I don't think a 'daily income' is a solution at all, and I particularly dislike games with that functionality. I was quite disgusted yesterday when reading that this is how Pathfinder Online was going to work. Instead, I think the problem is that you, along with many other designers, are looking at the economy backwards. Players should not be able to take resources into combat at all, they should only take resources out of combat to spend in the non-combat part of the game. Basically, combat is a minigame, and should be treated like any other multiplayer minigame.

Treading the battles like a minigame probably the answer, but I can't see a RTS where you don't take some kind of resource into battle with you.

The largest advantage of taking resources with you into battle is that it gives a feeling of progress, where RPG players measure with levels RTS players measure with buildings/upgrades/resource so entering a battle with nothing will make each battle feel like beginning over again.

Here I think we should look into something like a deck system from CCG games.

You have a army with units with different abilities and specialties that can help in different kinds of battles, this way a player can also have things like airstrikes that don't give them overwhelming power as it means less units to fight with.

I don't think a 'daily income' is a solution at all, and I particularly dislike games with that functionality. I was quite disgusted yesterday when reading that this is how Pathfinder Online was going to work. Instead, I think the problem is that you, along with many other designers, are looking at the economy backwards. Players should not be able to take resources into combat at all, they should only take resources out of combat to spend in the non-combat part of the game. Basically, combat is a minigame, and should be treated like any other multiplayer minigame.

Treading the battles like a minigame probably the answer, but I can't see a RTS where you don't take some kind of resource into battle with you.

The largest advantage of taking resources with you into battle is that it gives a feeling of progress, where RPG players measure with levels RTS players measure with buildings/upgrades/resource so entering a battle with nothing will make each battle feel like beginning over again.

Here I think we should look into something like a deck system from CCG games.

You have a army with units with different abilities and specialties that can help in different kinds of battles, this way a player can also have things like airstrikes that don't give them overwhelming power as it means less units to fight with.

Hmm. I always thought the fun part of warcraft 2, starcraft, etc. was scrambling with the opponent for resources on the map, and also picking the best strategy for that map. With CCGs the deck building part is a lot of fun (though sadly many people skip it entirely by copying someone else's existing deck). But actually using the same deck over and over again gets boring fast. (I personally have about 7 MTG decks that I'm bored to tears of, even though I'm still fond of them in a nostalgic sort of way.) One of the reasons tactical combat is my favorite type of combat is the big role that both terrain and a mixed group of opponent monsters play in making each battle like a unique puzzle to be solved like you were saying above. But at any rate, I think that choosing a strategy from scratch within an RTS battle is the equivalent of deck-building, and more fun than if the RTS player invested in one strategy outside combat and then had limited choices within combat.

One possibility to deal with the problem of decks becoming stale might be to take an idea from Chaos Reborn (at least as I recall it from playing the open build some time ago): instead of a single, static deck, give players a randomised deck. The degree of randomisation and the pool of cards from which the deck is drawn might depend on the game.

For example, I could see each class having a large pool of cards to itself, along with a common pool. As players advance, they gain access to new cards or sets of cards, perhaps alongside opportunities to swap out cards. In each battle, however, the player is given a randomly-selected "hand" of cards; if called for, thee "hands" might be augmented by a new draw later in the encounter. Players may be able to gain perks that allow them to alter the weighting of the random selection, either in their own hand or that of their opponents.

If battles are expected to be long, cards might have significant, lasting effects (as in the case of the summoning spells used by Chaos Reborn).

A similar idea might be the mechanic that I seem to recall that Card Hunter uses: players gain access to a pool of cards, and on each turn draw a small subset into their hand. (I forget whether unused cards are discarded.)

and more fun than if the RTS player invested in one strategy outside combat and then had limited choices within combat.

Now that I read this it seems obvious.

This reminds me of Dawn of war [pc], I liked the first game but felt like the second game was too restricting.

So the there would have to be someway to change or bring in new units, now it is a similar system to Tom clancy's endwar.

Endwar wasn't bad or great, so with some adaption it could be used for a MMO.

One possibility to deal with the problem of decks becoming stale might be to take an idea from Chaos Reborn (at least as I recall it from playing the open build some time ago): instead of a single, static deck, give players a randomised deck. The degree of randomisation and the pool of cards from which the deck is drawn might depend on the game.

For example, I could see each class having a large pool of cards to itself, along with a common pool. As players advance, they gain access to new cards or sets of cards, perhaps alongside opportunities to swap out cards. In each battle, however, the player is given a randomly-selected "hand" of cards; if called for, thee "hands" might be augmented by a new draw later in the encounter. Players may be able to gain perks that allow them to alter the weighting of the random selection, either in their own hand or that of their opponents.

If battles are expected to be long, cards might have significant, lasting effects (as in the case of the summoning spells used by Chaos Reborn).

A similar idea might be the mechanic that I seem to recall that Card Hunter uses: players gain access to a pool of cards, and on each turn draw a small subset into their hand. (I forget whether unused cards are discarded.)

This is a good idea, in RTS I can even see a award of a bonus card that is given to the player for holding a point but is removed from the deck at the end of a battle.

The only down point to this that is immediately evident is that most RTS players like to feel that thy are in control even in some small way, a game like this would appeal to very small crowd.

The only down point to this that is immediately evident is that most RTS players like to feel that thy are in control even in some small way, a game like this would appeal to very small crowd.

Aside from the aforementioned perks that influence hands, I imagine that one could also include some more definite elements of control: perks that allow the player to set a limited number of the cards in their hand, or ensure that some portion of their hand is drawn from a specific sub-pool, etc.

Depending on the rest of the game's design philosophy and what you're attempting to bring to players. One perspective you could explore is interdependence. You could explore use based skills easy to track these with multi-point scale graphing (could be in game or for dev use) player will focus on areas of expertise allowing them to accomplish certain tasks with great ease, while other tasks or objectives with multiple tasks will require a team or shift in game play focus to complete. This still uses a level system but since its 'use based' the impermanence of unused skills scales them back creating a dependence on other players who've focused in that area. Using in fiction visual feedback to express not only skill focus but skill level could do away with the usual number based depiction of excellence. I was mostly referring to a role playing or action game but this can also carry over to RTS or more tactical games. Making certain types of strategic combat (guerrilla, spam, tech up, etc) a skill focus and making a focus on one type of strategy open up abilities that apply to that style of strategy. Like a use based tech tree.

I think some amount of lvl progression has to exist as I see this as a part of every game's exploration. Even if it's just unlocking different combinations of controls.

I was thinking about 'winning' at RTS combat some more, and I think it would make an RTS PvP system interesting if it was scored a little differently from usual. Something like this: battle has a 10 minute time limit, map has a set amount of resources for the two players to fight over. If you defeat your opponent, your prize is your harvested, unspent resources plus a pvp token of some kind. If you don't defeat your opponent you only get half your harvested unspent resources, no pvp token. Like a prisoner's dilemma. So theoretically, you could spend all your effort harvesting, even both players could do that and not bother fighting, if they didn't care about the tokens or felt they were too low level to win against that opponent.

Depending on the rest of the game's design philosophy and what you're attempting to bring to players. One perspective you could explore is interdependence. You could explore use based skills easy to track these with multi-point scale graphing (could be in game or for dev use) player will focus on areas of expertise allowing them to accomplish certain tasks with great ease, while other tasks or objectives with multiple tasks will require a team or shift in game play focus to complete. This still uses a level system but since its 'use based' the impermanence of unused skills scales them back creating a dependence on other players who've focused in that area. Using in fiction visual feedback to express not only skill focus but skill level could do away with the usual number based depiction of excellence. I was mostly referring to a role playing or action game but this can also carry over to RTS or more tactical games. Making certain types of strategic combat (guerrilla, spam, tech up, etc) a skill focus and making a focus on one type of strategy open up abilities that apply to that style of strategy. Like a use based tech tree.

Using multi-point skills slows down the leveling up without alerting the player, it has effectively been used in both single player and MMO games.

The known problem is that players will only be interested in exploring all paths if thy really liked a game or if there is noting to do. In MMOs that add new content players will get bored before exploring each point.

The advantage of a multi-point skill set is that it adds variety to the game and makes players feel unique.

Developers should always consider adding it, even if it has a low standalone value it will always increase the depth of other systems.

I think some amount of lvl progression has to exist as I see this as a part of every game's exploration. Even if it's just unlocking different combinations of controls.

I agree, it's just that the basic level systems where made and focused around single player games.

I was thinking about 'winning' at RTS combat some more, and I think it would make an RTS PvP system interesting if it was scored a little differently from usual. Something like this: battle has a 10 minute time limit, map has a set amount of resources for the two players to fight over. If you defeat your opponent, your prize is your harvested, unspent resources plus a pvp token of some kind. If you don't defeat your opponent you only get half your harvested unspent resources, no pvp token. Like a prisoner's dilemma. So theoretically, you could spend all your effort harvesting, even both players could do that and not bother fighting, if they didn't care about the tokens or felt they were too low level to win against that opponent.

This is a really good idea, I can even see this working if a player wins a cash item instead of a PvP token.

Most MMOs have a "cash item" like diamonds that are rare to find in game and can be bought at stores. Cash shops also over items that can only be bought by using the cash item. Also in game resources tend to be of low value compared to a single cash item.

Now as any RTS player will tell you, it's easier to defend than attack.

This means that no attack should be done half-hearted, if you attempt a attack while conserving resources it should almost always result in a lost attempt.

Now if the player wins thy receive the cash item and can buy something or save up for something else, yet thy will gain little in the way of game resources.

The losing player if thy played defensive will receive more in game resources than the winning player, if thy attacked all-out and lost thy will receive very little, this will play as a risk element in the game.

I feel that I learn a lot about games since the last time a wrote on this topic, I just wanted to share a few things.

I have researched virtual games, board games, LARP games, a zombie event(not really a LARP), school yard games and even those hellish sports that I fear so much. I did it all to find answer to PVP and resource management.

The first thing to note is that the more complex a PvP is the less players play against each other, the larger a PvP event is the less a single person has to do.

In school yard games, duck-duck-goose, ring-a-rosy and telephone are easy to understand games and can often be played by whole classrooms of children.

Hopscotch is a more complex game and is often played by only one or two players.

Both simple and complex board games allow for both a low and a large amount of players, with complex games having advanced rules for more experienced players.

In soccer/football you could think that twenty-two players are a lot, but if you take that amount out of the amount of people who wan't to play soccer, those who are part of any soccer team, those who play soccer at a professional level or even the people who are playing soccer at any given time. twenty-two is a very small amount.

Also on a professional level a lot of extra players are brought in to help take off the load from the twenty-two players on the field, these extra players are coaches, trainers and any others thy can include without breaking the rules.

MMOs that allow large epic battles are often the simple ones, others reduce the size of battles with guilds and teams. There have been some amazing MMO moments in the past that allowed for hundreds of players to fight at a single time, it's important to note that during these events there where often players who focused the others into small groups with simple roles.

For PvP resources there is only two ways to go.

Many games reset resources after each match, this is most common in board games where the game is reset on each play. This is loops.

The second I found in some board games but was most noticeable in the 3 day LARP I joined.

It started out with each player being given a objective for the day, mine was to become a officer under the prince of thieves. However having recently played Shadow of Mordor I completely misunderstood my goal. In short I was exiled from the thieves, convinced the court wizard to help me kill the prince of thieves so I could take his army, then I got framed for the kings murder and the wizard took the throne.Although This wasn't the main plot, there was something about a dragon, it is still a good example of arcs.

Unfortunately doing something like this is hard for developers, not impossible tough there have been some MMOs that allowed players to influence arcs.

The expansions of board games also act as arcs, thy often do it with out adding more powerful items and instead add more complexity.

Race for the galaxy is a good example of this.

Currently I am making prototypes of my ideas, however this will take some time to complete as I have to make them in my spare time. This tread will probably be locked by then so I will open a new one.

I learned a lot from comparing different types of games with each other, I recommend all developers explore games like this.

If you looking for a easy way to explore board games without having to buy them then this should help: http://en.boardgamearena.com