So with the new design change of food being a Global resource, i started to wonder how that food just magically gets from one town to another.
I suppose the underlying theory is "if it makes the game more fun, who cares?"
As gamers, can you accept any excuse of why something is happening as long as you get enjoyment from it?
What would be satisfying would be a double bonus : when you build a workshop you get 1 material per turn AND the city where you built the workshop gets a reduction in materials cost for future buildings in that city.
So we still get the advantages of a global resource AND advantages to cities that built workshops for other cities.
Yea... I agree that having immediate access to resource should allow for cheaper costs, or something like that
Well wouldn't it make sense if they did indeed fulfill material requirements in cities nearby but if it was done on a local level like as in.
If a citie close by has multiple workshops then the new outpost/city can get more production as a bonus because of importing it in for the project so their Work/Manpower for the project remains the same *and therefore production is still somewhat slow* But the material work and requirements for things you could import is reduced therefore there's a production bonus But the distance between cities along the network reduces this bonus because of travel time?
Sounds to me like that might work.
Because it's totally realistic that nails created in one city can only be used in that city, right?
"Materials" are generic building materials. Things like lumber, nails, and so on. A workshop provides those materials (and once you can create one, a mill on a forest tile produces a lot more). It's totally realistic that you can move these materials from one city to another in order to build things. That's pretty much how EVERYTHING in a real city is built.
The traditional TBS mindset of every city having production that is totally isolated from every other city doesn't really exist in Elemental. And really, how realistic is a model where one city can build a grainary twice as fast as another city because there happens to be a hill nearby? That's how the Civ model works, and it doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense at all.
So materials are the only component to building things?
If that's the case, a building (say a school) should take just as long to build in a town with 20 people as a city with 2000.
Unless building time takes population (work force) into some type of consideration. (ie, school with 20 people takes 10 turn, school with 2000 takes 2 turns)
If the "Global Resource" transportation issue takes into account that build times include the required movement of said materials from a "have" town to a "have not" Town, via Caravan, than it is not that big a stretch to imagine it working as in reality.
When was the last time you waited for the Grocery truck to get to your Market to supply you the Oranges you bought? We take for granted that someone else, "the great unseen one" is taking care of that as it is in their best interest to do so.
That way, if I have nails from a workshop in City B and ask for a structure in City C that does not have a workshop, simply add a "+ time needed" to transport said nails to City C from the workshop in City B. One could even say that I knew I would need nails in City C as soon as I created it, thus had "nails" added to the materials list on the very next Caravan heading to City C. Pretty smart thinking eh!
As long as the Workshop "has" to exist and it's materials are required to build whatever I asked for. Next up is do I actually have the required store of "materials" or do I have to wait for more to be generated from the workshop?
It seems prudent, at this point anyways, to see if we can "nail" down, pun intended btw, how long a TURN actually is. It is rumored to be about 3 months?
If the math done for that was based on the age of a SOV, after some many turns I am still a tad skeptical...
Supplies and labour, yeah. So in this case "materials" are the supplies, and labour comes from the town. I don't know if it speeds up as the town grows in size or not. I think there's buildings that can speed up building production though, so that's probably where the speed boosts come from. (Realistically, you can't put 2000 people to work building a library anyway.)
Wow John, i think you nailed it (pun not intended, but it worked).
That adds realism and simplicity (fun) to the Global resource network. It could work the same way with food
if (town.hasFood() ) // checks to see towns food production meets need (current population + next turn)
useLocal(food) //returns count of food -- > 50
else
UseGlobal(food) //returns count of food + overhead for transport -- > 50 + 1 gold
now with resources
if (town.hasResources() ) //checks to see if town is currently making enough resources to build project
useLocal(resources) // returns time to complete project --> 5 turns
UseGolbal(resources) // returns time to complete project + time for transport --> 5+ 2 turns
I still think local pop needs to be factored into build time.
"(Realistically, you can't put 2000 people to work building a library anyway.)"
A valid point indeed but since we are brainstorming it would also make some level of sense that a town of 20 would require more time to build a school, than a town/city of 2000 given that there are other things going on in both towns that require Pop coverage, thus a 2000 Pop town could dedicate the 50 needed labor to accomplish the build in the least amount of time, versus the 20 Pop who could only devote 5 labor thus taking 10 times along to complete. (random #'s ftw)
Well, I don't see how food can be "used faster" in the current build, but I see what you mean by artificially adding to the build time via factoring distance from the "Wheel" to the nearest hub.
I would just prefer making things more expensive for being farther away, but taking longer also works.
I would vote for "taking longer" actually, because that is more realistic.
Agreed with tormy.
I perfer Longer.
Las Vegas also exists because of modern technology. No amount of roads would supply Las Vegas if it wasn't for refrigeration, and massive water transport projects.
Though even with modern refrigeration Las Vegas doesn't have magical access to goods designed in Europe and made in China.
As for everything else you've not convinced me that the new system of global resources is any way better than the old system. We had caravans supplying bonus food before that were "seigable". The argument that really needs to be made is why Global resources are more fun than local resources. I've played with the old system and liked it, and I've played with global resources and liked it in the context of TBS games but hated it in context of 4x games. What about your sudden new vision that you love is better than either the old vision or the other horrid implementations of global resources in 4x games?
I'm willing to of course try the global economy when you get it to us. I hope likewise you'll be willing to consider a different alternative if a significant number of testers still remain opposed to the idea.
Consider this, I never saw that many complaints about your economic model in 1G or earlier just some of the specific content implementations.
First of all, the "local resources" model people on the forums keep asking for and what existed in 1G aren't even remotely the same thing. 1G didn't require resources at all, they provided a speed boost, and they provided that speed boost to connected places. It wasn't particularly "local", and there wasn't any stockpiling or limits, or even requirements.
There's several pages in two threads about what makes the new system better then the old system.
You must not have been around during the first economics discussion. It was a lot longer then this one and the forum was overwhelmingly in favor of what we call "camp 1", which was a system complicated enough to be at home in Capitalism 2 (at least until "camp 3" presented something similar with less micro). 1G was actually closer to "camp 2", which at the time was complained about endlessly.
TBH, the second beta 2 hits this discussion will end, if not before. There's just nothing else to talk about right now, so people are back to beating the complexity for the sake of complexity drum. What I've really yet to see is an explanation of what the local resource model actually adds in gameplay that the 1Z system can't do (aside from extra micro). We've already got the ability to blockade, we've got resource scarcity if the numbers are tweaked right, we've got rare resources, we've got pretty good trade options. The only thing we don't have is that I don't have to care if the iron is in Toronto or Detroit... and being that I'm a wizard king, can't I hire someone to sort that stuff out for me? I've got more important decisions to make.
*Sighs* i like abit of complexity it adds depth.
This is disingenious. 1G did have requirements, they were just giving a single resource by default. If this is really your problem, all you have to do is lobby for a resource to be set to 0. I actually liked the system because it reflected that you could in fact get things on an open market in a very small amount. Also, how many fans do you know of the Civ4 global resources where if you don't have oil you might as well quit?
I've not really seen any supporting elements for global resources, I've seen a lot of people talk around it by talking about speed, resource limits, or detroit. Lets have a real discussion about global vs. local resources like the old discussion."Consider this, I never saw that many complaints about your economic model in 1G or earlier just some of the specific content implementations."
I see you're not about to deal with the question either. Where are the complaints about the old model?
Second, you might want to re-read that old thread. I was for camp 3.
Third, lets revisit that thread again because this "global resources" is completely against everything that was argued for back then. Honestly it seems like right now Stardock is giving a "fans be d***ed" approach to what people have asked for with economics. Obviously they think it is a great idea, but they don't seem to be selling a lot of us on it.
What are you willing to bet on that statement? Will you support them going to a different system if it doesn't?
I'll give you two big ones:
#1) Tactical decisions regarding city placement. Having a choice that matter makes you care. This is what strategy games are about.
#2) Better immersion through more realistic gameplay. P.S. A good reality model doesn't necessarily have to be super complex. I have at no point argued for a "complex" model whether in the old economy discussion or this one. I've always wanted a realistic one that offers meaningful choices.
This is a great argument AGAINST the global resources, because it isn't adding any of these things that we didn't already have.
*sighs with seth* Tridus.. your not looking at this in the big picture I don't think.. I think in order for you to get it, you would have to see it laid out in front of you. As I've said many times now, beta 1 looks complicated on paper but in practice it really isn't. Unforutnately, instead of letting us see these in practice side by side our decision is being made for us. Like you said, the favor was for camp 1 in that debate, with a little tweakin that idea could be awesome. I think that since it was the majority, we should be focusing on taking camp 1 and taking out the things that make it "too complicated" but keeping the parts we like.
You say that 1Z can do everything, but no it can't. It can't model caravans being taken and goods being stolen straight off the trade route, bc caravans act as % increases now and don't actually carry real resources. a "siege" is going to play out the exact same way as attacking a planet in Galciv worked. you post ships/ troops around the planet/ city, getting rid of the garrison and when a trade ship/ caravan comes by you destroy it. Galciv was fun, for a little while, but certainly not groundbreaking, and I was hoping that Elemental could have a little more depth than that....
Wouldn't you rather see an engaging story about how you, with no iron to your name, sacked an enemy caravan and made off with some iron ore, taking it back to your city and thus creating the swords you effectively stole from that enemy and use the swords against them? By the looks of it, you can't do that in beta 1Z.
Instead you can destroy their caravans by "blockading" a city and cut that city off from their iron and reduce the iron taken in by other cities by a certain % should you destroy 3 caravans in a row and force the abolishment of the trade route. sound familiar?? But forget getting any iron, and forget that satisfying feeling of doing so, bc eventually its all going to fall into a pattern and the games going to get boring and your going to throw in on a shelf because it's just like every other game and didn't try anything new because they gave into the "simplicity" crowd that is beating the simplicty for the sake of simplicity drum. It can be used both ways
Edit: We posted around the same time, so don't think i ignored you.. good points rishkith!
One of the big elements of the 1Z system that I think you are missing is the effectiveness of seiges and pillaging in the new system. Sure destroying a road will only get rid of their % bonus, but to have a city outisde their city walls cuts off all non-self sufficient function.
On a different note, people mentioned allowing global resources as long as using those resources increased the time needed to build the new structure. Well, I will propose that the speed such resources can travel would be 10 tiles in one turn. So the amount of tiles you are away from the nearest Resource Hub, divide by 10, and add that number of turns to the production. If less then one, its unaffected. This is the distance between the nearest building of City Wheel A and the nearest building of City Wheel B. From City Wall to City Wall (minimum distance) so expanding city size can decrease this distance.
Anyways, anything greater than 1 extra turn per 10 tiles away would (to me) seem overly silly, I would dare-say 10 tiles isn't even an arbitrary number. It seems to me to be the average distance between cities of a steadily expanding empire. If I said 20 tiles, it would be so weak a mechanic as to be laughable, and if I said 5 tiles, The time penalty would almost ALWAYS come into effect.
However, with 10 tiles, nearby cities can supply you well, and colonies take extra time to build things. Seems fair to me. You??
(taking 10 turns for a caravan to reach another city is like Marco Polo taking 4 years to reach China instead of 4 months)
You could do this in 1G....
(in fact depending on where roads where auto-routed to the trolls might do it automatically)
Telling me it is the same, only dumber is not a selling point for the new economic model. In fact technically because of the stockpiling of resources, the effect of sieges could be considered to be a lot less depending on how it is implemented.
Also, I consider all this "speed" of resources to be silly. It would all be fixed and "simpler" (since the Global resource crowd seems to dislike "complexity" but then fix the lack of realism with a Metric TON of complexity) if we went back to having local resources traded.
Lets try this a different way.
Frogboy, do you remember why you got rid of all those mana bars that we had in an earlier version of EWOM beta? Supposedly the overwhelming consensus was that people didn't want to deal with a handful of mana banks for casting spells.
Well now it has been replaced with resource banks that are EXACTLY the same. Instead of keep track of 1-5 mana banks. I'm keep track of 1 mana bank and what looks like 8+ resources.
If 5 mana banks were a bad idea (which I agree they were), how is having all these resources banks somehow a good idea?
I'm trying to see either the logic or the fun and failing to do either.
If you do not wish to see the forest for the trees then its not like anyone can show you.
Quoting Tasunke, reply 71If you do not wish to see the forest for the trees then its not like anyone can show you.
Hold on a second. If some wish to be in the forest picking wild flowers and ignoring the trees, then they to cannot be shown.
There has been a fundamental shift in E:WoM resource model. I assume everyone can agree that to be a truth.
Just because some folks prefer it that way does not permit "attitude" to step in and simply ignore the views of those who still aren't convinced.
If everyone isn't open to the views of others, as we hope the Dev are, and seem to be, for example, then just close the Forums, deploy the patches with changes as the few see fit, and hope to hell the final product sells enough copies to be profitable.
Thankfully, today is Thursday. Hopefully we will not get another "Not this Week" post from the Team. And wee will indeed see where things stand.
Personally, I want to hear more about the new Road Model that got mentioned in the 1Z Walk Through thread. But will have to wait until Beta 3 for that.
Well said John, well said.
Tasunke's not dismissing his point of view, he's saying they disagree and it's become obvious to him there's nothing he can do to change his mind... More or less, agree to disagree, or at least that's how it read to me.
Personally, I've gotta agree with Tasunke on this one. Haven't played yet, but the way it's handled now does seem like it's working better, particularly for the people actually playing it. There are bound to be people who don't like the system, as you can't please everyone, but it looks solid to me.
Who I'm really gonna agree with though, is you John... Puh-lease let it come out today! The wait is killin' me!
I'm really sick of this debate and wish we could reach compromise however we are both 'extream' in that one camp is full of people whom only want simplicity and i'm sorry but if you want that go play a arcade game. side Two is filled with people whom want alot of complexity *Me included* But i will admit this sometimes that is a bad thing.
Solution Combine two in a simple fashion by creating a complex echonomy but making it capable of being automated and delt with easily therefore those that want depth have it and those that want to ignore it can.
Same idea with city building gov's can be automated so long as they stay in the city and thusly it can build for its self and manage its self according to a simple diagram you lay out *build defensively build economically etc.*
I hope we can at least get a compromise because if the Dev's ignore side b entirely it will simply cause alot of infighting possibly canceled preorders etc. and none of this really works well for us as we all want to play the game and we all want to enjoy it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
