R&D is not as elusive as it has been. Jesfa and Zhao have said they have at the very least a rough idea of how it will work, and they have the basis of the tech trees. I would suspect that now Zhao has got production 2.0 all sorted that R&D will be his next major focus.
As this has become the de-facto R&D Speculation and Setting the record Straight thread, is there a decision reached on whether the implementation will be Cumulative use of R&D Points (ie Multiple datacards of the same time can be used to "buy" a new leaf) or just Single-datacard of each required type, which must bear all the required points.
(see my earlier posts on this matter in this thread if what I'm getting at isn't clear).
I imagine they'll be similar to mining, where you can merge/split points (onto Datapads). Like use of those materials, you can use different piles or a consolidated one. Not sure if thats what you're asking >_>
As per the earlier question of yours regarding DC transfers, no idea what we plan for that yet.
Jesfa, I think what Kay means is if you need 1000 hull R&D points, and you have 600 on one datapad and 400 on another, would you be able to pull points from both to start the research/project or would all the relevant points have to be on the same datapad?
Per seeing up the tree, would we just see the R&D points required for the next entities up the tree, or would we see what the entity is (ie would we see '1000 hull points,' or would we see 'X-wing')? Leading on from that, if we only see the points requirement, would we at least get to know if leaf X is a new entity or just the current level entity with slightly different stats?
We should be able to determine if we want to research a new entity or modify an existing one, or otherwise people will get annoyed researching sideways rather than up, or vice versa.
“Jesfa, I think what Kay means is if you need 1000 hull R&D points, and you have 600 on one datapad and 400 on another, would you be able to pull points from both to start the research/project or would all the relevant points have to be on the same datapad?
- Elias Aubec ”
Yep, that's what I meant.
The non-cumulative idea was to treat R&D points like item drops, so that as opposed to a straight scaling factor there's only a Z% chance of getting X points on a datapad, and if you need X for a leaf you want and only get X-y points on your datapad, well you're SOL and you should either re-use the datapad in a new R&D action to try for more points (obliterating the existing ones), or sell the datapad on to someone else who might Need the X points for something. I felt this makes it possible for any given R&Der to potentially obtain a Large-Point datapad (ie worth more) instead of really just grinding slowly to amass points and merge them onto a single datapad.
With the cumulative effect, however, it appears to fit better with eventual Reverse Engineering as an alternate action for R&D points (if that ends up planned), and it means that datapads will not likely decrease in value over the long term, as you'd always be able to merge their points together. However, it does mean that those with more resources (e.g. GE and other well-established factions) will progress far faster net by virtue of having more R&D facilites/stations with which to use.
Them I imagine my answer regarding the similarities to mining should suffice. Should be able to, as I see it, use multiple pads, or merge them into one. Either or.
Ellias, the variant branches should be noticeably different looking lines than another ship, plus, iirc, the idea was that variants should be far cheaper/faster unlocks as they're merely modifications. You'll only see the cost/requirements of the next entity n the branch, not the name, stats or image.
Regarding super groups r&dinf faster, there's not a whole lot that can reall be done beyond only allowing x things to be unlocking at a time, or some other restriction. But I don't know if that's something that should be done. It's something we'll look at more once weve got a but more fleshed out.
Jesfa, if you're really interested in creating a level playing field, why introduce this "other restriction" if the only aim is to restrict R&D progress of those so-called super groups?
Now, if I understand your vision of R&D correctly, each group regardless of size, organization or assets start with nothing - the level playing field you're aiming for. There are no advantages to having the TIE-bomber DC, or the Dreadnaught DC, or the B-wing DC with regards to R&D progress. The only discrimination would be between faction types (determining access to specific R&D trees) and faction competence (more competent factions are able to allocate more resources to R&D and are therefore able to progress faster). By introducing a cap on allowing x things to be unlocked at a time, you're not helping the "little people" - you're stifling the competent factions for being good at their job. I doubt that's the purpose of R&D...
Super groups was a broad term in what I was meaning. I was mostly meaning there should possibly be a restriction of things unlocking as to both ensure that R&D isnt too quick, as well as some ideas bouncing around for some factions with minor trees.
I think there may be confusion as no one has seen the model of the tree. For myself I understand the need to impose time limits on unlocking the leafs as otherwise you would be consistently having to add new leafs and update the tree because larger factions would eat though the tree very fast.
It would be great to be able to see or test the current concepts and give feedback. I volunteer if you need testers.
@ Jan , I'd have a guess and say that admin would probably design it so the amount of R&D XP needed to reach the top of the tree with full unlock would not be reached for a long time (at least 5 years) by even the most dedicated governments.
If they based it off 10 people from a faction combining their effort and working at every possible chance then worked out how much XP they could grind in 5 years , you'd find that the smaller factions might take 10 years to get to a SSD or for the dedicated governments it may end up only being 3 years.
That would seem like a fairly good time frame to me.
It would also mean admin would only need to add the CP ships to the tree every year once they become outdated.
Like Jan Hutti, I wouldn't mind volunteering either.
Feedback can be helpful.
I agree that R/D shouldn't be too quick. It shouldn't be released and then over in a few weeks for larger groups. I can appreciate a large amount of resources, but features (like food) should be savored and enjoyed. A Fast Food (get it done as fast as possible) method of R/D will not help the community in the long run. What would be the incentive for smaller groups to even do R/D when the bigger ones could be selling the vehicles on CPM before they get very far into it?
“Maybe my english is awkward, but i thought he did say no definitive eta.
That is why i asked for a rough eta (this year, next year, next month somewhere etc.)
- Helena ”
Rough, definitive, etc. ...no matter how you word it, I would interpret the ETA to be Soon TM. =b (as in one is not being provided)
Thats how its been more or less planned out. A ships hyperdive, sublight, speed and maneuverability as well as landing/atmospheric would be assigned an engine value, which requires x engine research points to unlock. Weapons controls the weapon research value, shields, ECM, Ionic, and sensor can control electronics, and the size, capacity, and hull HP is metallurgy. research.
*Note that this is just a best guess as to how points will affect research values, and should not be taken as any kind of official or true breakdown.