Been wondering through my mind for awhile... How would you prefer to obtain resources? How many resources do you think is a good amount? I personally like games with lower resource totals, I really enjoy Warcraft 3 because I'm only required to gather 2 resources, and this is the reason I never got that interested in AOE melee because there was so much economic things I had to do. I also enjoy Age of Mythology's resource system. The temple worship to gain favor was a big plus when playing that game. If my memory serves me well, the Norse also had some type of resource gained when they killed an enemy unit or hit an enemy building. What are your thoughts on special ideas to gain resources? Comments...?

To be perfectly honest, I've always viewed the notion of "building" things in RTS games to be kinda silly. Thus, resources seem kinda silly.

Don't get me wrong, I play Brood War on a daily basis even now, and Warcraft III every time I visit my buddy who has it. I love Blizzard games. The thing is, Blizzard knows how to avoid making it seem like there's a direct correlation between harvesting vespene gas and building starships. The price of a barracks is only three times the price of a single marine, and you could get two buildings and a science vessel (a vehicle in which one whole campaign mission is set!) for the price of a single battlecruiser, but it takes no more minerals to build that cruiser than it does to make eight infantrymen. There's a real suspension of disbelief there.

That said, I think that resources, if you're going to include them, should be gathered from the map. It makes for natural "hills" that you can and must gain and hold, and puts an ultimatum on "turtling", the practice of establishing an impenetrable perimeter defense and waiting for your enemy to dash his forces against it.

As a lover of StarCraft, I'm inclined to think that two resources is ideal, because it divides the tech tree and requires you to make decisions about economy on a more advanced scale (firebats now or cruisers later?) than one would, but doesn't get too complex. Warcraft II did well by adding Oil, which only really mattered for naval units, making it another "tier" in the system. C&C (as I recall) has a cash economy, which was a great resource that wasn't gathered, but could be targetted by other players all the same.

Resources should be fairly easy to handle, but should be susceptible to attacks. Supply-line tactics are among the most difficult and powerful in a Blizzard RTS, and I really like that dynamic. Nothing beats a good early Reaver drop against Terrans.

In Conclusion, Resources Should:

-Be obtained by special units/structures that can be targetted by the enemy
-Not take a lot of time to manage, refine, or whatever
-Vary such that their relative importance will depend on your strategy
-Not be too terribly "realistic"

Another thing you might want to look at is the class system in Ogre Battle. In order to turn a character into, say, a Knight, you not only need a character with the appropriate statistical abilities, but you must have the default knightly equipment, in this case plate mail, sword and kite shield. So those items become a valuable resource because they allow you to make a knight. If you're all out of kite shields and you need to make someone a knight (and let's be honest, the armament of a mounted soldier is a big part of his battlefield role), then you'll pay a lot to get one.

So, hypothetically, you might need a dragon's eye to become a seer. So you'll have to go find an eye or kill a dragon to unlock that feature. In this way, you could have scores of "resources" in the form of rare or special items that must be managed. It depends on the style of your game.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage To be perfectly honest, I've always viewed the notion of "building" things in RTS games to be kinda silly. Thus, resources seem kinda silly. Don't get me wrong, I play Brood War on a daily basis even now, and Warcraft III every time I visit my buddy who has it. I love Blizzard games. The thing is, Blizzard knows how to avoid making it seem like there's a direct correlation between harvesting vespene gas and building starships. The price of a barracks is only three times the price of a single marine, and you could get two buildings and a science vessel (a vehicle in which one whole campaign mission is set!) for the price of a single battlecruiser, but it takes no more minerals to build that cruiser than it does to make eight infantrymen. There's a real suspension of disbelief there. That said, I think that resources, if you're going to include them, should be gathered from the map. It makes for natural "hills" that you can and must gain and hold, and puts an ultimatum on "turtling", the practice of establishing an impenetrable perimeter defense and waiting for your enemy to dash his forces against it. As a lover of StarCraft, I'm inclined to think that two resources is ideal, because it divides the tech tree and requires you to make decisions about economy on a more advanced scale (firebats now or cruisers later?) than one would, but doesn't get too complex. Warcraft II did well by adding Oil, which only really mattered for naval units, making it another "tier" in the system. C&C (as I recall) has a cash economy, which was a great resource that wasn't gathered, but could be targetted by other players all the same. Resources should be fairly easy to handle, but should be susceptible to attacks. Supply-line tactics are among the most difficult and powerful in a Blizzard RTS, and I really like that dynamic. Nothing beats a good early Reaver drop against Terrans. In Conclusion, Resources Should: -Be obtained by special units/structures that can be targetted by the enemy -Not take a lot of time to manage, refine, or whatever -Vary such that their relative importance will depend on your strategy -Not be too terribly "realistic" Another thing you might want to look at is the class system in Ogre Battle. In order to turn a character into, say, a Knight, you not only need a character with the appropriate statistical abilities, but you must have the default knightly equipment, in this case plate mail, sword and kite shield. So those items become a valuable resource because they allow you to make a knight. If you're all out of kite shields and you need to make someone a knight (and let's be honest, the armament of a mounted soldier is a big part of his battlefield role), then you'll pay a lot to get one. So, hypothetically, you might need a dragon's eye to become a seer. So you'll have to go find an eye or kill a dragon to unlock that feature. In this way, you could have scores of "resources" in the form of rare or special items that must be managed. It depends on the style of your game.

Some very good points (by the way,in C&C you do collect resources from the map, albiet one kind).

I agree that you should have more than one type of resource, especially if one is more scarce than the other. I play StarCraft, and that factors in tremendously. In fact, it is safe to say that the mid-to-late-game of most matches revolve around (in some way or another) Vespene Gas.

In StarCraft, everything costs Minerals, and some things cost Gas. However, since there is very limited gas, you must be careful not to lose units that cost gas. For example, when playing as Terran versus Protoss, you must make sure not to lose your tanks, but your Vultures are expendable. The Zerg race always needs more bases than the other races so they can harvest more gas. Protoss needs gas vs. Zerg to fight Zerg's tech. You are often limited by how much Gas you have as to which branches of the tech tree you will follow. Without two types of resources an entire layer of strategy is gone. The is really no way to emulate it.

I think that harvesting resources is an integral (but rediculous) part of RTS games.

Thanks for the comments guys... I feel as if both of you prefer a 2 resource system.

Another thought, what are some ways you could obtain resources beside mining/cutting? If you were in, let's say a medieval(SP) theme setting, what resources would be necessary and how would you obtain them? Like I said, I think AoM hit it on the nose with the temple worship, and I also believe War3 had Pillage which gave gold when you hit a building. Any other systems like these you'd enjoy?

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I think that harvesting resources is an integral (but rediculous) part of RTS games.

If I am not mistaken, the genre of games that you are refering to are similar to Real Time Strategy are Real Time Tactical (RTT). However, I do not think many of these exist [sad]. Being and avid fan of RTS games, I do know the importance of resources.

First, I loved the way starcraft did it in terms of one unit per resource with only two types of resources. This made for lot's of planning, as was brought up, gas was very limited to begin with and more slowly obtained (ignoring those money maps).

Second, I hated the way C&C generals did resources. Having only one unit that can get access to your supply depot was a pain and so unrealitic. Yes, I know you can capture oil derricks, but still. Bad resource design and gathering.

Third, Empire Earth had way too many resources (5?) as well as begining way more inconvient with gathering. IIRC, you could only use up to 6 workers on stone/gold fields and same for gathering wood or food. Another game that had horrible resource management.

Fourth, I loved Age of Empires 2. Even though it too had quite a few resouces (4), you could realistily have as many villagers working on a resource as you wanted to - space permitting. I think the design that it employed was noteworth along with SC. The best part was that you could upgraded your units to gather faster, which is definitly a plus! We are working with strategy here, you have to spend some $$ to make some $$.

Fifth, Command and conquer Tiberian Sun had an intresting system of resource managerment in terms of mining the tiberian. The process was slow, but it was not all that 'bad'. Resource gathering matched the pace of the game. Same thing goes for Red Alert/RA2. So I can't say too much bad about those.

Sixth, WarZone 2100 has the most suckiest resource gathering in the world. It is a great awesome game, don't get me wrong, but they screwed up the resources so badly IMO. In that game all you can do is build wells on top of the natural oil spots on the map. To get your wells working, you must build power generators - to which your oil wells many miles away magically start working. Just blah! If it weren't for the fact that you can build your own units in that game based on research, I'd have nothing good to say about it.

Seventh, I can't remember all of Age of Mytholody, but I loved that game. Played only the demo I think, but it was great [smile]. Something about the theme that I just liked a lot. There's another game similar to this that came out along with it, but I can't remember what it was.

Eigth, Total Annihilation resource gathering was just too easy. I only played that game a little bit because I never cared for it, so I guess I don't have that much to say about it that's praiseworthy.

So to answer your questions on what I like:

I would perfer to obtain resources with my units. I should be able to use as many as I want per se on the resource if it is logical to. If not, then only one unit per resource. I don't want to build a building that does it for me automatically - unless you are aiming for more RTT style.

A good amount for resources is 2. If you do any more, go for something like 3 or 4, but any more will make things too complicated and confusing. Unless you have specific needs for more, limit yourself to 3 max.

As you mentiond as well, killing the unitls in AoM was pretty neat for more resources and stuff. I think ideas like that would be cool. You could incorperate what Total A. did and let your units pick up the scrap metal from destoryed enemies and use that for your metal as well. However, be wary of games in which if you can mine the most resoruces you automatically win. Resource management should only be at most 50% of the game play.

I really enjoyed the first Dune RTS. using another unit (carryall?) to ferry my harversters when under enemy attack or from a sandworm.

and the fact that I can recall my harvester even when not 100% full. Having a full harvester eaten by a sandworm or destroyed by the enemy really hurts since they cost to build and took a few minutes to fill up.

In a map with few resources, having a shipment destroyed may decide the battle.

I liked the fact that in Rise of Nations(or maybe it was AoM), the size of the forest/mountain you were mining allowed you to have a certain amount of lumberjack/miners working at that one lumber mill/mine e.g. the bigger the montain/forest the more people could work at it and the more resources it would have. I would also like to point out that i loved RoN, and I think it had wood, and stone, gold(but it was collected when your merchants completed stops on their trade routes to your or your ally's cities), and oil(but only after the industrial age).

I guess the question is, where the line blurs between a RTS and a resource-management title, for example, games with a huge number of resources which should be managed (The Settlers, Pharoh etc).

Some people really dislike RM games as too boring / nerdy / not enough shooting. Probably because they are 13 years old and like watching stuff blow up.

IMHO, RM games have more depth anyway. But true RTS titles like the C&C series and Warcraft series only really have one or two types of resource, as they are really concentrating on tactics and strategy rather than resource management.

Obviously a valid strategy in RTS titles is to attack the enemy's resource supplies / tiberium harvesters / peasants walking to/from the gold mine etc.

What I'm saying is, changeing the number / nature of resources can have a huge effect on the style of gameplay without really altering the game engine at all.

Some RM games such as Pharoh have a very steep learning curve - there are so many things to manage that you must initial build a lot of different types of things just to stop your city falling to pieces and people starving etc.

Mark

I have a bit of a "a good game is like a spreadsheet" mentality ([grin]), but don't let that bother you. I like having a lot of different resources, since having few resources is a way to make the game more abstract and rtss are already too abstract to begin with even with a lot of resource types.

Different people like different things, and I somewhat like resource management on the level as it is in games such as Age of Empires (any of the series) and Empire Earth (Settlers, at least the original one, has a great economical model, but I won't get into that now). Using those games as a basis, I'd like to say a couple of things:

Not all resources should work like gold. Food as a resource should be more of a consumption kind — you constantly lose food with a speed proportional to your population. This way pillaging and ravaging the countryside will become a meaningful strategy since if the soldiers lose their source of food, they will start to starve.

Unless you are doing a sci-fi game where you can use quantum-mechanical tunneling or other teleportation methods to transport goods, you really shouldn't be able to use the resources you collected in, say, Ouagadougou, to build a barracks building somewhere near, say, Betelgeuse. By having to transport the goods, besieging will become a meaningful tactic as besieged areas can't build anything due to the lack of material.

As for collecting resources and giving orders to do that... I've given one answer to this in
Resource Shuttling in RTS Games
The link points directly to a reply of mine, but I'd say the whole thread subject is quite relevant as it is about resources too. Basically, move away from the personal level and start defining what you want done instead of defining who does it.

You should ask yourself what does the concept of resources bring in to the game to begin with. If you just want to slow down gameplay (i.e. make sure that no one can afford to use rushing tactics in the beginning of the game or something like that) but aren't really that interested in managing the economy, why not just have a constant cash flow? If you want tactical aspects, having e.g. gold mines that bring in that cash flow automatically (w/o transportation) can be adequate. My point is that if you're going to have transportation, then you have to do it all the way in order to maintain the credibility of the game; just having to transport the lumber from the forest into the storage is not enough, you should also transport it further on to wherever it's needed. If you're going to have resources that imply constant consumption (such as food), then you should have constant consumption. If not for the sake of credibility (or "realism", if you will), then for the sake of strategy. You know, actually finally putting the s in the rts instead of making yet another rushing game?

This thread caught my attention as I was just about to start one exactly like it.

I'm working on a humble little RTS. I'm not looking to redefine games, just to make a solid implementation of my favorite genre.

Personally, I love the resource aspect of RTSs. I tried Age of Mythology but found the way the workers harvested critters a little annoying. The style of the game also made it difficult for me to pick out individual units without thinking until I had been playing for several weeks. I compare this to Starcraft where every unit had a distinct look and wasn't forgotten. I tried the demo for Rise of Nations but never got into it.

The thing I liked about Starcraft was you always knew where your workers were. They wouldn't go off half way across the map in search of some lone giraffe. This did lead to the idle worker problem though. Warcraft III had the nice feature of letting you know when workers were idle, but I found the entire creep and hero aspect more tedious than resource management ever could be.

But...it seems reading around that the trend is to lean away from resource gathering. I was wondering how well it would work if I went full out resource gathering. Without hesitation I think it could turn out very well.

I remember a game from a long time ago called Deadlock. It had 10 or so different resources, but it wasn't unwieldy. Many of them were actually refined from more primitive resources. They were relatively easy to secure in small amounts, but a reliable supply took some work. Even still, you weren't completely screwed if you didn't get one. There was a black market you could purchase things from. The catch was that if you got caught, the AI would turn against you very quickly.

I was thinking of taking this approach for my game. There would be three or four base resources. They could be refined into more advanced resources later. Two of them might be fairly rare, but the other one or two would be easy to get. Most of the units and buildings would be made out of the easy ones, so you wouldn't be too behind. The rare ones would be reserved for special case, powerful units. You would be able to trade in one resource for another at a black market, but it would have a different catch than that of Deadlock: those greedy pirates might take the opportunity to scout your base. If you were unlucky enough another player could buy this information and know everything about your army and base. However, it could provide some interesting starting strategies where players make a b-line right for the top of the tech tree, much more quickly than in current games.

I do hate the turtle part. I think this is more an issue of unit and map design than it is of the game itself. Siege weapons shouldn't be so incredibly specialized or tedious to use, and maps should be built in a way that discourages players from hunkering down.

Thoughts on a completely resource based RTS?