Should the game have resource limit?

Well since there is no adjacency in PA, resource storage will only serve as storage, as opposed to in SC, where it was pretty much exclusively used to get more resources from resource producing buildings via adjacency bonuses.

Provided that storage is cheap and effective enough (see TA, you could build a very large energy storage for about the cost of two solar panels), it allows you to prevent the problem of not having enough total mass/energy for a problem. Obviously in highly competitive play we wouldn't see any used, as pros tend to not have any excess resources being produced.

I do like the idea of having energy storage in units like artillery though, I believe TA did that, when your commander dies (if you didn't have assassination mode on for whatever reason), your resource reserves would be way down, since the commander was actually where all your mass/energy at the start of the game was stored =P

Absolutely not...

You look at the games that have finite resources (starcraft 2) and see what happens if the resources are exhausted without a clear winner yet being forged and you end up with the most ridiculous endings to matches.

A far better system is just to focus on strategic diversity and present players with a large enough array of units and such a high unit count that you don't get these "stalemates".

Resource limits are not awesome. if its not OVER 9000 its not awesome. I like DBZ style of limits where you can keep going and going and the more you have in storage the more you have as a buffer. the bigger buffer the more flexible your economy is.

When I played Supcom (which I mainly played for the campaign so I can blow stuff up with T3 tech mind you) I always built energy storage for 2 reasons mainly:

1) It created a momentary buffer when something went wrong and my energy economy started tanking because I was running too much stuff at once.

2) Due to adjacency bonuses I would rather build 16 energy storage around a T3 power plant increasing its energy production by +2000, then build 16 Pgens and get +160 energy income. Same with T2 power, building 8 energy storage nets an additional +250 power, instead of +80 from 8 pgens.


If we are going to have storage, then we should have adjacency bonuses tied to that storage, otherwise the storage only serves the first purpose which will eventually vanish once a person gets a good grasp of the economic system.

They've basically said that they have no plans for adjacency bonuses. And honestly there will always be a point for storage. No one is so perfect that they can keep the bar between the max and the min all the time if they've only got a storage of 2,000 and they're building units which cost 200,000.... As your income grows, your storage needs to grow proportionally otherwise you're going to run into problems.

Also it's important to have metal storage so that you can mass produce armies in RESPONSE to things. It's kind of a buffer. Lets say you have 100 T1 factories, if you only have 1000 metal storage, you're going to run out of metal real fast building out of all of them. So you'll want storage up to like 50,000 metal, so when you decide to build an army, you can do it quickly.

Because you don't ALWAYS want to be building something. Sometimes you're not sure what to be building because you haven't scouted your opponent recently. That's the kind of time where it's OK to let your economy store stuff. Better to have extra go into storage than to be forced to spend it on random things.

I'm really surprised that the majority actually want a resource cap. I thought the epic-ness (read near infinity) scale of this game was the whole damn point?

The endless build of energy and metal would be a fun toy to mess around with

What's the point of having 1,000,000 Metal in storage?

I'd rather have 1,000,000 Metal worth of Tanks instead. Set a cap, ensure there is the option to increase storage(either via a dedicated structure or giving certain structures/units a small amount of storage) and BAM, done.

Mike

That's not what this thread is about. Also whether finite resources are bad or not is a matter of preference, nothing else.

Because unused resources lying around doing nothing is the epitome of epicness and truly stunning to behold.

I think a resource storage is good, because the concept of having a finite storage for resources is something we are actually more familiar with, than with the concept of an unlimited storage.

Metal in tanks is better than metal in storage i agree.

I'm not really understanding what people want here.

Having a resource cap means that the resources from a planet will get drained after a while and you won't be able to get anything anymore. At least thats how I'm understanding it.
Now, if you have a global economy then that could work out since you would be able to inhabit more planets and get more resources.

But what happens when you run out of everything? You are forced to end the game one way or another. That's slightly idiotic(but it does make sense, even our planet will run out of juice one day)

Having storages for metal and energy is alright but then make it so you can gain much more resources than you can spend, being forced to put it all in storage and use it later when you pump out all resources from the planet.
Something like having a 10000 cap on both metal and energy and then +xxxxx what is in the storage.
Basically making storages one of the most important structures in the game(almost more important than the commander himself).
That would also make sense since resources are everything, without them you can't do anything so the players would be required to think and tactically use the resources that they have to destroy the opponent before those resources vanish.

I don't know is it possible but if this kinda thing gets implemented, make sure that both sides on the field have enough resources to fight multiple hours(in real time). That way epic battles may get an absolutely epic ending.

I think it's about storage.

Simply put, not having a cap would lead to newer players trying to play the game like starcraft or battle for middle earth - by only spending what they currently have, as opposed to what they will have
And then they'd lose, so yeah
Creating facilities to spend your income fast enough is part of the challenge =P

ARE you F KIDDING ME? 50/50????? what kind of a circus are we running here, just get the hell out starcraft 2 jerks!

I voted "yes" to PA having a resource limit.

I think resource limits create a sense of urgency and responsibility in PA players. Rather than callously throwing units in futile assaults against enemy positions because they know they can (thanks to limitless resources), good players know they have to be smart and judicious in their attacks since their resources (war materiel) is limited from the start.

Not only will this bring into play strategic considerations and fighting over limited resources, it will also effectively help bring games to a close rather than an endless game that's stalemated by huge economies.

FYI - for the record, I am not a "starcraft jerk". I'm a fervent fan of TA and SCFA (2 games that could have been better than they were if they had included resource limits).

I voted with "no" already the number of metel pionts reduces the ammount of recoursses which can earned at one time.

It is also a problem when the resource limit is very small. In age of empires I often already run out of places from where I could get gold before I have just entered the Imperial age.
Which also meant that I had to cut down all forest on the map to sell the logs on the market what were and is ineffincent.

In addition to this the resoures will may end when the battle goes for a hundred years...

I would be okay if the resourse cap in the ground is very high or optional may be the options of a rich , regular or burnt out planet.

In addition to there should never be a limit how many recources you can get at a single time it oly should depent on your ammount of storages, generators, and mass extractors.


With friendly regards Paul von Hindenburg

It was a poorly worded poll.

Was it finite resources on the map, or finite storage?

agree with BulletMagnet, i dont get the question actually :?

I'm surprised that nobody speak about converters which convert energy to mass. Because basically with converters and infinite growing of the energy production, the result is worst than an unlimited ressource, is actually an infinite acceleration of the ressource production.
(am i clear ?)

I dont know if people here played Balanced Annihilation but it was quiet common that exponential ressource production leads to absurd game ending. sending 500 bombers or building krogoth like peewee...

You still have limited space and your opponents are trying to hinder you from.

FA shrinked that growth due to vast ammount of energy to earn mass from generators more than a tech 2 generator is able to offer you.

I keep your thoughts in mind.

Thankfully it looks like PA won't have metal generators, thus no infinite exponential economy.

Which leads to a much better balance at end game in my opinion.