Soft Caps

[RattleHead]

Ok, so 1 Novice in Alchemy = +0.5% Income

30 Professors = +30% Income

...

30 Professors + 1 Novice = +30.8% Income


Instead of diminishing gains this little guy is working like a Graduate... I am ToG it good :P

A58AD23A

[Bishop]

Thanks, will look into it.

[vipbluesky]

Can confirmed. My 39th novice in housing also acting as a graduate.

[Bishop]

Ok, so this is by design and due to the softcap formula. The formula that determines the over cap (last age cap) science is an exponential formula so the first scientist will yield more results than the linear constant in the linear portion of the formula

[RattleHead]

Yes I just got a second Novice over 30 in Alchemy and now I am at +31.2% Income from +30.8%, so this one is just slightly less than a normal Novice (I would expect it to go to 31.3% if it were worth 0.5%)

TY

[jdorje]

Designing buggy mechanics is still a bug, though. This is something that should be fixed.

[umajon911]

Designing buggy mechanics is still a bug, though. This is something that should be fixed.

Add it to the list!!

[Madchess]

so old cap +3 is the thing to aim for

[RattleHead]

What on earth are you reading

[DavidC]

Designing buggy mechanics is still a bug, though. This is something that should be fixed.

For something to require fixing doesn't it first require that it be broken?

[realm of ding dong]

It's not broken. I think people just think it's inelegant. It doesn't really matter though. It's such a small thing.

[luke3]

It honestly just means the term "soft cap" does not function the way it is implied. It would have been more ideal to shift the curve so the first additional scientist gave the same or slightly less gain than the linear portion... its kind of silly because this would have been pretty easy to do, someone probably just wasn't thinking about it when they came up with the formula, or maybe they just ran out of time.

[DavidC]

The term soft cap only refers to the concept that the diminishing returns rate at some point becomes the 'maximum'. Although you could continue putting scientists into the category the return would be so minimal that you have reached a 'soft' cap(maximum) as opposed to an actual hard coded maximum.

To better explain:
A hard cap is what we had previously, 30% income was the maximum you could attain no matter how many scientists you put into the category.
A soft cap means that you can (for example - numbers are not accurate but used purely to illustrate the concept) attain 30% with 10 scientists, 40% with 20 scientists, 50% with 60 scientists, 60% with 140 scientists, 70% with 350 scientists. In this example, you could effectively say that 50% would be a 'soft' cap because the effect received from scientists over 60 is so small that the investment of scientists is not worth the return even though as you can see in the example you can continue to increase your bonus by adding more scientists you are just not utilizing your resources effectively.


'Soft cap' is not intended to refer to the previous age maximum.

[RattleHead]

Hmm, that is how I was thinking of the term, that where the "normal" effect of scientists changes to the diminishing scale would be the "soft" cap that you could then push past. It makes sense either way to me... But so does post #12

[luke3]

The term soft cap only refers to the concept that the diminishing returns rate at some point becomes the 'maximum'. Although you could continue putting scientists into the category the return would be so minimal that you have reached a 'soft' cap(maximum) as opposed to an actual hard coded maximum.

To better explain:
A hard cap is what we had previously, 30% income was the maximum you could attain no matter how many scientists you put into the category.
A soft cap means that you can (for example - numbers are not accurate but used purely to illustrate the concept) attain 30% with 10 scientists, 40% with 20 scientists, 50% with 60 scientists, 60% with 140 scientists, 70% with 350 scientists. In this example, you could effectively say that 50% would be a 'soft' cap because the effect received from scientists over 60 is so small that the investment of scientists is not worth the return even though as you can see in the example you can continue to increase your bonus by adding more scientists you are just not utilizing your resources effectively.


'Soft cap' is not intended to refer to the previous age maximum.

That does makes sense, and I'll admit I assumed that the "soft cap" referred to the old maximums. I would however still say that to me at least, it doesn't really make sense that after the linear portion of the curve there is an increase % for a couple of scientists because of the transition to an exponential shape. Again I don't think this is a bug, but I do think the curve should be changed so that the curve has a smooth transition (I think there are several ways to do this). Maybe this should be a suggestion though.

Also, I am playing undead and so I tried to experiment with military... and I do not see this same effect with military sci, unless i am missing something (its a little tough to tell with it being rounded to only 1 decimal). I also assumed that the old max of 38 scientists was where the curve transitioned from linear to exponential, but maybe this isn't correct. Can anyone confirm if they see this behavior only in alchemy, or in other areas as well?