02-09-2016, 02:48 AM
No worries at all, Eric. I think we all greatly appreciate your taking the time to engage with us, at least I do. I'm really looking forward to the improved AI. You're right though, as now I've not made it to the later years but I can see the development pace increasing as the years go by even in the relatively early years up to the '50s. It's absolutely more pronounced in the very early years where for most components especially the development pace slider has only a few months impact. With longer design times as you go later there's more of a time effect. I don't actually have an issue with the time part of it though, although maybe in the very beginning it doesn't do much.
Not none, just less. That's why I used the example of change in project cost being more in line with linear to with the change in time. If the design slider is adjusted from the default such that the design takes 1.5x time, then maybe it should cost .5x the price. Using my example it was 1.25x time for .15x price. That's simply too much, imo.
I appreciate the niche market, but the reality is it was difficult. TVRs, for example, were not built like a modern Bentley. They were basic designs and did have quality issues. With fewer units to amortize design cost over, even for major manufacturers like Ferrari, in reality it's an issue. The F355 the dashboards pealed and the wood trim cracked. Vector had cheap interiors and low-quality bodies. Perhaps some sliders shouldn't impact design cost (material quality) as much. That's maybe too nuanced.
The other part is the design scope (sliders) doesn't impact project cost nearly enough. The horrible design (all bars minimized) costs $1.1 million versus $1.56 million for all bars at 50% [excluding design pace]. It should be MUCH less than that. The design scope should be the primary factor effecting how much a project costs and secondarily the design speed. Some vehicle types are just better suited to niche cars than others. You don't see many niche sedans but lots of niche sports cars. The more narrow focus makes them candidates for cutting lots of corners in design. That's already built into the game with the type rating. You can ignore luxury, safety, fuel economy on a sports car. As it is now with cost overwhelmingly being determined by design time rather than scope that isn't reflected.
Perhaps a rarity bonus could help niche manufacturers further. Brand exclusivity definitely a real thing. If Toyota decided to produce a Rolls Royce competitor, I don't imagine it would be too successful. The Hyundai Genesis struggles with that whereas Lexus made a luxury brand. Great car for the price but it's a Hyundai. The introduction of the Mercedes C-class alienated some buyers as the brand was seen as moving down market and becoming more attainable to the masses as well as more common. Perhaps a bonus based on volume and average fleet price could be used to make niche manufacturers more viable (and make creating sub marques more important). Niche makes could then sell for a market premium that their ratings alone did not justify.
Quote:I assume by this line you mean that the project should always cost the same? That defeats the purpose of the development pace slider system. It's meant to reduce design costs at the expensive of time. Cars in the 1990s costs hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to make. Thus making niche market companies like supercars manufacturers impossible to play. In the real world, supercars can be developed with low development budgets, they just take many years to produce. But before development pace slider, it was practically impossible to run a company like Vector in the game
Not none, just less. That's why I used the example of change in project cost being more in line with linear to with the change in time. If the design slider is adjusted from the default such that the design takes 1.5x time, then maybe it should cost .5x the price. Using my example it was 1.25x time for .15x price. That's simply too much, imo.
I appreciate the niche market, but the reality is it was difficult. TVRs, for example, were not built like a modern Bentley. They were basic designs and did have quality issues. With fewer units to amortize design cost over, even for major manufacturers like Ferrari, in reality it's an issue. The F355 the dashboards pealed and the wood trim cracked. Vector had cheap interiors and low-quality bodies. Perhaps some sliders shouldn't impact design cost (material quality) as much. That's maybe too nuanced.
The other part is the design scope (sliders) doesn't impact project cost nearly enough. The horrible design (all bars minimized) costs $1.1 million versus $1.56 million for all bars at 50% [excluding design pace]. It should be MUCH less than that. The design scope should be the primary factor effecting how much a project costs and secondarily the design speed. Some vehicle types are just better suited to niche cars than others. You don't see many niche sedans but lots of niche sports cars. The more narrow focus makes them candidates for cutting lots of corners in design. That's already built into the game with the type rating. You can ignore luxury, safety, fuel economy on a sports car. As it is now with cost overwhelmingly being determined by design time rather than scope that isn't reflected.
Perhaps a rarity bonus could help niche manufacturers further. Brand exclusivity definitely a real thing. If Toyota decided to produce a Rolls Royce competitor, I don't imagine it would be too successful. The Hyundai Genesis struggles with that whereas Lexus made a luxury brand. Great car for the price but it's a Hyundai. The introduction of the Mercedes C-class alienated some buyers as the brand was seen as moving down market and becoming more attainable to the masses as well as more common. Perhaps a bonus based on volume and average fleet price could be used to make niche manufacturers more viable (and make creating sub marques more important). Niche makes could then sell for a market premium that their ratings alone did not justify.