Today we’re talking about different ways we can streamline the creation of resources. A long time ago, we wanted to put in a system where I could mine ore which could be turned into ingots and so on. Basically, one resource being turned into another resource.
I'd like to avoid only having a single town in which it's feasible to train units too, just makes it dull.
- You build a mine that produces X ore a turn, with ore being a local, non-accumulating resource.- You can then build a smelter (that requires N ore and produces N metal), a blacksmith that produces tools (takes N ore and gives a production bonus), a tinker (that takes N ore and gives research), and/or some specialized crafter that creates metal based trade goods (taking N ore and increasing gold income from the city).The same could be done for other resources. Also, some conversions might not be final and allow for another step. The more buildings it takes to get a final product should have greater returns, as they cost more time, resources, and take tiles that could be used for other things. Naturally, in the base game there should be no meaningless conversions, only those that either give a tangible benifet or open up additional options.One other thing that could be done with raw resources (wood, stone, ect) would be use them for upkeep for some buildings (e.g. stone fortafications could take stone to maintain).
Right - without local resources traded between cities, refining gets pretty boring. If Stardock wants to make a move back towards local resources of any sort, I agree that we're looking at a lot of new possibilities, but I honestly don't expect that to happen. I'm just trying to think how we could work new resources refined from existing ones into the global resource system, and there just doesn't seem to be any point to it.
On the other hand, your suggestion of transferring between existing resources (like selling ore for gold) is a different matter and an interesting idea regardless of global/local resources. Yeah, it does add some flavor if you can only create an ore-selling building in a mining city, but practically it amounts to the same thing wherever you make the building. Either way, it's another option for using the resources we already have, which I think would benefit Elemental more than adding new resources.
I actually suggested the exact opposite once, black market buildings that can procure resources for you at a cost, i.e. provide a trickle of ore at a high gold cost. Granted for balance reasons you should be trading at a loss whether you're buying or selling ore, and trading with other kingdoms should be a better option if it's available, it's just another way to customize your kingdom and make the most of whatever random resources you end up with.
Well, for me rigth now, I don't see the point in refining something into something to make exactly the same weapon/armor/amulet/etc than we have rigth now. I totally agree that, if you have, said a blacksmith, that you can refine the ore and make some iron to increase the strengh of the BASE weapon then I would totally agree. If you want to streamline just to streamline, said to make the claymore, you now need a ore pit, a smelter to refine the ore into a ingot and then a blacksmith to craft your claymore I would say no. Like RikazeMA said, if it just slow the pace of the game to end up with the exact same thing then I say no BUT if it add something new to the weapon AND we can CHOOSE to use some refine material or not, then it's ok for me .
Maybe there should be a transportation cost imbedded in the cost of units. Allow them to be buily anywhere, but cheaper where the resources are?
I'm not against the idea of this kind of tiered approach to resources so long at it leads to compelling and interesting choices and not just another layer of tedious micromanagement.
I don't really understand this thread. This post is cryptic. Are you trying to streamline, or make it more complicated? Are we really talking about bringing back all the advanced economic stuff that was rejected originally? That seems to be where everybody went immediately (we do have a group who likes those sorts of games, for sure).
Given the limited resources available, I'm not sure this is the place to direct a lot of attention. MoM doesn't have a super complicated economy, and it turned out pretty well. AoW's economy is really there to support the magic and tactical combat, rather then to be the focus itself.
Maybe we should ask the question first: what is the focus of Elemental supposed to be? Is it a complex city/empire builder that happens to have adventurers, war, and magic as support? If so, then great! If not, why do we want an economic system that would consume so much more time and focus then whatever point of the game is supposed to be the focus?
I can tell you that if the game is intended to be about all powerful immortal Wizards in a magical war for control of the world, the economy is there to support the magic. This kind of super complicated production system would take away from that.
In brief, NAY to refined resources! I am not saying it can not work, I just don't want to waste my playing time pining over increasing the rate at which my materials are converted into finished goods, or my metals into iron or mithril ingots, or precious stones (there are four examples of potential refined resources in my plug against them! Keep them in mind in case this refined resource system is implemented!)
Keep the focus on the unfolding of Elemental's story!
I don't have a problem with the current resource system. Instead of diversifying resource types, tie specialized, advanced units to narrative events and a few additional advanced buildings available through the technology tree. It's like the difference between modern man and the ancients; we live on the same planet, we have essentially the same resources (notable exceptions being coal, uranium, etc) but the way we use those resources is more developed. I'm not saying do away with all special resources, but they should be special. Here's kind of what I have in mind:
In-game example of narrative-focused advancement:
An adventurer stumbles upon an ancient Dwarven tome (I know there aren't Dwarves in Elemental, but you get the gist) of swordsmithing. Upon returning this tome to one of the nation's cities with a library and blacksmith (library to translate ancient Dwarven, blacksmith to experiment with the designs), the nation gains a new, advanced sword with which to equip its units.
In-game tech tree example where a new building is unlocked:
After researching Quantum Ether Dynamics your nation has discovered a way to produce half-magical, half-mortal units called Demi Essences. This adds a new base-unit type to the nation's unit designer, and Demi Essence units can be trained in any city containing a Quantum Ether Infuser building. The Demi Essence units wouldn't require any fancy refined resource. They would be paid for out of the currently available resources, balanced of course for playability and enjoyment.
In the event that a new structure is warranted to reasonably access a new development, the building alone should be the only requisite for production of the advanced unit/game effect, in addition to whatever amount of gold, metal, food, or material. This would lend itself to the specialization of cities that has been mentioned with the new population-resource model.
I'm hoping Elemental goes the way of elegance instead of the too well-worn path of needless complexity. More closely binding the resource system to the narrative would be the way to go.
Just my two cents. I will continue to love the game (more so, of course, after 1.1).
As was raised in Beta, some of the ideas that stem from the concept of Resource Refinement simply make for a more obtuse game, rather than a better game. While it's more realistic to mine Metal, then Refine it into Steel, then Imbue the Steel with whatever Shard you have under your control to recieve Elemental Steel, and then use it to build Armour or Swords that use the Elemental Steel and then Train a Unit that uses the Elemental Steel Armour or Sword, it doesn't make the game more fun to play for what it is - it's transforms Elemental: War of Magic into a game where you'd spend more time focusing on resources than on, you know, the War that uses them.The global resource pool creates the "Obtain Resource to Unlock [Unit]" game model, which works pretty well and helps keep the game from progressing at a snails pace. The Population changes that are coming in 1.1 are going to force City Specialisation enough to promote some of the ideas people have listed in this thread, while still enabling us to avoid the rather boring 'One City Produces all my Units' type of gameplay that non-global resources promotes.As has already been mentioned, the concept of using Resource Refinement Buildings as a Tech Unlock plays pretty well. Build a Metal Refinery, for example, to 'Unlock' Refined Steel, which you don't Stockpile - it simply takes 2 Steel Units to Produce Refined Steel, for example. Refined Steel is very expensive, but produces much better Weapons and Armour. This allows the Faction that has Refined Steel to produce a small number of very strong Units. Ensuring that the Steel Refinery is a Rare Tech avoids the 'MUST GET REFINED STEEL' gameplay model that could erupt from this. If you don't get a Steel Refinery, you simply build more, cheap Troops to overwhelm the few, strong Troops that Refined Steel allows. Balance occurs when both armies cost the same.The idea that each game plays out differently is something that Elemental has that Civilisation doesn't; in Civilisation, everyone ends up exactly the same, and there is little to no differential personality. This type of "Rare Tech" Refinement adds another layer to that.My two cents.
It is a strategy game. Strategy = thinking. Adding someting else that a player can leverage to gain an advantage if they bother to think it through is therefore a good thing.
It is also a 4X game, and the 3rd X is eXploit. eXploit is to gather resources and maximize the effeciancy of there use. If Frogboy means adding more choices to shaping your economy to maximize output and not just adding complexity then it most definately belongs.
More choices that can give an advantage = good. More stuff that gives no advantage but makes the game complex = bad.
To begin with, what's "ingot(s)"?
Maybe Master of Magics transmuting would do? If on a 1 for 4 or 5 cost then sure. Could add a faction trait called "Transmute" that increased the trade ratio.
Another option could be like the Market from HoMM. The more of the buildings you had the better exchange rates.
Whatever you decide upon, make it work.
An ingot would be a bar of metal that has been smelted and is ready for use.
*sigh*
No it's not. Simply piling more stuff on doesn't make a better game. It just makes it a bigger game.
It's better only if it supports what the focus of the game is. A game like Anno 1404 is focused on production chains and trade. Grafting a super complicated combat system onto that wouldn't make the game better, it'd just take attention away from what the game is actually about.
Similarly, something like Sins is focused on ship battles. The economy is pretty simple, deliberately. It's there to support the focus of the game: ship combat. Making a complex economy that required a lot of thinking would actively make the game worse by detracting from the real focus. (AoW 2 was similar, the economy is really just there to give you units to fight your wars, and cities to expand magical influence. Warfare and magic are the real focus of the game.)
Elemental doesn't actually have a focus right now, and that's one of the biggest problems with it. It tries to do everything and doesn't do a great job at any of them. Simply throwing a more complicated production model in because "thinking is good" isn't how you design a coherent game.
However that does not mean adding more stuff cannot make the game better. It just needs to be well done. Adding conversions for nothing but the sake of realism would not be good, but adding more MEANINGFUL details to city build that allow a player to fine tune production adds depth.
It is a matter of how it is done and how well it is implemented.
Edit:
As to what Frogboy means, given that he says "A long time ago" I take it to mean he would like to hear ideas for how to improve the resource system.
I agree 100% with your thoughts with the current setup. There is too much going on, but nothing great. Make the actions simple and rewarding.
Diablo was that type of game. It was fun and the magic system worked. For me its not about growing my city. its more about the battles and the magic.
Lets fix the current problems with the game. Then move on to make it better. Theres alot to improve on and Derek will make that happen.
I`m excited about 1.1 and look to the future with Derek at the controls.
Freebird out of the birdcage for the moment.
I understand yours and others opposition to the tweaking of this mechanic at the moment, but with 1.1 less than a week away, I wouldn't be too worried about this mechanic going in any time soon.
Rather, I think the purpose here is for Stardock to open up the floor to the players, as a means of re-evaluating their current system and improving upon it, as well as finding work for specialists to do in the event that there's not enough. Did no one consider, with the current building-set we have available to us, especially for Empires, that the very idea of Specialists is mostly moot? It's quite possible that in order to get them all used, you'll need several highly specialized cities. If we were to do a head-count of buildings currently in the game that could require specialists, and compare that to the number of citizens we're likely to have off of X Number of cities, I think we'd find that specialists would always be in abundance. Particularly if 1 Citizen = 1 Specialist. A level five city, by itself, would support over 2000 Specialists. That's 2000 tiles of Non-House improvements. I dunno about you guys, but I don't think there's been a time where I've actually had that many non-house improvements, even on Large Map games with 10 other Realms and having conquered two or three of them. We're going to need cities that basically spam a certain improvement or two to get them all used, I.E., spamming Library's/Archivist's in a city next to a Lost Library.
And the thing about 1.1 is just that, they are making an attempt at fixing the current problems with the game, and will continue to do so, but in doing so, they may end up creating more problems, which will need to be fixed consequently. Particularly with moving to a new system like this, it's imperative that we get it fleshed out so that there aren't problems. The first step is concepts, which is what we're discussing here.
On that note, I do agree that the idea of refining materials, given the current Global-Pool system, will probably end up being more trouble than it's worth. Abstracting the refining however, given that most everything about resource management is already abstracted, would work in theory, and probably in practice too. I just don't like the missed opportunity to do something genuinely fun and interesting.
On abstracting it, it would go a long way towards making some of the more ridiculous unit costs make sense. If I'm recalling correctly, it takes something like 6 Metal to 'create' a Great Scimitar. It's a powerful, '4th Tier' weapon, again if memory serves, at least in the Empire Conquest Tree. It has 14 Attack.
What if instead though, with the idea of abstracting refinement, it would end up costing 4 Metal, one for each tier before it, and the tier including it. A simple 'Iron Great Scimitar' would then have an attack value of, arbitrarily speaking, 8 Attack. Then, with the 'Iron Smelter' improvement, we gained the ability to upgrade our Iron weaponry to Steel. So our 'Steel Great Scimitar' would cost 50% extra Metal for a total of 6 Metal, and gain a similar increase in Attack, bumping it up to 12 Attack. Further after that could be a 'Ventri Great Scimitar,' costing 9 Metal, and giving 18 Attack. (I'm proposing that the costs be additive, but it could work as a multiplier instead.)
The numbers are all arbitrary of course. It would need to be balanced properly, but you get the point. It -could- go further than that, and that would still make the Global Resource Pool work, without adding a bunch of hard-to-manage resources to said pool, as well as allowing progression. I know this idea was pretty much pitched already, but I thought I'd flesh it out with an example as well.
The problem here is, with the current Abstract system, you never need more than one of a given 'Refinement Building' in your Realm at any time, unless you want a backup in case a city gets taken.
I do agree with the idea of being able to trade excess resources away independent of other Realms, but at a penalty in relation to such trading.
I may be off the right path here.. but conceptually this sounds to me like a similar system the original game "Colonization" had.
You could put population onto forests to get Wood, you could then put population onto Lumberyards that makes planks of wood, that you could use to build buildings, or ships etc. Some resources (like Iron Ore), could be converted into Tools at a smithy, which could later (if required) be converted into Muskets.
Is this the concept that is being investigated here? If I am understanding correctly.. I don't mind that method.. sure it took a bit more management, but I found it an interesting system.
Ummm no.
Sure it SOUNDS cool, and in fact some games have done it. But was it done well, and/or did it add to the fun of the game? A few of the first posters in this thread hit it on the head. "more complication", "frustrating". etc...
Here is my thoughts on this. Basically in an action rpg (think diablo or hellgate) game they take some "garbage" and break it down into components, then they take those components with other components and combine them to make such-n-such item, or proc for said item. This is kind of what you want to implement except in resources, correct? One resource gets mod'd into something else and has more utility, correct? Ok, sure, you aren't breaking down 'greens' or other useless junk but you still combine something into another. Here is the first problem, those games do that to BREAK THE MONOTONY of grinding in a dungeon. By definition (well, my definition at least) a strategy game should never be a grind, or monotonous. If so, then it isn't strategy, it is mindless automation. Think 'Doom'. Now they do the same type of mechanic in certain MMOs, and it always works same way I just stated and again, is put in to break the monotony.
In certain strategy games, (I forget which ones... settlers maybe? I played so many strat games, I forget which was which) You have had to get a field, grow cotton, turn it into wool, make that into clothes, sell them on the open market etc... That worked fine in the games I played like that, because the OPEN MARKET was part of the game. Usually there is a huge trade system involved, and this game doesn't have it. Nor do I want a trade system in it (well at least not until we get the important things implemented and fixed.)
So to sum up, if you are only including this new mechanic to add complexity, I think it is a mistake, being as the game is slow enough as it is. If you are adding it to creat a new type of "game within a game" like the above examples, I think it is not needed, and can not be implemented without a whole new can of wyrms being opened.
I am all for tweaking the resources a bit (more crystal, less iron, get rid of materials....and for heyzeus sake, add some elementium resource, lol) but I don't think this is the time in the games evolution to implement a new game mechanic.
~end of 2cents~
Again, it's extremely doubtful, (Read: 100% Certain,) that whatever mechanic this is, won't be implemented any time soon. Honestly, this whole discussion could be moot, and Brad could've just made the post to reminisce about the good ol' crazy-broken Beta days.
If it's not moot, then it's a perfectly valid discussion, one we should be having. I would doubt a mechanic like this would be implemented before 1.13, at least, which could be many weeks, or even months down the road, depending on how 1.1 goes. Regardless of the time-frame, it's important to get the concepts of the idea, and the concepts of the related mechanics, down-pat before trying to implement them, so that implementation does go smoothly.
In short, nothing in relation to this is being included yet that we know of, just hold yer horses on the 'Not right now,' thing, because you're getting your wish.
I'm not against this, per se, I just don't see where it goes.
So I can turn resource A into resource B. So what? What can I do with resource B instead of just collecting enough to turn it into resource C?
Is this the prelude to an actual item creation system? Is there some new economy system we're not being exposed to yet that would need this kind of system to make work?
Can we combine resources? Will the resources unlock items - like if we want Uber Sword of Pwning +1337, we'll need to have resources A, C, D, H in certain amounts and the only way to get H is to combine B, E, and F?
I guess, I can't tell from the snippet where the hope is for the concept to go or how it will change the mechanics in the game.
Will we need buildings? Or magic? Or champions with certain skills? Or all of the above? Can we do it with food? Combine two or more foods to make another even better food?
Edit: What is "economy camp 1" I read in some of the earlier posts?
It is how it use to be. It is thought to be a start for a discussion on how to improve the economy.
no offense, I appreciate your reply, and you are definitely correct about the implementation time line. But read my post and yours again....
OP asks a question. I chime in with a 21 line reply about why I do not agree with it. and you reply to ONLY the last 2 sentences. And one was a sig. LOL. Not busting your butt, but I think the two main points I bring up are far more important as to why I DO NOT agree with the tweak. And the last comment about "not the right time" is kinda just icing on the cake. I would be interested to know if you agree or disagree with my opinions on this mechanic in other games, and if it has a place here. If you disagree, please explain. If you agree... then you are a genius, like all who agree with me. LOL. (just kidding)
Oh, wow, someone who's actually interested in my opinion. First time for everything I guess.
I only replied to the last two sentences simply because I thought that it was that part of your post the fallacy was contained in. Using that as a reason, or "Icing on the cake," as you put it, does not add to the constructive nature of your other comments, merely suggests that you're opposed to the idea strictly to be opposed, with contradicts the rest of your reply, which I found to be a valid argument.
As to whether or not I agree, that doesn't really matter, except to you maybe. We're all entitled to state our opinions. My opinion on the subject is, if you don't agree, and you have a good reason, your voice should be heard and considered. If you do agree, then it's most useful to (attempt to) spend your time coming up with creative, constructive ideas to the improvement of the mechanic in question, and solutions to any problems that may present themselves. (I say attempt to because I fail at most of those points.)
If you must have an answer, I disagree with your reply. I think adding complexity, if done in a well thought-out, additive manner, (Read: Improves the Game Experience,) can only be a good thing in regards to this particular game, which, pardon my rudeness, feels dumb enough as it is. Anything else is obviously added complexity for no benefit, hence the idea that whatever it is that we add, it needs to be something that impacts the game in a meaningful, fun way. I do agree that, at present, adding anything this complex seems like folly when what we already have still needs fixing, but I certainly don't feel it hurts the process in any way to be considering future potentials for development of the game and its concepts, current or otherwise.
I also do not feel that this is a mechanic simply for 'Adding Complexity' or a 'Game within a game,' as you put it. I certainly agree that this mechanic would have the danger of becoming such a thing, if implemented poorly and done without a great deal of thought and care. I also feel that Stardock, with our support and inspiration, is perfectly capable of creating this mechanic in a way that is relevant to the game, as well as meaningful and fun. When I really think about it, none of the things currently in the game aren't relevant. While many features were poorly implemented, plain broken, and still need work, none of the aforementioned features and mechanics are so far gone that there is simply no hope for them. Well, okay, maybe that's not entirely true... Stats need a total overhaul in how they work, To-Hit and To-Damage rolls, which are already getting a re-work, desperately need fixing, and the whole Caster-Pumping-Intelligence thing is kind of ridiculous, but they're already altering all that stuff. And when you look at it, they're not actually throwing out the original mechanics, just completely re-balancing them.
In this same vein is the new Specialists function. This is definitely going to add more complexity to the game, as well as including a greater level of management, but I feel this mechanic can only add to the game, and while it may not be fleshed out in its entirety yet, I only see it doing good things for the game, so long as any additional ideas are tempered in rational, meaningful, fun ways. Otherwise, it's a poorly thought-out idea and Stardock should not be putting it into our game.
This.
While I love resource chains in Settlers or Anno I think it won't be fun in Elemental. Of course everything depends on implementation but the 'urge' to make everything a global resource will make the chains management plainly boring I guess.
I think the game need more diversity in many aspects. To make it richer and just funnier to play. For example there is the dynasty element and I think it could be pretty unique if the devs would work on it. And if while talking about resources. I wish they had more meaning in determining the city location. That's great in Civ. If I build city near the food resource it will develop faster and grant the population increase. If I build near the mountains I get the production bonus. The cities built in EWoM are basically the same because of 'all global' thing and that's boring. And they are developing at the same pace - apart of some prestige buildings that can influence this.
I think this thread is slowly finding a well know divide in the 4x/city building game community. On one side you have those individuals who enjoy deep infrastructure creation as in Settlers, and on the other, you have those individuals who enjoy well defined easily mix/maxed singular structures as in civ or galciv. In the end it is hard to please both sides, those looking to simply build a singular structure with well defined properties tend to find the other side fairly tedious. Now, there are those who are in the middle, like myself, who like the change of maintaining an infrastructure, yet without it becoming incredibly complex. While I think there are many interesting ideas which could come from resource chaining, I think that it would be better done as a mechanic of the system than by forcing the player to manage each cities buildings to tailor to a specific resource chain. That is.
Game mechanic:
Resource X + Resource Y = +Z to some unit stat
Improvement Chain:
Resource X -> Xsmith -> Resource A
Resource Y -> Ysmith -> Resource B
Resource A + Resource B ->Zsmith -> +z bonus
Personal I find the game mechanic aspect to be simpler and requiring of less tedium on the part of the player, as the example of an improvement chain is far simpler than would probably be promoted. Consider the example of Settlers, where 6 or 7 buildings are necessary to even build a single unit.
The current challenge with resources is two fold. Firstly, getting a resource and its mine is all that is required to gain a boost to your income of a particular resource. Due to this, city spam becomes an attractive way to quickly bolster your resources, considering the large time commitment making higher level cities, Secondly, as the game progresses and resources are flooding into your empire, the game lacks any form of resource sink to keep an empire from amassing incredible amounts of any given resource. In the late game, most resources are so plentiful that their diplomatic value becomes 0 and resource trades become impossible, especially on harder difficulties where the AI can accumulate vast amounts of most resources. Therefore, how does one effectively overcome this issues seems to be the real question at hand.
One idea to handle this would be infrastructure chaining. That is a mine creates some raw resource, lets use metal for an example. Our Metal mine creates X raw metal a turn, and is collected by the controlling city. This city could then be required to be a smelter which turns our raw metal into refined metal which is then used by all the cities to create units/building/etc. In fact our chain could be elongated to have a blacksmith be able to turn the steel into special weapons granting a bonus to units built in the city with the blacksmith. And so on and so on. This idea would could be interesting but the long and more complex the chain, the more some players will simply find the game more tedious.
Another idea is utilize current game mechanics to promote city growth and strategic city building. The first thing would be to make most buildings cost some kind of upkeep and add more than gold to the upkeep of units. Currently, most buildings are essentially free and easy mass build as the game progresses and gildar is the only resource whose income needs to be managed due to unit costs. These costs would not be some kind of magic that the player has no control over, like corruption in the civ series, but would be clear and based upon the strategy of the player. The Second thing would be to make the income of mines based upon the size of the controlling city and require specialists to utilize them. A level 1 city might only produce 1 metal per specialist running the mine, where as a level 5 city would produce 5 metal per specialist. In this way, a player would be promoted towards larger more meaningful cities for their infrastructure, while placing outposts to secure resources for future use. This would also promote the player to spread out their cities as city clustering would reduce the ability of a level 5 city from maximizing the output of resources. Then lastly, if one desires to add some kind of special unit upgrades based up resources, improvements could be create which require a city to have a certain type of direct resource income - like a mine in the city's control. This way, you could say that a level 3 citiy with a metal mine can build a blacksmith which increases the production rate of units built in the city, or a level 5 city with an air shard can build troops with air weapons.
Obviously, I am a fan of the second choice, as implement simple game mechanics would be simpler and would not require the player to memorize resource trees and manage a complex infrastructure.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
