Something I really like about designing new components or vehicles is that the R&D cost is spread over the months it will take to design it. Really awesome solution and really life-like i feel.
What I think would be a good addition would be if the player was able to adjust the length of time they would like to do the project over.
For example, it would be nice to be able to smash designs through in a short period of time if you urgently need an update due to competitor or market conditions. Or take your time if it is a long term thing (you've just released a model and you are designing the next one for 4 years time).
The trade off would be to pay more cash for a shorter design time or less cash for a longer one.
I like the idea... However I would suggest the both longer and shorter should cost more! Overall cost that is.
The advantage of a longer development being dividing that cost over more month means less cost per month thus potentially making it a little easier for the company to swallow.
(07-14-2014, 08:28 PM)Frankschtaldt Wrote: [ -> ]However I would suggest the both longer and shorter should cost more! Overall cost that is.
I'm not sure that would make sense. Why should it cost more if it takes longer? In absolute terms it should cost less.
If there is an optimal point and things grow more expensive in both direction, a company would just choose to do it in the suggested time and save the $. If its a sliding scale from amazingly expensive and quicker down to just moderately expensive and slower. Then the player has to weigh up how quickly they are going to need something and how much they are willing to pay.
In the late 90's Mercedes Benz reduced their development cycle for new cars from 6 years to 4 years because reducing the development time spent on on their cars was a massive saving.
Of course there is a sweet spot and most companies take as close to that amount of time as possible because it is the most cost effective.
Choosing to take longer than the current default should absolutely cost more overall, not only because there are numerous real world examples that taking your time in business is expensive but also from a game balance perspective. Taking longer is already really good for cash flow because it would significantly reduce monthly costs, then also allowing it to cost less overall (thus making the monthly costs even less as well) would be frankly, near game breaking.
(07-14-2014, 10:58 PM)Frankschtaldt Wrote: [ -> ]In the late 90's Mercedes Benz reduced their development cycle for new cars from 6 years to 4 years because reducing the development time spent on on their cars was a massive saving.
Ah, that makes sense
I understand what you're saying now.
I suppose the important thing would be to make the game better. I think either way of costing the time might work. I have a feeling that one way would work better than the other and the only way we could figure that out is to actually play both versions to get a feel for it. Or have Eric make an executive decision
