BUG: R&D economies of scale not consistant

General Discussions about new beta versions of Capitalism Lab
mwyeoh
Level 6 user
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:05 am

BUG: R&D economies of scale not consistant

Post by mwyeoh »

Hi David

I was testing the economies of scale for R&D and found them inconsistant
I assumed that as you add more modules to a single research task, the effects would fall steadily

However, doing some testing, Ive found that it isnt so

The numbers below are from anew lvl1 R&D center
start is my current tech
max is the max level
column 1 is how many R&D modules
column 2 is advancement
column 3 is effect of last R&D center


start 9
max 100

1 5 5
2 9 4
3 12 3
4 14 2
5 18 4
6 19 1
7 21 2
8 23 2
9 25 2

start 9
max 555

1 14 14
2 23 9
3 33 10
4 37 4
5 47 10
6 52 5
7 56 4
8 61 5
9 66 5
andychan
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: BUG: R&D economies of scale not consistant

Post by andychan »

I believe it is intended, as a way to simulate real research, plugging more units and resources does not necessarily result in higher gains.

One thing i am curious about is, what time frame are you using for your research, it looks like 6 months? I found 2 to 3 years to be the best for gain/effiency, though depending if you enable tech disruption.
mwyeoh
Level 6 user
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:05 am

Re: BUG: R&D economies of scale not consistant

Post by mwyeoh »

Its a 1 year timeframe

What I am indicating is that it would be more logical if each subsequent research module has a less effect that the one before.
However, here sometimes the next one has a greater effect the the one before
Purifier
Level 5 user
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:56 am

Re: BUG: R&D economies of scale not consistant

Post by Purifier »

In my opinion the increase should be either the same or higher to be logical.

2 persons know more (usualy :p) then 1 person, 3 know more then 2.
So compared to having for example 2 researches working out a new tech, the change of 4 researches working it out faster/sooner is at least equel and mostly higher, certainly not lower.

Take a look at the last 100 years of human development, inventions and discoveries. The time it took for something new to be researched became less over that 100 year period (or take another number it doesnt realy matter). This is ofcourse because of development but mainly because more people in the world became scientists in 1 field or another.

1 man (William Gilbert) started (as far as records show) to study electricity, look how many uses for it have been invented (in shorter times everytime) because more and more people after William Gilbert did research in that field ?
Post Reply