Author Topic: Scientists In Research  (Read 3092 times)

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Scientists In Research
« on: January 26, 2007, 12:07:08 PM »

So I was looking at tech stuff (while doing my tech trees) and was trying to figure out some sort of reasonable explanation for why there is a max of 10 scientists allowed for researching some techs and 7 for others (or 16, or 5, The actual numbers don't matter here).

If it's a lab, wouldn't there be a fixed amount of space in which to do research? Wouldn't you always have desk space for 7, or 10, or 16 (whatever) scientists? Unless the project itself required more space (building a new vech chassis compared to upgrading software). But it doesn't really appear correlated this way.

Anyway, just a thought...

Offline Mez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 648
Scientists In Research
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2007, 12:56:25 PM »
Think about it then tell us what you think

Then a few of us will give you our answer, its quite easy really, if you think about it a bit
 

Offline Savant 231-A

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
    • https://www.outpost2.net
Scientists In Research
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2007, 01:13:29 PM »
Every reserach needs more/less space, when researching new chassis or weapons, it's logical that less personnel is needed

And for "paper" research, it needs more personnel (you try to solve a lot of forms and etc.)
Gordon Freeman, and mr. Crowbar would own Master Chief in any part of the day.
"Come here citizen."

"From the ashes of the collapse we seek to build a better world for all."

Offline dm-horus

  • Banned
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Scientists In Research
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2007, 02:01:57 AM »
its a game and thats the number the developers decided upon. hows that?

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Scientists In Research
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2007, 10:10:44 AM »
Quote
its a game and thats the number the developers decided upon. hows that?
Un-fun...

Hmmm... Seems like pure science type things that could be done in a lab(seismology, vulcanology) take fewer scientists (around 10 or less). Things that would require more field work or some prototyping take more (vechs, smelting improvements). Weapons and chassis (more prototyping) take a high number of scientists (averaging around 16). And the space program (lots of prototyping and test) takes the most (16 to 18 per topic).

Now I feel better...

Offline dm-horus

  • Banned
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
Scientists In Research
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2007, 07:54:47 PM »
..... have we considered the likely possibility that some of the games dynamics were not meant to be likely? 10 is just a nice round number it doesnt have to make real-world logical sense.

have you also considered that maybe the numbers given are arbitrary? meaning 10 might not mean 10 scientists, but perhaps 10 "groupings" which could consist of any unstated, arbitrary number? 1 "scientist" could mean a pair of scientists or a team of them. Perhaps it refers to "lab time" meaning there is only a certain value of time x scientists that can work in the lab on that project at any one time.

the fact is, we could make up all kinds of nifty explainations for it but its just a game and its just a number. its a pretty silly thing to argue or conjecture about.

Offline Highlander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Outpost 2 Elder
Scientists In Research
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2007, 03:28:41 AM »
I think the scientists work in shifts.

Otherwise they'd be working 24/7


Same with workers really..
There can be Only one. Wipe Them out. All of Them.

Old player still playing. Visit Spark for a game of Outpost 2

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Scientists In Research
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2007, 07:31:01 AM »
I will conjecture about whatever I want!  :P

Quote
meaning 10 might not mean 10 scientists, but perhaps 10 "groupings" which could consist of any unstated, arbitrary number?
Yes I did, Just like everything else in the game. But I don't think the groupings contain an arbitrary number of scientists because _that_ would be inconsistent with the rest of the game.

No, it doesn't need to make real world sense. I was just wondering if there was a pattern that was followed. (And I'm sure game play balancing had something to do with it all.)

I also think they work in shifts. That would explain why you are able to continuously produce research or products. Plus you could then say that is why you can overstuff the residence (they share the same bunk - called "hot bunking" in the Navy). Of course, that could be explained by simply saying they move some cots in (ala novella).

Offline BlackBox

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3093
Scientists In Research
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2007, 02:20:35 PM »
Well as far as research efficiency and such, Hooman posted this info:
http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=3315

(which was probably the original reason it works that way, for gameplay purposes).

One other possible way to explain it could be wages for the scientists. The scientists are probably getting extra ration credits as payment for their work (the novella and the "Tales from New Terra" stories in the help file mention a credit system) and thus if they can do with fewer scientists, they save credits (which indirectly translate into consumable resources like food and such, things they would have very little of)

Or perhaps you could consider the whole idea of diminishing productivity if an excess number of people work on something. For example, if 1 man tries to build a house, it takes him a long time. If he has 4 helpers the house is built much faster. If he has 500 helpers virtually nothing gets done since there are constantly people bumping into each other and getting in each other's way. The same could apply to simpler research in OP2: if they have too many scientists trying to work on the same project, there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone to do on a project, for example Metals Reclamation. You would have extra scientists sitting idle or not putting out maximum productivity. But then take a research like Space Program, there are hundreds of subtasks to complete so just about everyone can get in on on some part of the (comparatively much more massive) project.

The bottom line is, we will probably just have to accept that things work this way for gameplay balancing reasons. If you wanted to think about the research model it is completely unrealistic (since the scientists aren't specialized into different fields by the University training, only training 10 scientists at a time, rigid techtree that is the same everytime the game is played, etc), but it is this way to make the game playable / fun.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2007, 02:22:21 PM by op2hacker »

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Scientists In Research
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2007, 03:22:11 PM »
Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning game-playability. I wasn't even looking for complete realism. What's funny is that there are three or four completely viable reasons that have been posted which fit in with the game but aren't completely out to lunch. That's all I was really interested in. (Conversation for the sake of conversation.)  :D  

Offline alice

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
Scientists In Research
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2007, 04:12:41 PM »
Yea, it's always nice to talk about things every once in a while. :)

Maybe it's due to the different sizes of the projects, like a large lab would be assigned to bigger projects (the more advanced research) which would allow more scientists to work on it?

Offline White Claw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Scientists In Research
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2007, 07:03:29 PM »
I think that suggestion falls in line with the "too many cooks" theory. A bigger project lends itself to allowing more scientists. At first glance, it doesn't look like that. But after digging into it a little bit, it trends that way.