Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Empty = bad, Full = good.
So I don't know.
Maybe this is just another one of the completely arbitrary issues of the game.
I went with RPGs and Adventure games, they need similar features, i think strategy and action need similar needs too, so it could be possible to focus on action or strategy and do both, just not 100% perfectly.
So now you cannot hire badly skilled people, they just draw a paycheck and produce nothing.
About employee you hire, there's a first phase where they aren't fully operational and when you make a game the game provides a message mentioning the employee not yet fully operational. Training, make contracts or make him do reports, make games, perhaps make him research, I think all of that help get rid of this phase.
Yeah employees you hire that have lower design/tech skills produce significantly less bubbles even after the first phase. But research points are so important that I wonder if really the research skill should be ignored when you hire, I don't know, for now when I play a relatively normal game I tend try focus a lot on research. Logically it should lead to a faster growth.
But fire and hire is definitely something I need try and haven't yet experiment. With that approach that would be hire with best skills in tech/design, later when you have quite more money fire and hire high level employee with a stronger focus on research.
Don't over-complicate this. If you need to focus your entire team on a task and have been trying but to no avail, it's because your team doesn't have enough to focus on.
For example, if you have 20 people focusing on a single project fairly, each will only focus on 5%. Whereas, if you have 2 people focusing on a single project fairly, each will focus on 50% and they will be more focused on their part because it's more important.