fairly well which contemporary states have a school system that encourages creativity, and which states are rather on the repetitive side.
A third factor would be genetical again: genetic manipulation for traits like creativity or dullness.
IMHO this vector should be fairly hard to influence in-game, but should also be the only way to lower the turn requirements of research (if we even allow any lowering of them). Only a spark of genius can find a "short-cut" to a given research.
So whats most influenced by usable ressources? Again I make a postulate (open to discussion of course): an high amount of ressources invested into research is most usefull for refinements. Reason behind this is its short term profitability. AFAIK most research money at the moment is invested into refinement rather then into theretical research.
Of course, a new microwave oven that has a 4% faster internet browser then the "old" one is profitable much faster then a breakthrough in temporal physics.
So how to influence this vector? Fairly easily: its mostly about making "research" more cost efficent. Developing a set of rules how research is to be conducted is one way. Internet, to allow scientists easier access to their fellow scientists work another. Plagiarism is so nice, especially as it allows many scientists to spill out lotsa new refinements fast ^^.
IMHO this vector should be much more easy to build up then the personal genius one.
So what we are looking at is a 2 vector matrix, that influences severall effects. The stereotypical research race would max both vectors, and achieve the max of RP per turn.
But whats the max? By what factor can intelligence be increased? And by what factor can money increase the research output?
Which effects shall be affected by our researches?
- amount of RP per population
- "free" RP as result of a lab?
- turn requirements of researches?
- generall RP/turn requirements of researches?
- or differentized into theory, application and refinement?
- something I didn't come up with?
Well, I need input, and I suppose I gave you some as well. ^^
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Powercrazy
IIRC we had an agreement that the turn requirement of a research shouldn't (should hardly) be changeable.
I myself ain't sure yet if it should be totally impossible, or be possible, but only marginally (10-20% decrease max?) and only due to "creatification/genialisation" of your population.
Lets discuss it, to get a creative result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Skdiw, I have to crunch through your numbers after breakfest ^^. Even a Psilon can't think with an empty stomach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, we had a nice start. Powercrazy suggested a multiplier of 16. I myself think that this is a good "size", meaning that I myself would like anything between 9 and 25 (but not 100 for example).
Skdiw brought the multiplier down to a curve (which is also very nice, but which requires me to get the multiplier again ^^).
But more examples are needed.
Oh, and if you are at it, maybe look a bit closer if you can see the two vectors I described, and tell us, how those games did it. I don't need "hard" numbers, descriptions and feelings are enough. Something like:
"It looks that the overall multiplier was some 20ish. And I got the feeling that xy% of that was due to personal genius, and the rest through usable ressources."
Wenn du die Macht hättest die Geschichte zu ändern, wo würdest du anfangen. Und viel wichtiger, wo aufhören?
If you had the power to change history, where would you start? And more importantly, where would you stop?
Just trying to help... and if I've overstepped any design doc's or already settled ideas just yell at me and I'll hush 
