Fwurg

[Brend]

Som time ago we had a wave of interest in designing new technologies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. I really like these ideas, as I am a great proponent of people getting ideas, and adding them to the game. Overall, the effect is positive. We have more options in the game, and we can add things to the game that we like. However, it seems that the threshold for getting a technology into the game is rather high.

Some of the proposed technologies were unbalanced, some of them were unclear. I think that this is in part due to the lack of information with players, as Mercury does a lot of the checking, and still has a rather large hand in approving technologies. (He usually comes out with a statement like: "This is too cheap, factor X should be compensated for" or something to the likes of that.)

So I realized that, instead of brooding about it, I'll just come out and ask him to give us some more information. If he types it up once, we can then use that knowledge to present better technologies, and think of more interesting proposals while at the same time saving time by not having Mercury by the single point of delay in technology balancing.

Just to be clear: I am not faulting Mercury for anything! I am looking for information, in hopes of enabling everyone to propose better technologies. I am not looking for a guide that tells me how to perfectly balance my proposals, nor am I looking for a definitive way of pricing projects or techs. I would be very happy with a vague bullet list of factors that should be considered, and a small blurb of explanation with each factor would be immensely helpful.

I have identified four main points. The first two are directly taken from this post. The other two are observed as more generic points.

In-Character justification?

But I have another problem with it: SSRC does not have the same fit Genome Correctors does into the grand storyline, the latter of which being developed during a conference based on player speeches.

I fail to see why it is necessary to have an IC conference for the introduction of new technologies. Sure, it's nice if the technology has some basis in the game world, but this has not been brought up for other technologies in the past (such as the Hyperspace Energy Conduits, for which I can't find the thread at the moment). Why does a tech need to fit into the grand storyline? Or more precise, why is the approval of a technology based on in-character factors?

Multiple ways of achieving the same thing (or improving the same thing)

Plus we already have several ways of growing population, so why do we need SSRC in addition?

I understand that stacking is something we should think about carefully. But I fail too see why, if there is interest, we can't have multiple ways of achieving or improving the same thing. Is there some internal non-stacking principle we need to be aware of?

I see the fact that some technological fields are looked into again and again (such as population growth) as something that indicates a specialisation. And instead of hearing 'we already have several ways of growing population, so why do we need X' I'd much rather hear something along the lines of 'we already have several ways of growing population, so maybe we should put this behind some of those and increase the price to indicate the difficulty of improving even further'...

Pricing of technologies

How is the price of a technology estimated? We have some information on this, but it is rather unclear to me how this is actually done. Especially important here seems the magic 'faction factor' which determines how much more expensive the technology needs to be because it offers a permanent improvement. Then there is the prerequisites, which I think should be taken into account, as some of these can be speed bumps that still need investments.

One of the other things I feel missing here is the actual desirability and specialisation of the technology. Some of the technologies I have proposed were judged to be researched by 4 factions. While in reality only the two (at most three) factions that are actually interested in a small facer of the game will ever use the technology. Others were (probably) set at 4 as well, and have by now been acquired by at least 6 factions. (As technological achievements progress, people can get more and more specialized, and the fact that this specialisation also indicates that less factions will ever be interested in it does not seem to be taken into account.)

Special Project pricing

How is the price of a special project estimated? Again, we get the gist of the process, but I'm very unclear. Other than 'take that thing that does roughly the same and determine the price of the new thing' I'm drawing a blank. Again there is some factor of the original situation, and how long it would take for the project to be paid back in full. I'm not sure how long this period is, or how things like product upkeep are valuated (at 0.75 ? at OM value?)

References

[1] New technology climate effects penalty removal (1 tech proposed -> 0 resulted)
[2] Ideas on military techs (3 techs proposed -> 0 resulted)
[3] New Special Project: Commercial Trading Station (1 tech, 1 special project proposed -> 1 tech resulted)
[4] Trade Fleets III: Return of the Upkeep (1 change proposed -> 3 techs resulted)
[5] small moon and artifical moon tech proposals (3 techs proposed -> 1 resulted)
[6] Proposal: Apomictic Parthenogenesis (2 techs proposed -> still under construction)

[Brend]

After an out-of-band discussion with Mercury we came up with the following:

In-Character justification?

Not required, but it helps a lot.

Multiple ways of achieving the same thing (or improving the same thing)?

Yes. But they should not be stacking (or if they do, at most 2 times). There will be diminishing returns.

Pricing of Technologies?

Usually amortized over 4, highly specialistic technologies amortized over 3 factions. The factor is dependent upon the playerbase: it was roughly 50%, currently at roughly 35% due to changes in faction. Depending on the specialisation and desirability of the technology, the amortizement factor is increased or lowered.

Pricing of projects?

Directly calculate the return on investment (as seen below)

Return on investment (for all things)

Calculate return on investment over 52 . The return on investment can not be better than a zone with natural life (so 150 labour per 1000 ). They are allowed to be a little better 'default zone' (so 100 labour per 2000 ). So, a project that takes longer than a year to repay is weak, a project that takes shorter than half a year is very strong.

[Rough estimate of return on investment for a 'default zone': 2000 / (100 * .375 ) (the .375 is chosen to mitigate the fact that nobody builds 100/2000 zones, but usually takes a better zone.]

Once the base return on investment is done, the subtle guesswork of balancing restrictions and possible stacking options starts. This takes experience and practice, and can not really be formalized.