PDA

View Full Version : Resources?


jap88
06-15-2007, 03:11 PM
Just was passing by and i wondered how the resource system was going to work, what the resources would be, etc. I remember asking a similar question at the old forums but the person who answered talked a lot but said nothing :p Personally, i'm not the biggest fan of sending one unit out, they chop at a tree for 10 seconds, they walk back to whatever your resource building may be and then you get 20 wood.

Ryan Zelazny
06-15-2007, 04:45 PM
Welcome back, jap88.

At the moment we have 4 resources; Food, Gold, Stone, and Wood. However we have various ways of gaining these resources as said on the Dawn of Fantasy website:

" Dawn of Fantasy features an entirely new approach to an economic system.

For defense oriented players who enjoy micro-managing, their entire economy can be redesigned in just a few clicks. This economic system features standards in the Real Time Strategy (RTS) genre such as farming, woodcutting, mining, etc., but also adds to the list with such amazing realistic features as crop rotation, mine building, animal herding and more. In the end, players who wish to control every aspect of their towns are able to with an innovative, easy to use system.

Players who wish to focus more on the battlefield, however, have options available as well and can take advantage of the automated economy. A complex economy is created without the need for many player choices, allowing the player to focus more on the battle at hand."

As well as Corpse Looting, which we have more information as said here:

"Dawn of Fantasy implements a unique "looting system" allowing players to recover the cost of dead units. This feature was created to reward victory as well supporting the losing player.

After units have been killed, they will be open to looting by any player. This loot is converted back into the the specific components that were used to make the unit. While the total cost of a unit will never be regained, looting offers losing players the chance to regroup and quickly rebuild their army while letting victorious players quickly eliminate their opponents."

Darvin
06-15-2007, 06:09 PM
Can you elaborate on how resource collection will operate? Also to what extent will resources be renewable and non-renewable?

Alexander Flegler
06-16-2007, 04:00 AM
Resource gathering itself works like in the Age of Empires series. You train a group of peasants and right click on the forest for instance, to make them gather wood.

Every race has the access to unique renewable resources.

Humans for instance can breed herd animals and gather food on farms. Orcs can breed wild animals, but they have least access to renewable resources. Elves on the other hand have all resources renewable.

I'm sure you'll hear more of the Elves in the future.

The Witch King of Angmar
06-17-2007, 10:08 PM
Resource gathering itself works like in the Age of Empires series. You train a group of peasants and right click on the forest for instance, to make them gather wood.

Every race has the access to unique renewable resources.

Humans for instance can breed herd animals and gather food on farms. Orcs can breed wild animals, but they have least access to renewable resources. Elves on the other hand have all resources renewable.

I'm sure you'll hear more of the Elves in the future.

Yeah I like the AOE style of resource collecting but at certain times since I'm not used to that type of gameplay I felt it was a little complicated but still very realistic.

SPARROW94
06-18-2007, 08:01 AM
How About The Dragons You Guys Never Gave Any Thing Out On Them

The Witch King of Angmar
06-18-2007, 11:28 AM
How About The Dragons You Guys Never Gave Any Thing Out On Them

Uhhhhhhhhhh they have dragons? Lol actually I would like to know what other units they have bsides dragons.

Alexander Flegler
06-18-2007, 11:48 AM
Drakes :cool:

Solomai
06-19-2007, 01:58 AM
Drakes :cool:

and Fire-Lizards as well??? what about half man/half dragon hybrids? (just don't feed em on beans :p)

The Witch King of Angmar
06-19-2007, 07:46 AM
and Fire-Lizards as well??? what about half man/half dragon hybrids? (just don't feed em on beans :p)


I thought they had ogres or something as well.

Ryan Zelazny
06-19-2007, 11:13 AM
Ogres are part of the Orc race.

Dragons have different types of dragons which will have different abilities, as well as drakes (humanoid dragon hybrids) that will serve as resource gatherers and basic foot soldiers. So far the Dragon playstyle is slated to be high cost for high gain, meaning your dragons are going to cost tons of resources to build, but are well worth it.

One thing that I don't believe has been mentioned is that our concept for fog of war is based on line of sight, so if you have a dragon who can fly, they will have a huge line of sight, and give you a great strategic advantage. Also can be said for the other races if you place your scouts on mountains or cliffs, you will get a better vantage point.

Darvin
06-19-2007, 02:36 PM
I'm curious to see how dragons will turn out. My experience with factions built around high cost / high gain is that they're very decisive, either winning everything or losing everything.

In any case, it's good to see that scouting will play an important role in this game. I've always hated titles where scouting is sidelined or difficult to approach since they can boil down to luck as to who catches the other at an inopportune moment first.

SPARROW94
06-20-2007, 02:21 PM
kewl but we all know who realy is a dragon


he he he

Sharku
07-16-2007, 10:26 AM
Can we assume that players who micro-manage their economy are going to be at a great economical advantage then those who just assign guys and focus on battles? And will Trade and Fishing play any part in the game?

jap88
07-16-2007, 10:30 AM
For the first question i'd imagine so, for the second one probably but i do not know.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-16-2007, 01:04 PM
Can we assume that players who micro-manage their economy are going to be at a great economical advantage then those who just assign guys and focus on battles? And will Trade and Fishing play any part in the game?

I'd say yes to both.

Irish_PXzyan
07-17-2007, 08:47 AM
You will have rushers and Eco gamers in every single RTS game:rolleyes: Its great fun! Rushers fear looseing a battle..although they beg to differ...its true! I used to be a MASS rusher and looseing was something I dreaded!! so rushing made sure id win most of the time:rolleyes:

But as I got older..blah blah blah!! I found rushing to be extremely boring and you dont get to enjoy the game. Now a days I am a major Eco booster and its good...if you can withstand all the rushers attacking you so early on..you are going to destroy them later with your technology:eek:

Javier
07-21-2007, 10:40 PM
Dawn of Fantasy will probably feature a balance between rushing/turtling. The best strategy should to be attack, gain map control, and at the same time expand your base and set up defenses. I hope it's not sided, as some games that only favor rush. Turtling should be an option, with its pros and cons, same as rushing.

Darvin
07-22-2007, 02:14 AM
I've always felt that the ideal RTS game shouldn't have the concept of either rushing or turtling.

That is to say that "rushing" should be a normal part of gameplay. I've always felt that games should encourage you to get out there and fight over the map's resources. The goal should not be to wipe out the enemy completely (unless you have a clear advantage, in which case the game ideally should end quickly, since it's not fun for either player when the match is lopsided), but to gain a tactical advantage to take into the mid-game. You get the unique gameplay of the early segment of the match, but it's only a part of the game, not the end all. In this sense, it's not longer a "rush", just the normal early game.

As for turtling, I've always felt someone who just sits in their shell and never moves should be a player who is already defeated. Gameplay like that is slow-paced and boring; it should not be encouraged, and the best way to prevent it is ensuring those who follow that path are defeated soundly. Instead, defences should be part of a larger strategy involving counter-attacks and delay strategies. Turtling should be a method to support another strategy; hence you're actively pursuing something and the game is not stagnated.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-22-2007, 03:30 PM
I've always felt that the ideal RTS game shouldn't have the concept of either rushing or turtling.

That is to say that "rushing" should be a normal part of gameplay. I've always felt that games should encourage you to get out there and fight over the map's resources. The goal should not be to wipe out the enemy completely (unless you have a clear advantage, in which case the game ideally should end quickly, since it's not fun for either player when the match is lopsided), but to gain a tactical advantage to take into the mid-game. You get the unique gameplay of the early segment of the match, but it's only a part of the game, not the end all. In this sense, it's not longer a "rush", just the normal early game.

As for turtling, I've always felt someone who just sits in their shell and never moves should be a player who is already defeated. Gameplay like that is slow-paced and boring; it should not be encouraged, and the best way to prevent it is ensuring those who follow that path are defeated soundly. Instead, defences should be part of a larger strategy involving counter-attacks and delay strategies. Turtling should be a method to support another strategy; hence you're actively pursuing something and the game is not stagnated.


I'd only turtle as a last resort once I know I will probably lose.

jap88
07-22-2007, 11:03 PM
The thing i find annoying about RTS games nowdays is that rush beats everything supposedly Rush>boom>Turtle>rush but instead it's Rush>Boom>turtle<rush. I like to turtle personally, kind of more of a combo of turtling and booming really but i'm not an aggresive player, much more defensive.

Super Nova
07-23-2007, 12:15 AM
I am not a aggresive player too but i like to play with my enemys u know almost kill they but let them live for ur own entertainment.:D
i do it the the AI too but still.

I know it is crue but hey i have fun. :)

Darvin
07-23-2007, 01:18 AM
My personal thoughts on the matter is that the whole concept of turtling, rushing, and booming are themselves flaws in the genre. I feel the next step, gameplay-wise, that needs to be taken in RTS games is to eliminate the concept of these three.

As far as rushing goes, I feel that games have either attempted to remove it from the picture or ignore it altogether. Both often end up as disaster; if you look at BFME2, the early game was dominated by offensive gambits that (if played out perfectly by both teams) resulted in a mutual defeat and were about which team could hunt down the last stragglers of the other team first. Alternately, I see too many games which remove the entire importance of the early game. The results of this are just as problematic; the game's all about a maximized build order, and the whole concept of the first attack is just moved ahead to a later point in time.

I feel that the solution is to integrate rushing as part of the early game. Battles with the opposing player must be an assumed part of the early game routine. Unless the unpredictability of player interaction comes into effect early on, all the early game will be is the repetition of a few well honed build orders; neither fun nor interesting. At the same time, it must be balanced so that players grow and advance rather than stagnate each other's development. That is, unless a player royally screws up, the rush won't impact his advance to the "late game" type armies.

As for turtling, I feel that this often stagnates a game and can lead to boring and drawn out bouts where the outcome is obvious. Defences should be part of other strategies, but simply sitting behind a wall shouldn't be a strategy on its own. It must exist to supplement other plans of action, but I feel a dedicated defence should mean inevitable defeat if you're not doing something else actively.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-23-2007, 04:19 PM
My personal thoughts on the matter is that the whole concept of turtling, rushing, and booming are themselves flaws in the genre. I feel the next step, gameplay-wise, that needs to be taken in RTS games is to eliminate the concept of these three.

As far as rushing goes, I feel that games have either attempted to remove it from the picture or ignore it altogether. Both often end up as disaster; if you look at BFME2, the early game was dominated by offensive gambits that (if played out perfectly by both teams) resulted in a mutual defeat and were about which team could hunt down the last stragglers of the other team first. Alternately, I see too many games which remove the entire importance of the early game. The results of this are just as problematic; the game's all about a maximized build order, and the whole concept of the first attack is just moved ahead to a later point in time.

I feel that the solution is to integrate rushing as part of the early game. Battles with the opposing player must be an assumed part of the early game routine. Unless the unpredictability of player interaction comes into effect early on, all the early game will be is the repetition of a few well honed build orders; neither fun nor interesting. At the same time, it must be balanced so that players grow and advance rather than stagnate each other's development. That is, unless a player royally screws up, the rush won't impact his advance to the "late game" type armies.

As for turtling, I feel that this often stagnates a game and can lead to boring and drawn out bouts where the outcome is obvious. Defences should be part of other strategies, but simply sitting behind a wall shouldn't be a strategy on its own. It must exist to supplement other plans of action, but I feel a dedicated defence should mean inevitable defeat if you're not doing something else actively.


I think that in RTS games, players should be battling almost all the time. After a retreat or a lose, I think a player should prepare to build up a defense and get ready to be sieged if that's the situation until he/she has rebuilt.

Ryan Zelazny
07-23-2007, 05:06 PM
I believe Dawn of Fantasy will differ quite a bit from other RTS titles in terms of creating strategies. There is so much involved in DoF to make it more realisitic that strategies like turtling and rushing (not quite sure what booming is) will become quite obsolete and players will have to develop more realistic strategies.

No comander in their right mind would send in a small untrained force at the start of a battle, with a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. Just as no one would rightly stay in their fortress waiting for their enemy to just give up.

Features like our line of sight system, layered maps, complex combat and powerful magic I think will add counter-strategies to pretty much anything. Allowing players of true tactic skill to win, over people who employ cowardly strategies, or attempt to just annoy their opponent.

For example, if someone is turtling in their fortress, take your mage, and send a huge volley of fireballs over them, no one is going to stay in a place covered in fire while your units burn to death. Dragons who stay in their caves are going to be at a disadvantage not being able to fly, or breathe fire without collateral damage will be devastating to them when legions of pikemen come in and skewer them.

To ward off rushers, place some scouts on high points to be able to get a good line of sight, anyone coming with their small army to rush you will be sorry they did because you knew they were coming.

jap88
07-23-2007, 05:32 PM
Booming is just going all-out on economy and teching right away ;)

...Sounds good :D Thething about most RTS games these days is that it's not the player with the most skill that wins, it's the player that clicks the mouse the fastest i geniunely hope to see that change with DoF.

Darvin
07-23-2007, 08:49 PM
Thething about most RTS games these days is that it's not the player with the most skill that wins, it's the player that clicks the mouse the fastest

That's a misconception; as I've written in many articles, APM is meaningless if you're making bad decisions. Being able to click faster is an advantage, but at a certain point it's not a big deal, since the opposing player can still do everything they need to. Perhaps it won't be as quick as the other player, but in most cases a 1 or 2 second delay isn't significant anyways; lag will hurt you more than your own reaction time. Micromanagement is less about clicking quickly and more about thinking quickly. You need to be able to analyze what you need to do, figure out what orders you need to give in order to achieve that, and then give those orders in the most effective manner. The clicking is actually just a small portion of the whole process of micromanagement. This is why most people actually aren't very good at it; they believe their problem is that they aren't clicking fast enough, when the problem actually is that they're not making the right clicks. The advice I always give to people with micromanagement problems is to try clicking as slowly as possible, because the problem is they're hurrying to click so quickly that they aren't thinking about what they're doing, and that's their problem!

The biggest issue I find is actually memorization of strategies and counter-strategies. It's all about build orders and openers to reduce the game to an equation. The result is then that the game becomes a battle of "execution" of the strategy rather than the strategy itself. The most important thing from a game-design perspective is to get lots of player interaction early on, and that makes it very difficult to reduce the game to a formula.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-24-2007, 10:09 AM
The biggest issue I find is actually memorization of strategies and counter-strategies. It's all about build orders and openers to reduce the game to an equation. The result is then that the game becomes a battle of "execution" of the strategy rather than the strategy itself. The most important thing from a game-design perspective is to get lots of player interaction early on, and that makes it very difficult to reduce the game to a formula.

I think alot of strategies come from your imagination and come and go depending on the situation. Alot of times for me if my partner is in a good position for me I will think up a quick strat that involves flanking, attacking from the side or backing him up in some way. I think in the tutorial for DOF their should be a list of basic manuvers and strategies for new players.

Konstantin Fomenko
07-24-2007, 10:31 AM
My take on rushing is - it has got to be a strategy used in 1 out of 4 online games, at most! For the record - this is Skirmish Online mode we are talking about here, not MMORTS.

So yeah - casual rushing only. You might call it a radical solution, but, DoF is putting alot of emphasis on huge strongholds, thousands of units on screeen epic battles, naval combat, sieges. Now rushing, really cuts all of this as well as 80% of other content.

Why would developed bother adding all that content in, things like magic, heroes e.t.c. If most players would only build 2-3 buildings instead of a stronghold, use 20 units of one type, instead of army of 1000 mixed from 12 units types.

But don`t get me wrong - we are pushing for immediate combat action the second the game starts. Player would have good number of combat units pre-placed, allowing him to start fighting over resources or chock-points right away, or go around and creep hunting. And with-in 3 minutes player can build up to level 1 stronghold and start continuously pumping up his units.

Darvin
07-24-2007, 12:29 PM
I think alot of strategies come from your imagination and come and go depending on the situation.


The problem is, unless there's significant player interaction, the number of situations you encounter in a frequent basis is so small that the "best" strategy is usually well known. Unless a game can create a variety of unexpected situations, creativity won't become an asset.


For the record - this is Skirmish Online mode we are talking about here, not MMORTS.

That kind of went without saying; we don't know enough about the mechanics of MMORTS yet to comment on such things. Whether a rush even makes sense in that setting is still up in the air.


Now rushing, really cuts all of this as well as 80% of other content.

I actually disagree; I believe that more content is cut by the lack of a rush then by the application of it. The key, of course, is that except in the worst case scenario that a rush does not impede a player's development to those late game armies. The important part of a rush is to prevent a "typical" mid-game and late-game scenario from emerging. If the game's progression can be reduced to a few typical formats, players will simply apply "cookie cutter" strategies, and these often restrict the game's content far more harshly than any rushing could.


Why would developed bother adding all that content in, things like magic, heroes e.t.c. If most players would only build 2-3 buildings instead of a stronghold, use 20 units of one type, instead of army of 1000 mixed from 12 units types.

This is the classic misconception of the rush; it should be viewed a stepping stone - rather than an alternative - to the late game material. There should be significant material in both an early game and late game context to provoke player interaction in interesting and unpredictable ways.


But don`t get me wrong - we are pushing for immediate combat action the second the game starts. Player would have good number of combat units pre-placed, allowing him to start fighting over resources or chock-points right away, or go around and creep hunting. And with-in 3 minutes player can build up to level 1 stronghold and start continuously pumping up his units.

Sounds good, although my experiences with creeps from warcraft III is that they are distractions that hurt the game more than they helped it.

WhiteHawk
07-26-2007, 03:10 PM
I think all strategies are fair. If someone isn't abusing bugs nor messing with codes and stuff, then it's definetly not cheating. Since there's a way around all strategies there's really no reason to complain.

If someone rushes you in the beggining of the game, turtling will save you.
If someone starts the game by turtling, you can spread out more and gather more resources and make forts and you will end up stronger.

jap88
07-26-2007, 04:28 PM
The problem is, turtling doesn't work anymore rush>all, the only way to fight a rush is with a counter-rush and it's stupid

Darvin
07-26-2007, 04:29 PM
There's no question of fairness here; it's all about the gameplay and player interaction. While fairness is a part of the matter, it is only one among many issues to consider.


Fundamentally, the problem with rush > turtle > boom is that two out of the three options there involve little or no player interaction. Without considerable player interaction, the game can be reduced to a relatively small group of "typical" outcomes, and players will then apply just a few "cookie cutter" strategies to get them through. I feel the rush needs to be mandatory (but not game-ending) in order to provoke early player interaction and prevent the game from coming to a "typical" outcome.

I had other points, as well, but that's the biggest one.

The Witch King of Angmar
07-26-2007, 04:44 PM
There's no question of fairness here; it's all about the gameplay and player interaction. While fairness is a part of the matter, it is only one among many issues to consider.


Fundamentally, the problem with rush > turtle > boom is that two out of the three options there involve little or no player interaction. Without considerable player interaction, the game can be reduced to a relatively small group of "typical" outcomes, and players will then apply just a few "cookie cutter" strategies to get them through. I feel the rush needs to be mandatory (but not game-ending) in order to provoke early player interaction and prevent the game from coming to a "typical" outcome.

I had other points, as well, but that's the biggest one.

Yeah I agree. That basically sucks all the fun out of the game.

Kell Aset
03-26-2009, 10:55 AM
I am curious, trees can be planted by players on their territory? or they grow on their own?

LiTos456
03-26-2009, 10:58 AM
Im pretty sure they grow on their own. Planting them would be just too much things to take care of...

Kell Aset
03-26-2009, 11:16 AM
A little pity, I liked to watch in Settlers 3 that little fellow who was planting trees in designated areas.

LiTos456
03-26-2009, 12:42 PM
Haha, yeah, sounds sweet though. Maybe they will grow back automatically with a guy planting them, so you can still watch it :P

Kell Aset
03-26-2009, 12:59 PM
Heh well I hope so, I really like such small things :)

The Witch King of Angmar
03-26-2009, 03:19 PM
I could see tree planting for elves for stealth purposes, but I still think it would take too long.

Phylast
03-26-2009, 11:12 PM
So yeah - casual rushing only. You might call it a radical solution, but, DoF is putting alot of emphasis on huge strongholds, thousands of units on screeen epic battles, naval combat, sieges. Now rushing, really cuts all of this as well as 80% of other content.


Are there still going to be naval units/ battles? I've haven't seen anything on this at all. Also if there are naval units, how would the resources that each band takes out be able to be spent (I read that groups of units bring a small amount of resources with them that can be used)?

LordSlayer
03-27-2009, 06:00 AM
Are there still going to be naval units/ battles? I've haven't seen anything on this at all. Also if there are naval units, how would the resources that each band takes out be able to be spent (I read that groups of units bring a small amount of resources with them that can be used)?

Unless they cut it, there will be naval units in the game (every race will have distinct ones with orc being the worst) and you will be able to put most ground units on ships to board other ships.

If you want screenshots of this, you can go to the media section, it is in one of the weekly sreenshots.

LiTos456
03-27-2009, 06:58 AM
They're staged though, because the navy system isn't finished :(

Andy Joslin
03-27-2009, 07:58 AM
We need one semi-small engine addition to make navy usable, and another to make it perfect. Then we need a few models and animations (not hard; ships only have a few animations).

Phylast
03-27-2009, 03:33 PM
Sounds great. Most games allow land units (normally ranged units) to damage naval units. Usually the ground units that are able to attack the naval units tend to do massive damage to the naval units. I've always seen the massive damage to be a flaw. Having ground units, or at least towers doing damage to naval units is fine, but when a few shots takes out an entire battleship I believe is unintentional. Here's where I see the flaw; Naval units have a base defense and health statistic normally balanced against other naval units for an appropriate battle, land units have their own health, damage, and defense statistics balanced for land battle units, what I see happening is that the units from the land are able to do massive damage to naval units because of a possible few reasons. One, the resistance or defense statistic on a naval unit doesn't exist against land ranged unit damage, the naval unit health is minimal compared to other land units so taking a few shots from little archers does a majority of the units' health.

There are a few easy ways to compensate for this mismatch such as adding high resists to non-naval based ranged damage, adding health to all naval units, etc. Just something to keep in mind when planning out the naval units.

LordSlayer
03-29-2009, 05:40 PM
There are a few easy ways to compensate for this mismatch such as adding high resists to non-naval based ranged damage, adding health to all naval units, etc. Just something to keep in mind when planning out the naval units.

Or you could just give ships huge resist against weak projectiles (arrows, javelins and any other that might be included) and standard infantry melee damage (a normal soldier with a sword should not be able to destroy a ship without serious time investment)

Phylast
03-29-2009, 10:10 PM
Or you could just give ships huge resist against weak projectiles (arrows, javelins and any other that might be included) and standard infantry melee damage (a normal soldier with a sword should not be able to destroy a ship without serious time investment)

That's what I meant.