Where the f**k are you getting this stuff? I said nothing of the sort. And where do you get MASSIVE amounts of research? Look at any GalCiv or Civ tech before the uber end game stuff and you're talking 5-10 turns typically to research something. Sometimes just a turn or two. How is that massive? Maybe 20-30 turns for a bigger tech.
You lose one lab, so what. You lose, say, 20 turns towards one project. Throw in a gameplay mechanic that says your scientists escape with 75% of the research and it's just a 5 turn loss (yes, I did alude to something like this mechanic in my first post). You build a new lab and start that project again or have a different lab take up the task.
Where the hell is this HUGE, MASSIVE loss you're complaining about? You're just making crap up at this point with waving hands in the air. I can see why you have zero karma. Your posts make little sense at all and invent things never said.
Where the hell am I getting this stuff? Are you retarded? You're reading comprehension is just terrible and I'm not understanding why you feel so threatened by my comments, which weren't even directed at you. This is a theoretical discussion that started from a "what if?"It may surprise you to hear that the game isn't out yet, so us fans are throwing around ideas. An idea was brought up that individual cities research things and a discussion started on what what happen if the researching city was taken over. The devs didn't say this, we did.
Notice how I didn't emphasize the word "massive' like you did, because that's not the point. I was arguging for minimal/no loss of research on capture and I was arguing against losing a large portion of the research. Besides, one of the options is having a >75% loss of a tech, which would be relatively massive as far as that tech is concerned. We don't know exact timeframes, which is why I tried not to go into that. Either way, it doesn't matter since you're just nitpicking a sentence I was using to illustrate that you can still target people's research without the reserach loss mechanic we're discussing.
"Throw in a gameplay mechanic that says your scientists escape with 75% of the research and it's just a 5 turn loss"
I never argued against something like this. My argument is against losing most or all of the research and I would prefer it to be <= 25% of the research.
Nice job bringing up my karma. I sure feel bad that the 12 small comments I've made haven't garnered the admiration of fellow forum members. Have fun trying to use your karma for something that actually matters. Trying to use pointless status symbols to put down others just makes you look like a dick. It makes just as much sense as me calling you a noob because you have such a high member number.
Why look at the glass half empty? If it is bad for YOU to lose research when you lose a city it would be EQUALLY bad for your opponent. Really, it adds a whole new dynamic to the game, because as you got near completion of a major research project, you might want to call in a few of your roaming armies to protect your research investment (if it was in any danger in the first place.
I really don't follow Touresh's line of reasoning and agree with CK - with everything you lose with a city, losing the research on the currently researched item would make you hit the reset button??? Seriously?
Since other players wouldn't and shouldn't know how far research is along (considering how random medieval "research" is) if a player lost a city when it was just about to finish a tech, it would just seem like bad luck instead of the other player strategically trying to stop that tech. Players don't like getting hit by seemingly random negative effects, especially with ones that affect something they've specifically chosen and planned. A player will usually be more saddened by losing their favorite unit in a random event, than a random plague event that kills thousands of citizens and may in fact hurt them more overall. Also, take into consideration that psychology dictates that the player will lament in frustration over losing 100 gold more than they would celebrate at gaining 100 gold. Humans don't take losses well. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be significant loses in the game. That would trivialize any victories. Loss aversion just needs to be considered if you are using the "It hurts them just as much" as a reason for having or keeping something.
My line of reasoning and whole argument is this simple- Losing a city has enough negative effects associated with it that it doesn't need to have major research loss penalities on top of it.
I'm not referencing anyone and I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth.
Don't apply your anger towards quitters at me because I mentioned a truth of mutliplayer. People quit regardless of whether it is right or honorable for them to do so. People are going to quit in multiplayer when they lose cities regardless of the game design so you can't stop that, but I'm sure I'll see a lot more the greater the penalties are for losing a city.
Isn't that a bit too Information Age a thing to consider for this game? Even if Elemental's mundane knowledge will include printing presses, it won't have anything like copy machines, much less computer networks. *Maybe* some magical analogs will be possible, but if they are even remotely 'normal,' that will be a big style flaw, IMO.
The channeler's orders people far and wide as well as recieves information from all across the Kingdom so there's got to be some way this information is getting around. It is a magical and many fantasy backdrops have magical scrying and message sending even in abcense of the classic fireball chucking wizards. Even without magic, you could have carrier pigeon type creatures. There's nothing stopping the old fall back of horseback messengers who would simply relay what the researchers told them. "We tried the following formulas and they didn't work, but our work with X seems to be promising."
JoeUser Forums
Elemental Forums
Demigod Forums