So beakers don't overflow... does production?

[Disgustipated]

It seems to me this wouldn't be as big a deal if there were more techs (thereby reducing the tech cost) and less huge jumps in the tech tree (where you could get 2 upgrades ahead with just a couple techs). The tech tree to me feels... incomplete.

 

[dexters]

The problem isn't based on a set limit. There's nothing wrong with rushing a late tech and getting it in one turn. The problem is in rushing several techs in a row to push ahead to get either an absurd military advantage or unlock a new SP tree (the former being cheesier than the latter).

I thought of some formula that would be the average of all your current techs plus 200 beakers. No idea how that would end up in practice (I know it'll cut down on early lightbulbing to riflemen, but it might be too restrictive later). But an idea like that would work. Basically, limit yourself to only popping into the next era, not several eras ahead.

Funny thing is, AI seems to be aware of the rifles path, as I've seen AI beeline for this on high difficulty settings.

A small fix is moving rifles to require multiple techs, and adding more techs (I suppose inevitable in the future with more content) will help solve the problem.
Then rebalancing industrial/modern techs to cost a little more.

That's also why I'm sort of leaning towards returning overflow beakers as a % gold, rather than overflowing into the next tech. Because tech pace is hardly the problem.

 

[Syntax Error]

right,that escaped my thought as I've not tried the rationalism path in any games yes.

I still think some of the science, maybe as much as 50% (this is a lot of gold if you're talking overflow of 300-600 beakers) s/b converted to gold as a compromise. Not
that I'm opposed to overflow, but I do like the idea of a gold conversion.

There was a direct exchange rate when science was slider based in the past, but now that there isn't, 50% on the ridiculous beakers we can get in the late game is a lot of gold.

Yeah, this would be ridiculous. In my last space victory, I averaged 1300 beakers/turn. With a lot of the earlier military techs still not researched, that 50% gold in beaker overflow will give me a heckuva lot of gold (what with older tech taking 1-2 turns of research).

 

[dexters]

Yeah, this would be ridiculous. In my last space victory, I averaged 1300 beakers/turn. With a lot of the earlier military techs still not researched, that 50% gold in beaker overflow will give me a heckuva lot of gold (what with older tech taking 1-2 turns of research).

50% is just something I tossed out. As 1k plus beakers is easily achievable in the last fifths of most games, it is overpowered.

I had considered a graded schedule where the first 100 beakers overflow is returned at 1-1, and it reduces beyond that.

This also discourages some of the tile shuffling that may occur.

Alternatively, do overflow, but at a reduced rate (ie: not full overflow) as I really don't think tech pace is an issue, though this i largely a balance issue that can be changed at anytime.

For all we know we could see 50% increase in tech cost in a future patch with full overflow. heh.

 

[Syntax Error]

50% is just something I tossed out. As 1k plus beakers is easily achievable in the last fifths of most games, it is overpowered.

I had considered a graded schedule where the first 100 beakers overflow is returned at 1-1, and it reduces beyond that.

This also discourages some of the tile shuffling that may occur.

Alternatively, do overflow, but at a reduced rate (ie: not full overflow) as I really don't think tech pace is an issue, though this i largely a balance issue that can be changed at anytime.

For all we know we could see 50% increase in tech cost in a future patch with full overflow. heh.

Oh, I should have mentioned final output instead of average not that it matters much. But I agree with you regarding the tech pacing. Now if only we have a bit reduced hammer cost...

 

[moyang]

Personally, I micromanage hard when I beelined a tech and to backfilling - researching a tech that costs 55 when my beaker output is like 47 costs too much.

I do need compensation to wasted overflow, but beaker overflow -> gold won't fix the problem.

If the exchange rate was good, I would micro to get max beaker overflow - to make much gold.
If the exchange rate was bad, I would micro to get min beaker overflow - to minimize the 'waste'

So, beaker overflow please.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Personally, I micromanage hard when I beelined a tech and to backfilling - researching a tech that costs 55 when my beaker output is like 47 costs too much.

I do need compensation to wasted overflow, but beaker overflow -> gold won't fix the problem.

If the exchange rate was good, I would micro to get max beaker overflow - to make much gold.
If the exchange rate was bad, I would micro to get min beaker overflow - to minimize the 'waste'

So, beaker overflow please.

I have a suspicion that the lack of beaker overflow was added because vanilla CiV playtested too fast with the techs -- and it will be reintroduced when the extra techs are added with the next iteration.

 

[The Great Apple]

I have a suspicion that the lack of beaker overflow was added because vanilla CiV playtested too fast with the techs -- and it will be reintroduced when the extra techs are added with the next iteration.

Why would they do this when it's trivial to simply increase the tech costs a bit?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Why would they do this when it's trivial to simply increase the tech costs a bit?

Exactly. Somehow I doubt that is the explanation.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't see overflow dramatically increasing research speed. Not to the extent that a moderate price increase wouldn't fix the problem.

 

[AlpsStranger]

For lack of a better way of putting it I feel the lack of overflow is... well *tacky.* Only a real rock-stupid player would find overflow confusing, even if not every player is well versed in its finer points, and it means a lot to players that are going to go the extra mile and reassign scientists and such at the end of a tech over it.

I really think this is either a bug or one of the poorest design decisions in Civ5.

Overflow is good for micro lovers because it allows them to have an extra system to enjoy and explore. Look at this excellent article by Requies from back in the day: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146163

Overflow is good for macro players because they don't overlook a 249/250 type of situation when they are producing 100+ research.

I really do want an answer from Shafer if tech overflow was removed intentionally because I can't imagine the reasoning behind it.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Why would they do this when it's trivial to simply increase the tech costs a bit?

You mean aside from rushing the product? The only other reason I can think of is the playtesters were so busy debugging the early city screen that they developed the habit of moving workers from their Libraries to their Markets and they decide that this sort of micromanaging should return to the franchise, ala Civ I, II,and III.

If it gets removed we'll know it's the former, if it stays then it's the latter.

 

[The Great Apple]

You mean aside from rushing the product? The only other reason I can think of is the playtesters were so busy debugging the early city screen that they developed the habit of moving workers from their Libraries to their Markets and they decide that this sort of micromanaging should return to the franchise, ala Civ I, II,and III.

If it gets removed we'll know it's the former, if it stays then it's the latter.

I very much doubt there are many programmers out there who would use such a dirty hack over simply increasing the tech costs by 10% (and doing a bit of rounding to make the numbers nice). It really wouldn't save much time and isn't even the obvious solution to fixing a tech rate problem.

IMO it's almost certainly simply an oversight. Perhaps something that they thought that was working that wasn't and nobody caught it in QA. It happens.

 

[SewerStarFish]

I very much doubt there are many programmers out there who would use such a dirty hack over simply increasing the tech costs by 10% (and doing a bit of rounding to make the numbers nice). It really wouldn't save much time and isn't even the obvious solution to fixing a tech rate problem.

IMO it's almost certainly simply an oversight. Perhaps something that they thought that was working that wasn't and nobody caught it in QA. It happens.

I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't just be an oversight -- but that maybe it was a crutch in earlier programming that didn't get fixed and now need to be patched. Unless it's intentional -- they may have really liked the city/building focus feature.

 

[carlisimo]

Overflow never made sense to me. If it were up to me, production wouldn’t overflow either.

 

[AfterShafter]

Pretty sure beakers not overflowing is on the list of recognized bugs, so hopefully it'll be fixed in the "big patch" due out in the next week or so.

Due out in the next week or so? Oh do please tell me that's not just wishful thinking on your part The game is still too buggy for me to reliably play on my machines

 

[clearbeard]

Overflow never made sense to me. If it were up to me, production wouldn’t overflow either.

What, when you finish a big project at work in March, you get to take the rest of the year off? Can I get a job there?

 

[Zechnophobe]

I don't see overflow dramatically increasing research speed. Not to the extent that a moderate price increase wouldn't fix the problem.

on Average, you are losing 1 turn each X technologies, where X is the number of turns it takes you to research a technology.

So if each tech is currently running 8 turns, then 8 turns down the line you'll have lost a full turn (on average). That's 64 turns, and not a huge issue.

But what about right after you do a tech leap and want to clean up the early techs you missed? 3 or 4 turns each means 12 to 16 turns per lost turn of research.

This is at least a good rule of thumb to go by, since it can obviously be chaotic. But if all you knew was the turn completion time, this would be accurate I believe.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That would presume the overflow is large all the time, no? On average, some techs will have a slight overflow, some a lot. Never more than a turn's worth except on backfilling early techs. I could be wrong, but that sounds about right.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

on Average, you are losing 1 turn each X technologies, where X is the number of turns it takes you to research a technology.

Actually its closer to 1/2 a turn since it is randomly 0-1 turns worth that is wasted each tech.