Resource system - suggestion to add rare resource types

Oh, that is a good point. Didn't consider that. Would be stupid to lose your special unit, which you needed to defend yourself and lose the game thanks to that. Or just never be able to build stuff, because the necessary planet got destroyed. That is indeed stupid.

But having different types of special spots might be interesting. Better resource fields (more energy/mass) or special production spots sounds good to me. I'm not sure about special spots for buildings like radar or shields. They should not be spots for better defence, because that would make turtling there a must have. We want more aggressive gameplay, not massive turtlefests, don't we?

For asteroids...I'm not sure if I like the special resource feature there. On the one hand, it forces you to decide what to do with that asteroid and that is interesting. On the other hand...we want planet battles and not space fighting? You need to focus the fights somewhere and having special spots all over the place might make it hard to concentrate on any point. You have to take care of asteroids anyway, because they are welcomed resource spots and potential dangerous weapons of planetary destruction. If you make them even more important, it might make planets pretty boring.

That's a valid point. But putting rare spots only on planets an moons makes it easy just to throw them around. I think it has to hurt you somwhere (or is just making them expensive enough?).

But I'm fine with your thought. It really would make asteriods too important.

I see some of this discussion missing the fact that as mentioned for example the gas giants and He3 these resources, even if depleteable, don't end up functioning like resources, the end result is they act like terrain. which makes them just as useful but also simplifies economy management to the level of metal/energy again, which is desireable. This comes from the fact that, say region A has tungsten, the map makes you aware of this, and mass extractor type B produces more mass but needs tungsten, we can reduce the scenario back down to mass extractor -> needs mass point, with the addition of different mass points. similar when applied to the power from He3, generator requires He3, so can only be build here, similar to hydrocarbon plants . therefore this can be implemented, add some depth, use an existing framework we have seen before. AND still leave unit costs and such in metal/energy as the resource that is managed, since these special ones are unmanaged, they exist or do not we don't worry about rate of income and rate of payment.

I think making these spots more vulnerable in the map design would be the best solution.

Making them more expensive would just delay the exploitation, but at a certain point of the game, it wouldn't matter so much anymore. You probably have some spare resources, so just grab the special spots instantly for more gains. Before that point it might be risky, but once you did it, you have a great advantage. It's last a fast expension in Starcraft games. But that doesn't change the gameplay, it's just a strategical decision how to play the game.

If you make them hard to defend from a landscape point of view, you had to concentrate and invest resources continuously. It's more like the double mineral spots in Starcraft2. You really want that stuff, but the spots were hard to defend and easy to scout. If you know there are these spots around, you want to find them for yourself or at least keep the enemy from getting them. And if you see your enemy go for it, this is certain fighting potential. You gotta stop the enemy, or his eco boost will make you suffer later.

And you could find logical explanations how these spots work in the game logic.

Theoretically then, from what everyone has argued, we could have a variety of rare, specialised recourse points available to cover a variety of scenarios on different terrain types (aquatic geothermal vents & tidal power extractors, gas-giant He3 mines and storm-turbines, ice-word crystal mines, etc).

A second type (if we can have everything we want) can give production bonuses, enhanced radar range, lower interplanetary launch energy costs, etc, for appropriate structures built there.

Further, as a third option, you can then also have hybrid plants that give both minerals and energy in some combination.

For example; magma filtration systems placed on volcanoes (causing eruptions if they get blown up since we're shooting for awesome), giving lots of energy and some metal.


These all then boil down to building specific/appropriate buildings at the strategically critical points to gain access to either a bonus or more efficient recourse gather.

Of course, with the sheer size of the maps, having these all in there need not be problematic.

Why are we still talking about "rare" or "high yield" spots? why add in needless complication and classification when you just put more regular mass spots instead.

Think of it like this, imagine your average planet has 20* Mass/Metal spots, so about 10* per player assuming both start on the same planet, so if you want to make asteroids attractive, you could give them say 4* Mass/Metal spots. you can see already it's a huge advantage just because it's 1/5th of the planet's ENTIRE output in this teeny tiny rock that's much easier to defend.

The best part is just how flexible it is to boot, you can easily adjust how desirable something is simply by adding/concentrating it's Mass/Metal Spots.

Its also easier to understand form the player's side of things, he knows every mass spot is equal and doesn't have to worry about remembering extra information.

*random made up numbers to prove a point.

Mike

Another way to think about this is TA has geothermal plants that required special build locations. Same kind of idea but for energy.

Exactly neutrino . So i take it that is your thoughts on how to approach these alternate resources, at least for buildings, in the case on units you can have special factories that require the resource at a specific location, allowing the same concept. although i don't really see that as being important, sticking to buildings makes the most sense IMHO.

Wouldn't you have variable yield mexes for the same reason you have variable yield power plants?

I see your point, don't agree with it completely. High yield spots would adress some problems:

1. Make planets/areas unique; Wave generators on water worlds, H3 stations on gas planets etc. would make a distinct difference. In the end, same type, different flavor. Just give that stuff the same value of bonus. It looks nice and gives a different feeling to each place. If all units are the same, you are in need of some differences, or the different places will be pretty boring. And it's very simple to understand. Find a special spot and you know what you get for it.

2. With that concept, you can define special spots as you like. Give boosted factories or cheaper orbital transports a thought. Might make things more interesting, by changing what place is important and what not. Focuses the attention of players in all kinds of ways, depending on what the developers wish for.

3. Until now, mass spots had a minimum distance from each other. In your scenario, what would you choose:

A) Two mass spots up in the north, each 2 mass deposits.
B) One mass spot in the south, 4 mass deposits.
or
C) A one building High yield mass deposits somewhere else.

The function of that stuff is not so much to give a higher reward, it is to change the gameplay to a more aggressive play style. If you have to defend A), the 2 mass spots in the norths, it can be quiet troublesome. Spend a good amount of resources to guard it properly or it may be raided all the time. For B), you probably have to build up a whole base, because the size of a 4 mass deposit field is pretty big and hard to defend anyway. But with C), you could build one heavily defended firebase in one spot. I mean, you just have to guard one building, so you can concentrate your forces there.

In this game, you might even have D), just go to an asteroid and get free mass deposits, which are hard to attack if you build the asteroid into a fortress. Why fight for some on a planet, if you don't have to?

So...give players resonable choices. High yield buildings concentrate things more. They are easy to figure out high risk/high reward places and will result in permanent struggle to gain control over them. And in addition, they add a nice flavour to each planet/place.

Opinions about that?

In short, No. Metal and Energy are similar, but fundamentally different in several key ways that don't let them be treated in the same way

ineluki, thanks for the reply, I don't think our opinions are as different as they look...

First things first, I think we need to separate Metal and Energy.

Energy I'm more flexible on simply because you can always build more power generators. Gas Giants might be more efficient, but I can still match that production with regular power generators.

Metal I think needs more care and attention as it's the main resource and limited(ignoring Metal Makers as if they're anywhere near balanced they should only be viable to supplement regular Extractors, not replace them) and a big focus of combat and expanding your territory.

Frankly, I think the distribution of Metal spots should be enough to help planets feel different, as you brought up in your third point the different allocations help shift the typical strategies employed, a Planet with 100% evenly distrubuted Metal spots would lead to more dynamic, raiding focused gameplay while a Planet with all the Metal spots in 2 big blobs would lead to more of a statics, defensive/siege based gameplay.

I don't like the idea of many different kinds of special spots, more so when you add in the Procedural Maps aspect of the game and it just adds complexity for what are essentially gimmicks.

Is is sorta what I was getting at, thing is C is actually the same as A and B, just on different levels, which was my point, Using just 1 type of Metal Spot and using the Quantity and Proximity yields the same result as High yield Spots, but in a way that more intuitive to understand and more flexible.

I think at the core we are after the same goal, we just have alternate preferred methods of achieving that goal.

Mike

To make a comment to insanityoo's and OrangeKnight's discussion:

I think both ways are viable.

OrangeKnight's way of breaking it down back to both main res is pretty simple. And that's good. I like it simple. That prevents confusion.

insanityoo's way using rare res, spots whatever gives more motivation. You can just defend one building and be as strong as your more advanced enemy, just by having some of the rare stuff.

But I don't like both ways as they are. I really like the res system untouched. Just the basics as they are planned. But using the "rare spots" for buffing you a bit in other ways like a faster production of all the factories in a special area (e.g. an alien artifact or so), increasing units stats in that or whatever.

This leaves the res system as it is where you can still control the fight over the res by the way the metal is placed and still have motivation in decision if its better to get that res first or boost your production in that area a bit (but in that time your enemy could get one of the other things).

I hope someone understands my point of view

There is no point behind arbitrary gimmicks like this, they only add complexity, frustration and don't accomplish anything that my proposal doesn't.

Mike

While it would be interesting to fight over a single asteroid that had some of a certain mineral on it, the same kind of thing can be achieved by having a certain planetoid that has a large number of metal deposits on it, without making whoever takes it over have access to things that the other player doesn't

In terms of metal distribution on various planetoids, it would have to depend on the size of the thing. A large planet would need 2-4 large areas of metal to serve as starting bases for players, and a few deposits scattered around in key locations to fight over, whereas a small planet or large moon might have only 2 decent areas of metal, and a metallic asteroid would only have 1 area, but with a large number of deposits
At least in my mind =P

I say make an asteroid type that is analogous to TA's metal worlds
i.e. you can plonk extractors anywhere.

When designing maps they'd be best kept small such that they present the player with a dilemma:
How much of the surface do you devote to eco and how much to defense to hold on to your plum prize?

While scaling the value of a specific planetoid by the main resource density has its merits, I for one prefer having also some special resources even if only used as enabling factor (to avoid the management of additional resource bars). That would increase the motivation to occupy a specific target and not just the next rich one.

As for one player getting exclusive access to a specific resource;
As long as the rare resource isn't a singular occurrence and other players can have access to it or another rare resource, there is no problem with it.

Some of the resource distribution considerations depend a bit on the size and the number of usable planetoids (e.g. large number of small ones or small number of large ones). If larger planets are the norm, specific resource spots on the surface might be in order, but if the number of different planetary objects is large enough, one could just define a planetwide affinity for a specific resource.

As for balance, with more resources the balancing in any given map might be more difficult and it might be a bit uneven sometimes, but if I would want to have a perfectly balanced game on an uniform map I would take a chess or go board.
I will choose a map with a natural style any time before choosing some artificial mirrored map junk food.

I'll be honest, the more I've thought about this, the less I think I would object to a 'third resource'.

Honestly, energy isn't really a resource. Energy can be made anywhere, it's always been cheap and plentiful, and aside from the ridiculous energy production one would squeeze out of a gas giant, there will probably not be - there CAN not be - any serious limitations on energy. Players will need to generate energy no matter what planet they're stranded on.

Metal is the only truly valuable and somewhat limited resource. The issue with it is that if we get metal worlds, it'll probably just end up to be a rush to snag the metal world first and your metal concerns are over. Or, certain planets (volcanic, for example) might simply have more metal than others, and it becomes more imperitive to hold them, whereas an oceanic planet would be hard to justify the start-up costs of building a navy on just to get more metal.

Introduction of a third (or rather, second) resource would mitigate this greatly. SoaSE worked fine under the same concept, except it had credits, metal, and crystal. Credits are analogous to energy, metal is metal, and crystal is our third resource. Crystal allowed differentiation between economies, and someone who had lots of volcanic worlds around them would have excess amounts of metal and have to game the economy to get crystal.

A third resource would also lend more dynamics to planetary conquest. Right now, you can only split worlds up in two ways - those with lots of metal, and those without lots of metal. Players will naturally prioritize those with lower amounts of metal as being less important. A third resource will split up planets into those with lots of crystal, those with lots of metal, and those with a mix, or varied quantities of each. In this way, you can make oceanic planets a crystal-rich world, to justify the costs involved with running a navy specifically to harvest it, whereas normally it would just be a world to plop some underwater metal extractors and some tidal generators on and you'd call it a day.

Keep it simple. The only good thing about more resource types is more strategic hotspots. But that can be achieved in a much simpler way. For instance I think fusion should be dependent on Helium-3 production from gas giants. However 3He should not be a new resource. Instead, make it so that you need one helium extractor for each fusion plant, and you can't build fusion plants on a gas giant. If any of your fusion plants lacks a corresponding helium mine, it stops working. Thus to cripple your energy flow people can either go for your fusion plants or your helium extractors.

And your solution for, say, lava worlds or oceanic planets?

I believe they should simply follow the way they did it in SupCom/TA, where you had geothermal/hydrocarbon spots where you could build special buildings which produced more energy.

A Gas planet would be one big deposit.
A Lava planet could have certain "hotspots" where buildings could harvest the heat of the lava.
An oceanic planet... I don't know.