Should resources be tracked per planet/moon

I'm in favour of localised resources for reasons of cross space supply lines which require protection from attack, and also the prevention of an uber-build location where all your resources from across the solar system are used to churn out T2 bombers at the rate of 5 every second...

Furthermore, I don't believe that the demonised 'micro' will be too much, nor will it be impossible to attack enemy planets. The arguments for this have been gone over many times...

I would also argue that a game of the increased scale being touted requires localised resources in order for the scale to not be limited and to be meaningful.

This game is being sold as a step up from previous RTSs of the same type in terms of scale, take the 12 hour matches with 40+ players as an example.

Another new feature is the ability for multiple players to share control of the same army, this would allow subdividing tasks between the different players to ease the difficulty:

Tactical | Intel | Manufacturing | Economy etc...

I don't want the opportunity for a game on a larger scale to be thrown away because some people don't fancy it. There is always the single planet option and equally, such an option would be easy to switch off for those who really hate it.

Consider this table:

Economy model. . . . . . Ease of modding the alternative
Localised. . . . . . . . . . Extremely easy
Universal. . . . . . . . . . Extremely hard

I would love to get a developer perspective on this, as the last time I heard an opinion was 2012. I believe the word was that they would start with a universal model but might try alternatives to see how they played.

Neutrino, Garat? Any thoughts?

Well lets think:

I'm not sure how this "snow ball" effect would be that much of an issue considering that one map having lots of resources actually gives you this "snow ball" effect and in this case the game IS decided by one win or lose. Having multiple maps may actually prevent this from happening because of the gap between maps. The amount of resources needed to fund an off world invasion and subsequent siege will probably be a lot.

This "snow ball" effect is already present in games like Supreme Commander and Total Annihilation. If a player manages to acquire 100% control of the resources found on an island and uses those resources to fund a base operation on an enemy's player's island then it only makes sense if the invading player has a large resource pool to rely on. Especially if the player who's land is being invaded has control over all the resource deposits. Even if opposing players were not isolated on islands but were in fact connect via land formations I think these gameplay elements would still apply.

Having multiple maps with streamed resources between them I think actually gives players multiple chances to regroup and "take back" so to speak.

Its hard to make conclusions, but I think that by having limits on your economy your not really benefiting from all resources you control.

I'm all for resources shared universally. If you want to keep it separate, only do it in the galactic conquest per sun or other system.

Well, imagine having to start a supcom map were one player has the economic bonus of a developed base at the start were the other do not.

If the snowball effect is that strong there would be no need for multiple maps (Theres no way the person with the bonus would lose any fights after winning on the first planet).

Off course this isent supcom and the players may move on the new worlds before the first one is won or lost (and they may even move to different worlds to build up), so i might just be "jumping at shadows" so to speak, im just saying that its a point of concern that the devs/backers should keep in mind, if they do a shared economy.

Imagine starting a supcom map where the other player has a 30 minute head start.

Without access to your own resources, he has everything and you have nothing. There is absolutely no way to win other than to blow it all up.

From here; viewtopic.php?p=695112#p695112

So I guess that settles that for now?

Mike

So I agree that this sounds cool and could work which is why I put it in the "experiment" category.

I think I'm just a lot more conservative about game design than most people (for good reason). Luckily we will all be able to play around with this stuff and see what sticks.

From my perspective I almost never consider "realism" when thinking in terms of game design. There is literally not a single thing in a game like this that's realistic, it's all a very crude simulation at best.

Ok, I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Why would one player opposing another arbitrarily have a resource bonus and a well developed base while the other wouldn't in Supreme Commander? You said your self this is not supreme commander.

How do you figure that? If maps were that easy to conquer they would become stepping stones, with each player backed by their own total economy. Just because I loose one map doesn't mean I'm going to loose the game. Victory in one battle does not guaranty victory in war. Thats what makes the game fun!

Again, how do you think that would happen? Each player is backed by their total economy and free to expand it. Thats part of the game.

Yes, moving on to other worlds to build bases economies and build up your galactic dominance is going to be part of the game. You pretty much have do that in every RTS, even if your a defensive player. I'm not sure what you mean by "jumping at shadows" or why your mocking me with "so to speak". I don't think your keeping in mind everything that goes on in gameplay for this game.

Maybe I wasn't being very clear when I referred to the snow ball effect, but what I was trying to say was: this game is going to be a lot like Supreme Commander and Total annihilation only played over multiple maps. In the sense that resources are managed the same way but its up to you to figure out what to do with them.

I think I understand the point your trying to make and I'm sure the boys at Uber are reading our little debate very thoughtfully.

I'm just not sure how having a streamed interstellar economy would brake the game.

But even if I needed to ship recourse over I could still make my super duper unit construction base. We can move planets. Why not move a bunch of high metal and energy planets over and boom factory! And I could still sneak 1 engineer to your planet, I'll just bring some res with me. It doesn't stop any of this stuff from happening, it just makes stuff annoying. But it's uber's choice to implement it or not. Personally I hope the answer is no.

Also, if I'm starting off in the game. Just got 2-3 planets set up. Then, my metal planet is blockaded. I can't get the res from another planet there to build more troops to defend. And I can't get the res out, what if most of it is stored there? I'm screwed.

Both players start on one world, one player wins the world the other flees, the result being one player has the resource bonus the other has nothing. One world = win or lose = The rest of the worlds wont make much difference other then delaying the end of the match (all the player with the bonus have to do is follow the other player and not let him build a good base).

But as i admitted before, if people expand to other worlds before the fight for the first world is settled then it wont be as much of a problem (expanding to new worlds must be very cost effective so that players are motivated to do it instead of just building one more army on the starter world).

--||--

"jumping at shadows" is a saying that means reacting in a scared way with very little real reason (or simular), when you use a saying you often use the term "so to speak" afterwards.

Basicly, in that part of my message im saying that i may just be overreacting and im not mocking you in anyway (i don't really see why you thought i was).

The biggest reason you may to have localized resources (planet sized likely) is to match your economic output with the economic balance of the game.

If you think in terms of the entire game, you have to think about the whole 'build a bigger economy, unlock access to more technology' meta game that goes on. There is a progression that you go through that makes each decision exciting and meaningful - when do you build that first t2 power plant? When do you build that first t2 factory? Do you have enough resources to build that unit cannon? Are you going to build Cheap Tank 1, or invest in Expensive Heavy Tank 2.

After a certain point, in the game, those questions become moot - you start picking things not because of their cost or efficiency, but purely for their bulk power. Build time, cost, etc become largely irrelevant because you have such a large economy - it becomes more a question of 'is my 100 plane swarm made of brawlers or vamps? which one performs better?'

This is perfectly natural. It's the pacing of it that is critical. Needing to make those decisions throughout most of the game is much more entertaining than having that element of the game become obsolete early on.

If you look at a game of TA on a metal planet, you can see how quickly you skip past those economical issues, and straight into the mass production of everything.


So the question becomes - how will Uber spread the balance of the economy out over the course of the game?

If we take a classic 1v1, should you be able to build ALL the units in 20 minutes? Supcom went this route - you could be rolling experimentals at the 15 minute mark if you really wanted to.

If that is the case, we could assume a 'small' 1v1 playing field would target a 15 minute battle, and most units get a use by the end of the game. If you take that paradigm, and extend it to the 45 minute game, that means that economical decisions become much less important after the 15 minute mark, and 60% of the game is played in 'end-game' mode. If you reach another planet at 15 minutes, you'll be fighting with all the tech at your disposal, and massive amounts of build power, and so on, for each planet.

I would find that to be rather disappointing, that the economy game becomes irrelevant for most of the game.

On the other hand, Uber may balance it around a 45 minute game - you never see planet breaking asteroids at 15 minutes, and the orbital set of units / moving to other planets becomes outside the scope of a 1v1.
However, it still suffers if you scale up more. A 3 hour game - most of it is played with the economy just being silly high numbers that make little difference.

The only method that truly scales across all sizes of gameplay is one that limits your available economy to a localized area. In this case, logically, a planet. Limiting your economy in this fashion means that you get to 'start over' your economy for each new planet, running the player through those fun questions like 'hmm should I go for a quick set of scout bots, get my production online, or fortify first?' multiple times in a single game.

But.. *shrug* I guess you have to deal with the fact that 90% of all multiplayer games are going to be short 15 minute games. Uber could cater to that type of game and get *most* people happy with it (Supcom ignored the larger scale issues too). So in terms of developer effort it makes a lot of sense to start global and then limit it after the fact - I imagine they will be building the economy system in such a way as to accommodate that sort of switch!

I doubt this will take place on a small map, sure small planets but a normal map will probably be a solar system. And I don't want to care about "Hmm, should I go for the T2 with a few specialties to hope to counter my enemy or keep T1s running off the line?" When a million units are killing each other out there. The game will keep size because end game isn't where I have T2 units, it's where I have a bunch of planets and a large battle fleet. With asteroid transports for unit bombings on enemy planets. When I'm making this many units and worrying about this many planets I don't want to have to worry about res not getting transported fast enough. You could argue that it's fun to take out supplies to cripple an enemy, why not send some units to sabotage a enemy mining base to accomplish that? For me, having the economy be per planet/moon would ruin the game for me. It would be just an annoyance instead of a feature.

Tell us how forcing a player to restart his economy will work against an entrenched enemy. Protip: He's screwed.

Simple. You design for a tier of unit that's capable of landing and sustaining a beachhead on an occupied planet. And then you land extra resources of your own (enormous Eggs perhaps) to fuel your invasion.

It's not like 'Invading another well established planet' is the ONLY time you move to another planet. And even with a global economy, you're going to need something special to break into a well established world - buildpower is going to be limited for the attacker in any case.

A unit that is cheaper than anything else? What happens if the opponent, realizing there's a dirt cheap, super effective unit, decides to build them as well? Like... anywhere, ever?

I still hold that stealth will be the best choice at establishing a beachhead, giving the player time to set up the necessary infrastructure to defend and to attack with enough production to sustain the invasion.

The best way to bring in good infrastructure for invasion is to bring it with you. Take an asteroid, load it up with factories/units, and go nuts.

A heavy entrenched enemy? If he is that entrenched it's going to be hard enough to get near the planet. Let alone spend that much res getting it with you to set up a forward.

first thing to do during any landing would be build fusion reactor so my troops can fire, if i'm attacked before then i fight at 50% efficiency... I love a turtle fest, but no thanks.

OK then?