Visual Entertainment and Technologies Forum

I like the idea of project cost exponentially increasing or decreasing with time or complexity, but effect of design time on project cost I feel needs to be balanced.

Using a landaulet circa 1925 just as an example as it's one of the longer, more costly projects:
With all sliders in the middle the project takes 12 months and costs $1,567,000
Dropping the development pace all the way down takes the $1,567,000 project into a $236,000 project (roughly 15% of the cost) but extends the project out by just four months. I just feel that's far too much, 15% of the cost for 125% of the project time.

If we take middle of the slider as the "default" pace, I think we should be able to slow a project down far more for much less savings. Realistically, you'd never be able to reduce a project cost by 85% by just increasing the project time by 25%. More realistically, I think it should be perhaps up to 50% savings for doubling the project time.

The other way of looking at it, would be the "default pace" is the bottom of the slider. I don't think that's the case though as (a) it defaults to the middle and (b) that's where it seems to be best balanced in terms of project cost at least early game where you're actually constrained by money.

The other half I feel needs to be addressed is the increase in cost with project complexity. Taking the same landaulet and minimizing all the sliders results in a design cost of $1,101,000 and a project time of three months with design pace in the middle (or 5 months, $162,000 with it all the way down). I think the cost should be more linear in relationship with time. If middle of the road all sliders 50% project costs $1.5 million and takes 12 months, a minimal grab everything from the parts bin and send it out the door with not testing project which takes only three months should cost more in the line of $375,000 (25%), perhaps even less than that. Incidentally, maxing all sliders takes the $1.5 million project and turns it into a 23 month project which costs $4.4 million (or 30 months and $600,000 with design pace minimized).

What this all means is that project cost is really a non-factor as is. All you're concerned with is the unit cost of the design. You can take your obsessively detailed $4.5 million (1925 dollars) design and just by extending the project a few months have it cost less than the grab whatever off the shelf and send it to the dealer. Yes, it takes time (30 months versus 3) but it should never cost less no matter how long it takes.

Sorry for the late reply. It's a long post and wanted to make sure I give it my full attention, which means it had to wait until nightfall.

The system is currently designed to make niche markets in later game years profitable. So when you look at it, you should be judging from 1980s perspective.

However there were some complaints about how the sliders made the years jump, as such around 1.18.x the Development Pace system was tweaked but not balanced in the lower years. This is where much of your issues comes into play.

Quote:Dropping the development pace all the way down takes the $1,567,000 project into a $236,000 project (roughly 15% of the cost) but extends the project out by just four months. I just feel that's far too much, 15% of the cost for 125% of the project time.

The project time is currently skew more heavily for later years. In 1990 for example you'd be adding 1-2 years extra time. (Can't look right now for exact amounts.)

I will probably end up switching this over to a linear amount of time * modifier based on year. In fact I believe there is already a ticket for it.

Quote:What this all means is that project cost is really a non-factor as is.

Only because the AI sucks right now, and you make too much money in the game due to lack of competition... That's being resolved right now.

Quote:Yes, it takes time (30 months versus 3) but it should never cost less no matter how long it takes.

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.


Anyhoo yes, some balancing will be done to the pace system. Not as much as I think you want, but we'll be bumping up the early year time amounts some.

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.

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.

(02-09-2016, 02:48 AM)Malhavok Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Which is why I stated:

Quote:The project time is currently skew more heavily for later years. In 1990 for example you'd be adding 1-2 years extra time. (Can't look right now for exact amounts.)

I will probably end up switching this over to a linear amount of time * modifier based on year. In fact I believe there is already a ticket for it.

1) You're looking at early game years, which the design pace slider is semi-broken on right now.
2) I already said we will probably make it more linear. .15x price will probably take up 2x-3x time...

Quote: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.

Both TVR, and Ferrari are relatively cheap when it comes to materials used. They're not good examples of material qualities effecting design costs. None the less, F355 is a good example of why the design pace slider is the way it is.

Design costs are actually pegged against what normal consumer cars cost to develop where I could get information. For typical consumer cars these costs are higher due to a number of factors. However niche market designers typically are allowed to cut corners on testing, prototyping, etc to lower costs.

Designing the F355 engine in 1993 with 50% pace slider runs $75 Million. This is about right for a Ford engine or a Honda engine. But this is not how much Ferrari spent designing the 3.5 Dino.

At $75m you would have to sell 750 vehicles just to have the revenues match the costs of developing the engine. Rough on the paper estimate F355 design would cost $300m to design in the game assuming no development pace slider. At 100% market, you'd have to sell 6000 units...

Now unluckily for my example, f355 is one of the most sold Ferrari of all time. But none the less the break even costs for 50% slider would be around 8,000 units... Very high for a super car. In a market where most model sell <100 units and are successful.

At 0 development pace, the engine costs $11m. Which is a hell of a lot more closer to what a non-financed by Fiat Ferrari would spend on engine development. Rough paper estimate would put development costs of F355 at ~$50m. Requiring 100% markup sales of 1000 to break even. Which is much more reasonable for a supercar development costs.


Anyhoo as I pointed out above in #2, time and values are going to be changed.

Quote: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].

If you read the "help" buttons for these, you will notice is engineering focus on tweaking the designs. This is after the fact things such as testing on a race track for performance. Or durability testing in long term testing. As such it is only a fraction of the overall "design" costs. It's not the actual design process of building prototypes, clay models, wind testing, cad, etc.

Quote: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.

This already exists in the multiple image ratings and prestige ratings in the game.

I don't see how such a bonus would help with development costs being too high for segments of the game that sell only a handful of cars.

Genesis and Mercedes sell 10s of thousands per model. Koenigsegg sells in the 10s per model... Design Pace slider is for Koenigsegg and Backyard Tool Shop designs. Not large company designs.