A few questions I would like to pose on resources....
Should an iron mine ever play out? The mine startw with a set amount of iron and can eventually be depleted. Maybe a minor spell could reveal the total amount available. I personally like the idea, but it isn't anything I would get to worked up about either way.
Should resources come in different qualities? Not just the total amount of resource that is there, but the amount of resource it can produce at a base level. Some mines might produce 5/turn with no upgrades to the mine, others might be able to do 10 or 15. Again, I like the idea of some diversity between same type resource nodes, but not something I would really freak about either way.
Should there be mixed resources? To mine Adamantium you would have to have the relevant research done, but might it be possible for your iron mine to also produce a small amount of adamantium per turn? or even crystals? Just throwing ideas out there.
Any rare/unique resources like meteorite shards for making a one-of a kind sword? Should that type of thing jsut show up randomly at your regular mine, should they be found lying around on the ground, or should they be a random event? Or combinations of all these or other ideas?
Sorry, I was bored. Gonna go check survey monkey to see if more people have taken the survey.
I don't understand its need. It forces certain types of play styles which is totally unnecessary and uncalled for in a singleplayer game. I'm much more in favor of either everlasting resource nodes, or a system where new nodes are discovered at roughly the same rate as older nodes are depleted. And for higher quality resources to usually remain hidden until later in the game (not late game, just later, to prevent too much resource-rushing early on). I think that would be cool.
Having infinite resources typically leads to overwhelming victories where Player A pumps out more units because he has more resources. Player B never really gets a chance to turn the tables because both players have never ending resources. That model works for some games but I wouldn't like it for Elemental. Finite resources adds strategic depth by forcing the player to make meaningful decisions about how he wants to spend resources. Where if you never run out of resources you don't care if a plan fails because you can just put all resources into a new plan.
Infinite resources can also lead to infinite stalemate situations. I feel a finite system would add the most to Elemental but when in doubt make it an option.
If you have more resources and don't have to worry about failing, there isn't anything changed by having them run out. The guy with fewer resources is running out first, or he'd be walking all over your ass right after you lost your armies with spectacularly bad results.
Resources being finite or infinite really doesn't change much. 4X doesn't lend itself very well to the forms of turtling where you butcher massive numbers of enemy units without very many casualties. You won't magically run down superior resources, you have to outkill them at a higher rate than they're out resourcing you. If you're doing that, you've got the game in the bag anyway.
It does slow the game pace to a crawl when they run down though.
If resources ever did deplete, I would expect new sources to appear at roughly the same rate as old one were depleted.
While I'm interested in something like that - resources depleting but being replaced at about the same rate - I'm also concerned about it. It could significantly devalue cities partway through the game, and considering settlements are going to be very large permanent investments which require essence, that doesn't sound so exciting... But it would all depend, I guess, and I'd at least be interested in trying such a system out.
I would file it under "the best laid plans of mice and men". And on the flip side it likely could increase the value of cities as well.
NO! NO! AHHHHHHH!! *screams*
I'm, having flashbacks to spaceward ho. When you accedentally stranded your fleet on a nearby non colony planet. BUT there was NO metal! WHY OH WHY is there no more metal?? Aren't the planets like MADE of the stuff. I remember doing the auto turn and watching for hours hoping the computer might send the one more ship that would drop enough scrap on my planet to get me another colony ship since I have like 453 mini to save them. But no. It is a stalemate. A STALEMATE! This is what finite resources brings us to if they ever come into play. If they dont (you don't run out of resources) then it's fine. It just means you finished the game in time. But if they do then it's nothing but a huge pain.
While my response isn't quite as....intense as Sarudak's, I definitely agree with him.
Finite resources are a bad idea; I don't even like them in RTS games! And in TBS games, having finite resources would be even worse....if not an outright utter disaster.
I generally agree, although I wonder if a 'good' expiring+new nodes system could be fundamentally better for fun because it adds a bit of 'new game' significance to an existing game. Perhaps it's another one for the Great Bucket of Options. It does seem like it has potential to be near the GC2 Event-Mega Event border, especially if you think about resources like Adamantium in MoM.
But then cities will require essence to found, yet could be made useless by a stripping of the local resources, only to find them elsewhere. Any such movement would need to be well managed depending on the system for resource utilization.
why would cities require essence to found? it isn't magic (well it might be, but after the 1st one there should be other ways of getting a bunch of people to move to a new location. Its not like 'settlers' are going to stop existing as a concept to those trying to expand a kingdom.)
It's already been said a couple of times that cities will require essence to be founded, unless I'm mistaken, no? Wheter this is because the Channeler raises some buildings on the spot or just rejuvenates the land is for all purposes in context moot.
Land is dead. The Channelers imbues life in part of it again using his/her essence. So you would need to bring new lands to life in everyplace where you plan to build a new settlement... unless you force evolution in your civilization and make them able to farm dirt, rocks... and then be able to get nourishment from those.
That was one of the first tidbits of information we were given about the game, that founding new settlements will require essence. Frogboy also said that there will be some lands that are already habitable but they will be very rare.
First Spartan goes nuts on us, now landisaurus... What is the world coming to!
@ Winter: This avatar is a keeper.
On topic, is possible that the channeler uses essence to bring the land to life and sets a basic tent there with a sign of "Looking for followers. Ask me.". And once you have your kingdom/empire up and running, your channeler can go with some settlers to have your new settlement with some extra population to start with.
hmmm. I don't recall him saying that directly. Nor can I find it in any early dev posts, would you mind linking that to me? Perhaps I have forgotten information given out back in november (or earlier?). I was under the impression only the 1st city required essense directly (as the land would be completely barran at that point)
I understood that essense would be required to make the land habitable, but that is not directly linked to "create a settlement" I'm under the firm impressenion that 1: you'll be making more land fertile than you will settle, 2: you'll be able to settle on land OTHER wizards have made fertile, and 3. some games modes, multiplayer ones in particular, will not have a lot of the recovering the world mechanic. (heck, Frogboy confirmed there will be game modes that don't even use the economy/city building mechanic) so I don't see why "founding a city" and "using essense" should be directly linked like that.
Essense will be spent somewhere, the effects will create land that can found a city. But I do not believe they "are the same thing"
He has said so explicitly on several occasions. I can't find a direct quote right now... Maybe he said it in one of the other forums sections and not in a dev post? But he definitely said it. He specifically said at one point that at the beginning of the game you could choose to invest a large part of your essence in founding new settlements, but at the cost of being particularly vulnerable (due to a weakened channeler) until those cities get up and running. On the other hand you could concentrate on a few cities and maintain a powerful channeler, but then you run the risk of being out-produced and out-manned by someone with more cities.
You don't remember all those conversations about how most of us are hopeful that requiring essence to found new settlements will inhibit city tiling (ala Civ) and will prevent massive expansion being the only viable strategy?
Frogboy did something along the line that a channeler's essence was needed in order to rejuvenate the land to make habitable once again...the logic being to keep players from commiting to the Civ series strategim of "first come, first serve" (ie; one who builds the most colonies over a broad strip of land, more or less, is the winner)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
