A question of resource

Huma · 2011-08-19, 10:28 PM

One thing I actually would like to see would be a trading medium for resources. Not totally sure how resources are going to work yet but if you need them for different things I think it would nice to have the ability to trade excess resources with other players or outfits for a resource you need.
Having a system like that in place would create even more brawls over the more rare resources and would simulate an economy in the game without taking away from the shooter aspect.

CutterJohn · 2011-08-19, 10:41 PM

Next people will say NO! because it will attract farmers, forgetting this is a completely open pvp game, so the farmers will have to fight, and if they annoy players something can be done about it.

Talek Krell · 2011-08-19, 11:26 PM

Too little information to have a proper discussion of it. I think I remember them mentioning an economy aspect as part of their long term plans but there's no telling how large or significant they intend it to be.

**Malorn** · 2011-08-20, 08:55 AM

I hope resources have relatively small caps so stockpiling is meaningless and everyone always wants/needs them. When you become rich with resources your motivation to acquire more decreases. Also resource cap is basically like bank/inventory size in rpgs so it could be monetized to some extent and be a premium/vip differentiator.

Timey · 2011-08-21, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I hope resources have relatively small caps so stockpiling is meaningless and everyone always wants/needs them. When you become rich with resources your motivation to acquire more decreases. Also resource cap is basically like bank/inventory size in rpgs so it could be monetized to some extent and be a premium/vip differentiator.

This.

Furret · 2011-08-21, 01:01 PM

I don't really like the cap idea.

Lets say you get 'Terrazine' from holding Searhus.

After owning Searhus for 48 hours, you've reached your Terrazine cap.

Well what's my motivation for holding Searhus now? I'd really much rather go attack Ishundar because I'm running low on 'Penthanol'

And what about your home continents? Those would resource cap quickly as well.

**Malorn** · 2011-08-21, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Furret

I don't really like the cap idea.

Lets say you get 'Terrazine' from holding Searhus.

After owning Searhus for 48 hours, you've reached your Terrazine cap.

Well what's my motivation for holding Searhus now? I'd really much rather go attack Ishundar because I'm running low on 'Penthanol'

And what about your home continents? Those would resource cap quickly as well.

I don't think you are looking at it the right way. The point of resources isn't to horde them.

1) Terazine would be a resource on Searhus (and on other continents as well), not something you only get for holding it.

2) What is the reason you are getting Terazine? To stockpile for a rainy day and build up your own endless armory so you never have to worry about resources ever again? No, you're getting it to use it. Having a good supply of it means you can frequently use upgrades and customizations that require it.

3) There are no home continents in PS2.

If you can stockpile huge amounts of a resource then shortages of that resource become meaningless to most players because they'll have a huge reserve to fall back on. This means tactics like the kind Higby mentioned where you go after specific resources to deny them to the enemy even if you don't need them will not be effective strategies. I think they want denial to be an effective strategy. In order for that to happen it means not having a resource is noticable, as in, you don't have huge amounts of it.

You do need some ability to stockpile because Higby gave a scenario for that too - going to a different continent that has the resources you want and fighting there to build up your supply and then going to a continent that doesn't have that resource.

So having a reserve supply of resource is meaningful. But it can't be too big of a reserve or denial strategies are not viable.

It's a delicate balance, but if you are actually using resources as you acquire them then any "cap" becomes little more than a temporary reserve you can draw upon in the event of shortages. But you need that reserve to be small enough that you are still concerned about not having that resource available and motivate you to go secure it.

Talek Krell · 2011-08-21, 03:17 PM

It occurs to me that that actually sounds a lot like how the resource system worked in Supreme Commander 1. You brought in resources at a constant rate as long as you held collectors (which never ran out), and had a cap that was just enough that you could save up a bit and build something that was a above your paygrade with the buffer.

I approve of this. It was also one of the few RTSes I've played where I felt perfectly comfortable spending resources, since anything that didn't fit into storage was a waste.

Mastachief · 2011-08-20, 09:06 AM

As said above we don't really have enough info to properly discuss it but imo a player driven economy is what drives eve to be so successful.

There is alot to be said of crawling before walk mind you.

CutterJohn · 2011-08-20, 10:30 AM

I will say that a player economy needs something to trade. With no crafting, and no drops, there's no reason to give other players money, and no basis at all for an economy.

I suppose you could trade resources? 10 megacyte for 100 tritanium, etc.

Hamma · 2011-08-20, 01:00 PM

Going to have to agree we really don't know enough about the resource system yet to have a proper discussion.

Death2All · 2011-08-20, 04:43 PM

Um...People are concerned that resources are going to be traded or farmed?

Er, I don't think it works that way. It's my understanding that different territories give out different resources and once your empire captures that territory it automatically amasses resources for your empire. He clearly stated in the reveal that you won't be hitting a piece of ore with a pick trying to get minerals from it.

Again, like everyone said, not enough information has been given on resources to speculate but some of these ideas or just asinine.

zuesrocks · 2011-08-22, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I will say that a player economy needs something to trade. With no crafting, and no drops, there's no reason to give other players money, and no basis at all for an economy.

I suppose you could trade resources? 10 megacyte for 100 tritanium, etc.

you can play wow then

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2011-08-22, 09:01 AM

It was my understanding that resources will act like Tech plants in PS1. You can only make some of teh bigger and better stuff with certain resources.

Want to make a Vangaurd? You need to control resource X. Want to use that AA upgrade you learned for it? Then you also need resource Y. Unlike Tech plants tho they get used up and new nodes spawn else were on the map.

**Malorn** · 2011-08-22, 09:11 AM

Conceptually, yes. Its like the tech plant or other benefits made more generic and moved away from being tied directly to facilities. Then made more granular and expanded upon at the outfit, player, and empire levels.

It's a great way to encourage good play and reward players who aren't careless with their lives or their vehicles. Its also a good way they can control specific vehicle and upgrade populations. That isn't something I think we've previously discussed, but simply by changing the values of resources they could change vehicle prevalence. Too many aircraft? Don't need to nerf the aircraft, just make them costlier to fly and/or upgrade.