Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth Quote: Original post by Edtharan Quote: First i take from TA's inexhaustible resource system because i think it much more fun system where the amount you have flowing in matters not the amount you have. This unlimited resource system reduces the impact of defensive play. If you take a defensive strategy with an Unlimited resource system, one player (the one with the higher collection rate) will eventually be able to overwhelm their opponents (even if they just sit it out until they greatly out number them). This wasn't an issue TA. Because for one it had a full range of effective defensive buildings, they required resources to use, and could target enemy blips on the map automatically. So, a well planned to defense force, could cripple an attacking army before they even saw the first turret. Not to mention you could build an unlimted number powerful cannons that could reach across more than half a map and nuclear missle silos, thus forcing your opponent to attack or have their base destroyed from a far.

The last part of your post demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. Those canons and nuke silos are built up and then you overwhelm your opponent's ability to either deflect or rebuild faster than you can destroy them.

The player with the greater amount of resources coming in will have the advantage.

If you have less resources you can not win by a defensive strategy. When in real tactics and strategy defensive battle planes were used by the factions that had the least resources as it was more costly (required more "resources") for the attackers to attack a well defended location than it cost for the defenders to defend it.

With TA, and other unlimited resource systems, the defender needs more resources than the attacker to successfully defend.

This is not a problem if that is the style of game that you wish to make. It favours the player that is willing to risk their resources (spent to build troops, etc) to acquire more.

In Unlimited resource games, it can be worth it to loose more troops (than the defender) to gain just 1 more resource point, as that point will eventually replenish the troops you lost. Depending on how fast it can replace the lost troops will be the limiting factor on how many troops it is viable to loose.

Unlimited resources favour aggressive play styles, which, in RTS games can actually be an advantage as it encourages players to go out and fight each other (tactical play).

The down side is that it discourages strategy (long term plans) in favour of tactics (like when the units are fighting).

Because Unlimited resources do encourage tactical play, I think including them is a good idea. This give more "action" to the game. Players don't spend 30 minutes building their base and then 3 minutes obliterating the enemy with little or no contact in between.

However, too much reliance on unlimited resources will limit the effective strategies of the game to Rush strategies. Instead of consolidating areas, the player who rushes and gains the most ground will end up with the most resources and therefore the most units and therefore overrun the enemy.

This is why a mix of the two resource paradigms is better. Starcraft uses it (Crystals are limited, but Vespene is virtually unlimited - it just reduces the quantity after a period of time).

I completely disagree; unlimited resources favor defense, and limited resources favor offense. If one player is camping in his base building up a nearly-invincible defense, all the other player has to do is take over the rest of the resources on the map.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I completely disagree; unlimited resources favor defense, and limited resources favor offense. If one player is camping in his base building up a nearly-invincible defense, all the other player has to do is take over the rest of the resources on the map.

You're both wrong [grin].

Either can favour offensive or defensive gameplay; much of it depends on the cost and effectiveness, and population caps of units and static defences. If the game allows me (and my opponent allows me) to build defenses such that the cost of my enemies attacks exceeds the cost of my defence by a sufficiently large ratio to account for his greater control of the map, then my defensive strategy will probably win, in either case.

The difference is the endgame. With unlimited resources, the game can go on forever, with the attacker throwing away his units at an impervious defence, while the defender just sits in his base all day. With limited resources, eventually one player will just run out of econ and end up a helpless sitting duck.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I completely disagree; unlimited resources favor defense, and limited resources favor offense. If one player is camping in his base building up a nearly-invincible defense, all the other player has to do is take over the rest of the resources on the map.

HOW does unlimited resource favor defence? You haven't explained this. Nearly all games strongly favor aggressive attacking, no matter what style the resouces are, because there is no in game advantage to having your units in a position, like there is in the real world.


In games, most units are at the 'ready to kill' at all times, 2 riflemen against 1 rifleman will always win. In real life, 1 rifleman that has taken cover and proper positioning is more than a match for 5 or 6 riflemen that are on the move.


Games are all about keeping ahead of the other guy in production levels, while using your production to cripple their production and take out their most expensive units, deal as much resource costs to them that you can while protecting yours. Sitting there building up defense rarely does this. They will spread out, capture more resources and produce an offense that is just as strong as your defense, and then be able to afford a second wave that is even stronger.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller I completely disagree; unlimited resources favor defense, and limited resources favor offense. If one player is camping in his base building up a nearly-invincible defense, all the other player has to do is take over the rest of the resources on the map. HOW does unlimited resource favor defence? You haven't explained this. Nearly all games strongly favor aggressive attacking, no matter what style the resouces are, because there is no in game advantage to having your units in a position, like there is in the real world. In games, most units are at the 'ready to kill' at all times, 2 riflemen against 1 rifleman will always win. In real life, 1 rifleman that has taken cover and proper positioning is more than a match for 5 or 6 riflemen that are on the move. Games are all about keeping ahead of the other guy in production levels, while using your production to cripple their production and take out their most expensive units, deal as much resource costs to them that you can while protecting yours. Sitting there building up defense rarely does this. They will spread out, capture more resources and produce an offense that is just as strong as your defense, and then be able to afford a second wave that is even stronger.

Maybe we aren't defining terms the same way. By unlimited resources I mean that a player can camp in his base the entire game and and have enough money to defend against any attacks indefinitely.

By limited resources I mean that players must constantly expand or else their resources will dry up.

I love the way knights and mercians does it.

At first you got primary resources (wood, grain, kools, metal, gold, silver, animals)
Then you got secundairy resources (logs (from wood), bread (from grian), meat (from animals), recruits)
Then you where able to use these resouces to create units like this:
When you wanted 3 archers you send three recruits to your baraks.
You order your craftsman to create three bows from wood (would automaticaly be suplyed by your worker when wood is aviable), maby create some advanced armor from metal for expensiver units.
And then your units will be created.

PS: Don't know how advanced this primary resources thing was it has been serveral years ago that I bough that game and I was young and it seemed to advanced for me at that time, so in the real world the system could be simpler but it feeled that advanced.

Tjaalie,

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Maybe we aren't defining terms the same way. By unlimited resources I mean that a player can camp in his base the entire game and and have enough money to defend against any attacks indefinitely.

Please stop using this definition because it's silly.

The system that everyone else is referring to with this term is a system like TA or DoW where resource nodes do not dry up, but instead the rate at which they can be mined provides the limit on the player's economy.

Quote:

Original post by Glak There was an incredibly awesome indy game called Strifeshadow. It was made by a top Starcraft player (Zileas) who after designing Strifeshadow got a job working on World of Warcraft. I think that the other guys (including the owner/programmer) went back to their day jobs.

This game and website is still around, just do a Google seach. You can even buy it still, far as I can tell. http://www.ethermoon.com/darkelves/index.phtml

Quote:

Original post by Sandman Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller Maybe we aren't defining terms the same way. By unlimited resources I mean that a player can camp in his base the entire game and and have enough money to defend against any attacks indefinitely. Please stop using this definition because it's silly. The system that everyone else is referring to with this term is a system like TA or DoW where resource nodes do not dry up, but instead the rate at which they can be mined provides the limit on the player's economy.

Thanks for clearing that up.

That being said, from what I've heard about TA, games would often last hours(!) because players were able to camp in their bases with impenetrable defenses and a comfortable flow of money.

If your resources dry up, it forces you to go out and expand.

TA games can be quick, but most take several hours to play because of the way the game works. Metal is required to build anything, and energy is used to in many ways. All construction requries it, all buildings need it to operate, defense buildings and some units need it to fire. Because of this it can take an hour just have your infustructure at a sufficent level to support the construction and operation of some of the higher level units.

Base defenses where only ever as good as your energy production and surplus. A percision bombing raid could cripple a players energy production thus rendering all of their defensive structures inoperable, and preventing them from building any new units.

Limited resources tend do nothing but favor the fast expansionist, as the only way to counter them is to either expand faster or catch the unaware with a couple high level units.

I'd personally like to see more games where units required resources to support them rather then to just produce them. Would Warcraft games be played the same if each knight cost 6 gold a minute to maintain and an archer used up 1/10th of a wood everytime it fired?