@peddroelm
You should've made that graph log-linear. Just teasing. I'm remembering a very old discussion from one of my calc classes and couldn't resist.
Let me sum it up. We need:
1. Decrease GS effect to make raw tech more important.
2. Decrease RA effect to make raw tech more important.
3. Decrease GS effect to have better balance with other GP. Additionally the thing requires making GA stronger, but that's outside this discussion.
4. Keep GS in the same concept as other GP. This conflicts with, for example, "science golden age" idea.
5. Make RA effect scale with number of opponents.
6. Keep RA diplomatic effect, so RA partners have to think twice before breaking it. This conflicts with ideas of gaining RA benefits each turn while it lasts. Note, what hard limits slightly conflict with the goal - it would be easier to break current treaty and sign another one.
7. Make formulas easy enough to be put in Civilopedia in form understandable for non-math players. The problem here, is what "Median" term is already at the border, and many suggestions here are outside of it.
8. Make PT and Rationalism comparable to other Wonders/SP.
9. Minor goal is making RA and GS effect similar. Not necessary, but would be elegant.
10. Keep strategic value of GS, so they bulb in right tech. This conflicts with "slow effects".
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Agreed (you mean great artist right? not golden age?)
4. Agreed
5. Maybe... it depends on the cost/benefit ratio of each RA and ultimate implementation. If the RA choice was strategic rather than a no-brainer as it is now, it'd be worth a think.
6. Agreed. Although I don't agree with the benefits over time concept. If you break it at turn 20, you should've still got some benefit from the early turns. It's not necessary to work this way by any means but I don't see the problem with it. Either way is fine with me.
7. Disagree. There are tons of complicated formulae in CiV already. The combat mechanics. The food box scalaing. The true production you get for a GE. As long as the general ideas are sound and can be conveyed easily, that's all that matters. Like with the combat there's a popup telling you how things will likely go. If we had a complex RA system, if it just popped up and said here are the likely results of this, no one would have a problem.
8. Agree. Rationalism should just change. It doesn't need to have anything to do with RAs. It's already more powerful than piety. Removing the RA connection would allow piety and rationalism to be more competetive.
9. It depends what it is. Considering the mess RAs are right now (and the 100 post thread to prove it) I'd hesitate to call connecting RAs and GSes elegant.
10. I'm not sure I understand this part. You mean you want insta-bulb of selected tech as long as the cost is low? I agree with that if that's what you mean.
So from the suggestions, the following fit the goal:
1. Making GS to give 1/2 of median tech cost. Fitting goals 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10. Other variants of calculating base tech reward (i.e. share of total beakers generated so far) are also good, but need more balancing work.
2. Making PT and Rationalism give only 25% increase. Fitting goals 2 and 8.
3. Making RA cost much more after each signed RA. Fitting goals 5 and 6.
4. Increasing the amount of techs and making tech cost increase smoother will just work.
1. Hrmm.... I don't know. This seems to actually make GSes worse than RAs. They shouldn't be considering the relative prevelance of each. Also you couldn't use key rushes early in the game with a GS.
2. PT gives 33%, Rationalism does something completely different.
3. Not bad. Cost based on relations could be another twist.
4. Amount of techs, sure. Though that actually wouldn't affect RAs much at present. The only issue with smoothing out the tech costs is it will encourage the hard techers +GSers to just push into the future eras. Usually the techs at the border of the eras are quite powerful and allowing easy access might mess things up. Basically you can do it and it might be marevlous but you'd have to be very careful about the tech tree itself.
EDIT: Honestly? The best idea I've read so far is PasturedCow's Bucket system. It combines some very good ideas. It's only drawback is that it's a little hard to understand. I believe though that with the right civilopedia and popups it could be done elegantly.
Also this whole subject has given me an idea. It should be entirely possible (quite easily possible) to construct a program that would basically tell you, based on current in-game data, what the perfect tech route is to maximize your current RAs and GSes. That's how broken the system is. I've often wondered why the devs never did such a thing for concepts like this or construction priorities. Food / production balances etc. Instead of use these heuristic flavors and such that don't tie in context very well, they could've used the heuristics to select goals and a optimization program to achieve those goals as quickly as possible. This has been done with great effect in other games and is done in most AI courses. If they release the DLL source sometime I'll give it a rethink. C++ is a way better than lua for such things
.