Resource system - suggestion to add rare resource types

In TA we had energy and metal, in SC something similar.

Will PA follow this 2-resource paradigm, or could it introduce new economic factors? For example, I suggest that some high tech or specialised units could require rare resources obtainable only by mining certain types of asteroids using advanced extractors.

This could be used in place of / augmentary to the tech tier system. It would give a great added reason to contest specific territory types, as a limiting factor to the production of experimental type units. It would also increase the rarity of these types of units, perhaps a solar system may only contain enough total (exhaustible) rare resources to construct 3-4 experimental units in a small (45 minute) skirmish game.

It would also add strategic decisions. Should you try to take the metal rich asteroid and rush light units to overwhelm your opponent quickly, or instead contest the e.g. "rare earth" or "dark matter" rich asteroid in the hope of constructing an overpowering experimental unit / interplanetary cannon in the later game?

Resources could also be locational e.g. certain structures could only be built directly onto "geo spot" type locations, which could be constrained to certain planet types.

Personally I would love to see a system with 2 common resources (say energy and metal) but also a number of rare resources, which are required singly or in combination to build the most advanced units and some lower tech but specialised units. Each resource should be unique to a certain planet/asteroid type e.g. gas giant, crystal, lava, silicate, ferrous, dark matter, methane ocean, ice, forest...

one of the more recent interviews talked about this and they were fairly adamant about keeping things two resource so that players aren't saddled with needless micro resource management.

however they also said they would keep their options open if they came up with something awesome (which is the basic theme of their design). well from memory but its probably true.

The problem with that is that people who are geographically closer to those resources have an unfair advantage.

For resources, just use the TA/Sup1 system and don't let exponential economic growth happen. I have a theory on how to do that, but I've already mentioned that on the forums a few pages ago so I won't drag it on further (unless I'm asked to).

If there were a number of rare resources obtainable from different planet types, then someone starting on an ice planet would have immediate access to one rare resource, and someone on a crystal planet would have access to another.

So long as it was balanced, I think this system would be really fun, and it would add another reason to scout in early game to see what sort of specialised units you might expect to be up against. It would also be a good reason to hold more territory and particularly different planet types.

Another advantage of this system is that it would help to keep the game varied - danger with only one faction and the same unit set every game is that it becomes a bit repetitive. If you had access to a slightly different unit set to use and fight against each game (depending on your/your opponent's starting resources) it would spice the game up a bit, for me at least.

Balanced: that magical word that implies everything works smoothly.

Saying "balance it" is one thing, doing it is another. If I were to take a leaf from my control systems course; often you can't control a plant just by choosing the right numbers, you'll need to design the controller specifically to fix instabilities.

I think most games reach a sort of balance after a while. Someone works out a way to abuse an OP unit / strategy, it gets nerfed in the next patch... the cycle of negative feedback will eventually normalise everything to an acceptable level.

That'll be the case no matter what, so I'd prefer the game to have more fun features rather than less on release.

To my mind asteroids are already behaving like a rare strategic resource.
Finding and defending one of the right size and location for building that game-ending KEW is going to be something players naturally compete for.
You can't just conjure one out of mass and energy like everything else after all.

That's true, the KEW is seriously awesome - but it shouldn't be the only way to win.

If we were playing and you controlled an asteroid suitable for using as a KEW, but I controlled two asteroids whose combined rare resources gave me the ability to build some sort of doomsday laser or whatever, we should both be scared.

That'd give us the option/need to contest multiple battlefields too (= more leeway for clever sneaky surprising strategies), rather than both of us just having to focus everything on a war of attrition for the KEW asteroid .

I doubt those KEW engines will come cheap, which means if your economy and skills are anywhere near comparably you may win by conventional means, a devastating salvo of nukes, or a Krogoth MkII (should such a thing make it in).

So I don't think there will be any lack of other viable paths to victory before we need to introduce more resources.

Plus if stretch-goal two is hit, and we end up with He3 slurping orbital refineries, perhaps that wold be a more logical path to enabling a giant death laser.
i.e. make the power requirements so astronomical there is no other realistic means of powering it.

Mm, good points. I'm still holding out for rare resources on the grounds that I think they'd be pretty cool, but I accept that the game will most likely still be plenties of awesome without them.

Fingers crossed for the stretch goals.

I think extra resource stockpiles with rare usage should be avoided at all costs. They overcomplicate things and I see an almost equivalent way to implement the stuff behind this idea.

Basically if there is a special resource make it somehow capturable and keep the utilisation of the resource out of the resource bars. So in effect there is a special resource but it unable to be stockpiled. There are a few ways to do this and here are some examples:

• For example there could be a powerful unit that requires unobtainium to build. To build it you have to build a special factory on unobtanium deposits. The factory can build the unit.
• In the He3 example there could be an energy structure which can only be built around gas giants. It's like a tidal generator but for certain planet types.

I'm wary of the unobtainium unit idea myself but at least there is a way to do it without adding resource stockpiles.

BulletMagnet, maybe just link to your econ idea?

Yes I'd be happy with that implementation.

The idea is to make ownership of different planet types provide different benefits. An advanced player may prioritise colonisation of particular planet types based on their overall game strategy.

So it's not just "oh a water planet I have to make water units there" but "what will owning a water planet do for my strategic plan and how much effort should I put into conquering that planet instead of this gas giant or these asteroids?".

This is actually something we've been giving a lot of thought to. Certainly energy/metal are going to be the main resources. But would it really be so bad to have "specialty" resources? For example Helium-3 in the atmosphere of gas giant that runs your specialty fusion reactors? This is an open question.

it would also be interesting to have asteroids, that have ressources, that you need for some superweapon, like rare element A for Experimental 1, element B for Experimental 2, element C for Experimental 3. I wouldnt suggest, that those Ressource would be needed to harvest, but you could only build that Experimentals with Metal and Energy, your standard ressources, while you have a special building on that asteroid, that provides this special needed ressource.

And if players dont want it, it could be deactivated, so that Ressources A, B and C dont exist and you can build Experimental 1, 2 & 3 without them

Asteroids do have a specialty resource you need to build your superweapons... they called it "the asteroid".

Yup.

While I like what the infinite energy / metal has to offer, I don't think many people were honestly fans of what this could mean from a turtling standpoint. TA could get pretty bad, and with the fusion reactors and moho mines, it wasn't uncommon to eventually reach a critical mass where you had thirty engineers spitting out T2 units in seconds flat and you still weren't making a dent in your endless resource income.

Limited or special resources have the distinct advantage of forcing players to move out to advance which is a good thing. Turtle-heavy games aren't fun for anyone.

While controlling the asteroid superweapons (which as they admit isn't a fully thought-out concept yet) might be the benefit of grabbing an asteroid, what about the water and gas giant planets? Why would a player want to give up his terran planet and then invest heavily in grabbing a water world and building up a navy to control it, and why would an enemy player want to take over that planet, rather than simply blast it to smithereens?

That has less to do with the resource system and more to do with how Metal Makers are balanced, in SupCom FA Mass Fabricators received a huge(but needed) nerf, and suddenly map control became important in order to get Mass, there was no way you could turtle into one or two bases and get enough mass compared to the guy who was able to take most of the mass on the map.

Mike

What if they have too many space nukes to disintegrate the asteroid by the time you get your KEW together? It's nice to be able to pick your flavour of annihilation. Rare harvestable resources would give you options.

The other way to do it (not mutually exclusive) i.e. localised resource spots with buildings that can be placed only on that spot would also give some nice possibilities.

Some suggestions in that vein:

• He3 cloud banks for special fusions
  
  Methane lakes for napalm flamethrowers
  
  Silicon outcrops for advanced radar systems
  
  Geo spots as in TA (efficient mid price power plants)
  
  Flawless natural crystal deposits for quantum teleportation devices
  
  Glaciers to ultracool powerful shield generators
  
  Obsidian patches for special anti-air flechette weapons
  
  Antimatter deposits for a black hole missile launcher
  
  Rare earth deposits on comets for a large area EMP burst weapon
  
  Tar pits for robot octopus arms to pull unfortunate small units into the pit
  
  Magnetic leyline confluxes on ferrous planets for a slow/disruptor area weapon
  
  Fault lines in arid desert planets for earthquake machines
  
  Dark matter asteroids for a gravity burst weapon that pancakes units in a smallish but precise area on other planets

Etc. (could have loads of design fun with this kind of thing).

A simple way to make water planets attractive to take is their relative location. The whole Goldilocks zone in astronomy, they wont be close, or far, just in the middle.

Also something to consider, there are some chemical structures that form only in the presence of water, like the specific things that NASA are looking for on Mars. So certain special resources appear only on water planets.

Also, best chemical rocket fuel we have we can make from water, all you need is lots of energy to split it. A comet would be better than this, but comets might be a bit too far away.