Capitalism 2 and Capitalism Lab Forum

Cozar wrote:I would like to see tech disruption altered to be based off of the r&d efforts of the individual game. Technology levels should be capped at 100. Research that would exceed 100 will instead disrupt the technology. Thus, if nobody has started researching cars, then I can move into the industry with the default tech level of 30, but if someone has already made a technological breakthrough instead of them having tech level 120, they would have 100 and my tech level would degrade to 10.

That innately makes sense to me. Tech doesn't become less useful until it is superseded. (But I have no idea what the current mechanism, lol)

For me tehre is no sense in a different rate for different products.

Some say ok technology loss in Computer is higher then in Steel.
BUt there is only a loss is there a higher technology.

Just an example: Do you think we would have Windows 8 actually when Microsoft would be the only company in the market ?
I think we would then still stay at windows 95

Or do you think we would have an intel core 7 without having AMD as competitor ?

So technology disrupts, when there is something new...

Yea, I vote no to some arbitrary value. The logic jump is just too great.

The rate of depreciation of technology is not dictated by any innate value, it is dictated by the progress of the industry technology itself. That is, by how much research is being done in the field.

If your facial tissue IRL has not progressed much since they added lotion in the 80s, well, that's because 12 different companies haven't been building R&D firms dedicated to facial tissue research.

If computer tech has depreciated quickly in the past, it's only because computer technology has been greatly improved in the past. I do think if we compared the amount of money spent on computer technology R&D that it would be far more than was spent on tissues.

Depreciate correlates to research... nothing more than that which I can see.

Esoteric Rogue wrote:Yea, I vote no to some arbitrary value. The logic jump is just too great.

The rate of depreciation of technology is not dictated by any innate value, it is dictated by the progress of the industry technology itself. That is, by how much research is being done in the field.

If your facial tissue IRL has not progressed much since they added lotion in the 80s, well, that's because 12 different companies haven't been building R&D firms dedicated to facial tissue research.

If computer tech has depreciated quickly in the past, it's only because computer technology has been greatly improved in the past. I do think if we compared the amount of money spent on computer technology R&D that it would be far more than was spent on tissues.

Depreciate correlates to research... nothing more than that which I can see.

I Absoutly agree !
Thats what i try to figure out in my previous post.

For the posters above me, disruption is currently implemented so that you lose 10% of your current tech every year for every product, regardless of whether someone is actually researching it. All of you seem to agree with me that makes no sense. Thus, I think it should be modified so your tech level degrades only when the top tech increases above 100.

Cozar wrote:For the posters above me, disruption is currently implemented so that you lose 10% of your current tech every year for every product, regardless of whether someone is actually researching it. All of you seem to agree with me that makes no sense. Thus, I think it should be modified so your tech level degrades only when the top tech increases above 100.

I think you ca deactivate IT in Thema game settings...