Restructure the Science System

[Ezzerland]

Note: All numbers listed below are examples only! They are used to display the concept behind this science system, and are in no way balanced.

I had suggested this science system several years ago and it was quite well acknowledged (even by swirve) except that it did not accomplish one goal Mehul desired of the science system, which was a benefit achieved over time by investing in your sciences. I would like to re-suggest it and have it reconsidered by the remaining community and the new devs.

Science System:
- Every player is given 100,000 books.
- The time it takes to 'learn' this knowledge does not change from the current form.
- Books can be 'unlearned' but there is a cap (10,000 books) at a shot. As these books are re-learned they replenish the 'unlearn' cap.
- Science formula would change to something like: Sci = Max*(books/100,000)*Race*Pers*Libraries. Where Sci is the actual % benefit that you obtained from that cat, Max is the set maximum for that category, books is the amount of books you have placed into that cat (from the 100k), Race is a racial bonus, Pers is a personality bonus and libraries is a building bonus.
- Science formula may have it's own diminishing implementation added into the above formula, so that bonuses are higher with smaller amounts of sci, and the more you invest the less benefit of each book until you reach the max.
- Libraries would give up to a 50% boost to science benefits (subject to DBE and BE), increase the amount of books that can be unlearned by up to 100% (subject to DBE and BE) and decrease the amount of time it takes for books to be learned by up to 50% (subject to DBE and BE).

Additionally:
- Books may be renamed to something more fitting if deemed necessary.
- Libraries may be renamed to something more fitting if deemed necessary.
- Schools would be removed.
- Learn attack would be removed.
- Books can no longer be increased/lost. Everyone would have the exact same amount.
- Amnesia would no longer cause permanent loss of books, Instead, it would unlearn 5% (rounded down to the 100's marker) of the books already learned each cast and automatically re-learned over 24h (or normal learn time). EG- 100k books learned = 5,000 books on first cast, 4,700 books on second cast, 4,500 books on third cast.
-The normal maximums for each category would have to be carefully decided.


Example:
I play a elf/mystic (no race or pers bonus/penalty to sci).
I have no libs.
I invest all 100k books into Housing. I obtain 20% (the maximum) bonus to population. I place 50k books into population, I obtain 10% bonus to population (or something like 14% with a diminishing implementation). Race/Pers/Building bonuses can increase sci above the normal maximums.



What this accomplishes:
Ideally, this accomplishes a few goals.
- Sciences can be used for varying benefits, making science a flexible source (similar to buildings) of province wide benefits.
- They can be adjusted over time to fit varying needs, but not on the fly. A large adjustment could take days to accomplish.
- Reduces game stagnation significantly by allowing continuous and equal opportunity to all players.
- Reduces the learning curve for newer players.



I am sure there are more things this accomplishes, but there is also one thing it takes away. The only downside, as Mehul himself pointed out, is that it removes the only system from the game that currently takes time to obtain benefits. You must currently invest in your sciences for them to invest in you.

Discuss.

[Ordray]

I'd have to agree with Mehul on this one. Science is something that you should have to put some time and effort into and not something that you get right away.

But to focus on the mechanic that you're purposing, would this remove schools and learn attacks? Would science points be able to be gained or lost? How would this effect Amnesia?

[Twyla]

Personally, I find the current system for Sciences to be just fine.

[Ezzerland]

@Ordray: Reading the post helps. All of your questions were answered before you asked them.

- Libraries would give up to a 50% boost to science benefits (subject to DBE and BE), increase the amount of books that can be unlearned by up to 100% (subject to DBE and BE) and decrease the amount of time it takes for books to be learned by up to 50% (subject to DBE and BE).

- Schools would be removed.

- Learn attack would be removed.

- Books can no longer be increased/lost. Everyone would have the exact same amount.

- Amnesia would no longer cause permanent loss of books, Instead, it would unlearn 5% (rounded down to the 100's marker) of the books already learned each cast and automatically re-learned over 24h (or normal learn time). EG- 100k books learned = 5,000 books on first cast, 4,700 books on second cast, 4,500 books on third cast.

@Twyla: It's ok, and much better than it used to be in regards to causing stagnation.

This proposal would remove a large portion of any remaining stagnation, and be easier to explain/teach new players.

The additional income not having to invest in sciences anymore would increase the rate that military is trained and the ability to adjust your science benefits allow you an over-time dynamic for different province setups.

Eg- switching to a higher economy based sci setup from a more gains/pop based setup to recover from war. or a T/M heavy setup to a pump heavy setup. Ideally, this will only increase the existing pace of the game.

[Palem]

What I like about this:
nothing.
(lol jk ;p)

-It's something different. I can get behind different (as long as it's not stupid).
-It levels the playing field a bit. The difference between knowing how to handle your sciences and NOT knowing is huge. Pro->Noob, instantly. I've always felt that science played a much too important role in the game. Garbage sciences? Then you're garbage.
-It gives a GOOD reason to rework the science categories.


What I don't like about it:
-It feels like a lot of playing around and switching it which is just another activity reward. The players who can fidget with their sciences the most = win.
-It's already been said, but Science is the only real "long-term investment" system in the game. It's nice being rewarded for working on your prov.


Almost makes me want to post my science idea =\

[Sheister]

I want to go on the record and say I hate this. I might well stop playing if this were implemented (for what it is worth). It is stupid that a personality that has nothing to do with study would have as may books as a sage. It is stupid that everyone should have the same books regardless of investment in them. This is precisely the sort of BS that someone who wants to just grow big and not have to worry about one aspect of the game would spew. No, we can't redesign the game to eliminate an aspect that you find annoying to deal with. If we are, well, I find the concept of training obnoxious. Everyone should have the same size army and we should just redeploy them to suite our needs..........

really.................

[flutterby]

@Palem Dare you, post yours.

@Sheister Can you come up with anything better?

[Ordray]

@Ordray: Reading the post helps. All of your questions were answered before you asked them.

XD Sad thing is that I did read it... It was 2 AM my time and I was half way asleep :P

[Twyla]

The only thing I find truly lacking about the present science system is in the documentation department. And while SQRT(BpA) is a tad harsh for non-Sages, the only 'improvements' that come to mind are needlessly complex.

Most every element in the game is based upon diminishing returns - and it is well that it does so. Any straight linear system has a tendency to cause massively unbalancing loopholes. Here, it's been over a decade - with TWO transfers of ownership of Utopia, no less - and few people haven't at least heard of Hel of Dim Forest.

IS there a better solution regarding Sciences? Most likely. But it certainly won't be in any way linear - it's simply too unbalancing an approach.

[Sheister]

Can I come up with something better? I don't think there is anything wrong with the current science system.....

[hint]

This science system would be pretty much like just adding 7 new buildings that you can build apart from 'original land'. Only for free of cost minus some small limitations. It would even have the same diminishing effects and such. Imagine a building that increases income, or your BE, or pop, food, gains, tpa or wpa/runes mod - that's pretty much what it would be. Not saying it couldn't be interesting ofc, but it would just be a whole new feature and 'science' from the game would be removed with it all together.

But tbh I've long agreed that new science system would be most welcome. There has never even been much need for addisional "a benefit achieved over time" feature because "Over time" you already get all kinds of benafits like more money, more armies, more wpa whatever you like, if you manage your resources towards it. Now you can just manage them into science what is a powerful extra option for it, but what in itself stands in the way of 'now and 'your goal' like a parasite. One that obv makes game more interesting and harder. But also more stagnant and difficult for newbies.

[Sheister]

sure. But mastering the "complexity" that is science is one of the few aspects of this game that keep people interested. Gut that and well what do we still have left? Then simplify combat and then make building calcs easier and then and then

pretty soon I may as well play Pogo games all day long.

[Ezzerland]

@Sheister: Thousands of people didn't think there was anything wrong with land based gains. It is, after all, a far more logical system. But that doesn't make networth based gains a worse mechanic. Networth based gains alter the way you have to manage your province, and decrease stagnation in the game significantly. This idea has nothing to do with wanting to remove an aspect I find "annoying" or with me wanting to "grow big and not have to worry about one aspect of the game." I have no problems growing now, and no problems getting stupid good sciences. I'm looking for a more balanced mechanic. The actual goal of this is to increase the pace of the game.

A personality or race will still impact your sciences, just in a different way. They may have the same amount of books, but they do not obtain the same benefits from them. An undead with -20% science effectiveness would actually be impacted from this pretty hard. Even if a sage had a 20% boost, Undead sage would not get 100% normal sci as the bonus/penalties are multiplicative. Now, I did not specify changes to race/personalities but it is natural that they would also be restructured. I should amend my original post about this, but I'm not going to.

@Ordray: lol.. I live on the east coast as well <3

@hint: That's exactly right.

[Sheister]

A cap on science seems foolish to me. and providing sage with a flat +20% on a freely placeable resource like that seems foolish as well. there is no science cap now, so how is introducing one not changing the game mechanics? Science is not freely retrainable now, so how is introducing that not altering game mechanics. Comparing this to shifting gains from land to NW is not at all the same thing to me. As well cap the land you can eventually acquire as the science you can acquire. Why should I be limited in the number of books I can learn to the same amount that anyone who invests nothing in them can get? No, I don't support it and I think it is foolish.

perhaps I am just not smart enough..........

[Ezzerland]

A cap on science seems foolish to me.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

and providing sage with a flat +20% on a freely placeable resource like that seems foolish as well.

This was an example and not part of the suggestion. I mentioned before I did not address changes to race/personality.

there is no science cap now, so how is introducing one not changing the game mechanics? Science is not freely retrainable now, so how is introducing that not altering game mechanics.

o.O? Where did I say that this does not alter game mechanics? This DOES alter game mechanics and that is the point. I'd almost be tempted to code a demo of it so you could have a visual concept of what it'd do. Amnesia would be more relative, there would be less stagnation (so the game would be faster paced) and players would be able to focus more on playing the game instead of preparing to play the game...

Comparing this to shifting gains from land to NW is not at all the same thing to me.

The comparison is about the scale of the change. When you're used to something it can be hard to imagine it a different way. With networth based gains, we at least had a basis to draw on, but most of the argument there was the logical battle vs the mechanical battle. It will be the same argument here. Logically, the current science system is ideal, but mechanically, it's not. It's ok if you still don't understand this, I'm not sure I can explain why I use this comparison all that better.

As well cap the land you can eventually acquire as the science you can acquire.

This is just asinine. I've ignored to the best of my ability all the remarks like this that you have made, but you really are being ridiculous. This is like if I said "remove orc" and you came back with "might as well remove all the races and just not play the game." It's a childish tantrum. I'm calling you out on it now hoping you can at least realize this and try and argue with legitimate conversation. Since you want to take the logical approach, argue why you believe, logically, that this change is bad and the current one is better. Give examples.

Why should I be limited in the number of books I can learn to the same amount that anyone who invests nothing in them can get?

In this, it'd be whether or not your calculated setup and use of those books was better than your opponents. Not about growing, pumping your sci, land dropping to amp your sci even more, and then raping noobs. This is what I mean by logic vs mechanic. Logically, you are right. If I invest more into my province it should be better. That's why people argued land based gains were better. But mechanically speaking, networth based gains is better for the game.

No, I don't support it and I think it is foolish.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion.