I'd like to avoid only having a single town in which it's feasible to train units too, just makes it dull.

Well, for me rigth now, I don't see the point in refining something into something to make exactly the same weapon/armor/amulet/etc than we have rigth now. I totally agree that, if you have, said a blacksmith, that you can refine the ore and make some iron to increase the strengh of the BASE weapon then I would totally agree. If you want to streamline just to streamline, said to make the claymore, you now need a ore pit, a smelter to refine the ore into a ingot and then a blacksmith to craft your claymore I would say no. Like RikazeMA said, if it just slow the pace of the game to end up with the exact same thing then I say no BUT if it add something new to the weapon AND we can CHOOSE to use some refine material or not, then it's ok for me .

I'm not against the idea of this kind of tiered approach to resources so long at it leads to compelling and interesting choices and not just another layer of tedious micromanagement.

In brief, NAY to refined resources!  I am not saying it can not work, I just don't want to waste my playing time pining over increasing the rate at which my materials are converted into finished goods, or my metals into iron or mithril ingots, or precious stones (there are four examples of potential refined resources in my plug against them!  Keep them in mind in case this refined resource system is implemented!)

 Keep the focus on the unfolding of Elemental's story!

I don't have a problem with the current resource system.  Instead of diversifying resource types, tie specialized, advanced units to narrative events and a few additional advanced buildings available through the technology tree.  It's like the difference between modern man and the ancients; we live on the same planet, we have essentially the same resources (notable exceptions being coal, uranium, etc) but the way we use those resources is more developed.  I'm not saying do away with all special resources, but they should be special.  Here's kind of what I have in mind:

In-game example of narrative-focused advancement:

An adventurer stumbles upon an ancient Dwarven tome (I know there aren't Dwarves in Elemental, but you get the gist) of swordsmithing.  Upon returning this tome to one of the nation's cities with a library and blacksmith (library to translate ancient Dwarven, blacksmith to experiment with the designs), the nation gains a new, advanced sword with which to equip its units.

In-game tech tree example where a new building is unlocked:

After researching Quantum Ether Dynamics your nation has discovered a way to produce half-magical, half-mortal units called Demi Essences.  This adds a new base-unit type to the nation's unit designer, and Demi Essence units can be trained in any city containing a Quantum Ether Infuser building.  The Demi Essence units wouldn't require any fancy refined resource.  They would be paid for out of the currently available resources, balanced of course for playability and enjoyment.

In the event that a new structure is warranted to reasonably access a new development, the building alone should be the only requisite for production of the advanced unit/game effect, in addition to whatever amount of gold, metal, food, or material.  This would lend itself to the specialization of cities that has been mentioned with the new population-resource model.

I'm hoping Elemental goes the way of elegance instead of the too well-worn path of needless complexity.  More closely binding the resource system to the narrative would be the way to go.

Just my two cents.  I will continue to love the game (more so, of course, after 1.1).

It is a strategy game. Strategy = thinking. Adding someting else that a player can leverage to gain an advantage if they bother to think it through is therefore a good thing.

It is also a 4X game, and the 3rd X is eXploit. eXploit is to gather resources and maximize the effeciancy of there use. If Frogboy means adding more choices to shaping your economy to maximize output and not just adding complexity then it most definately belongs.

More choices that can give an advantage = good. More stuff that gives no advantage but makes the game complex = bad.

An ingot would be a bar of metal that has been smelted and is ready for use.

However that does not mean adding more stuff cannot make the game better. It just needs to be well done. Adding conversions for nothing but the sake of realism would not be good, but adding more MEANINGFUL details to city build that allow a player to fine tune production adds depth.

It is a matter of how it is done and how well it is implemented.

Edit:

As to what Frogboy means, given that he says "A long time ago" I take it to mean he would like to hear ideas for how to improve the resource system.

I understand yours and others opposition to the tweaking of this mechanic at the moment, but with 1.1 less than a week away, I wouldn't be too worried about this mechanic going in any time soon.

Rather, I think the purpose here is for Stardock to open up the floor to the players, as a means of re-evaluating their current system and improving upon it, as well as finding work for specialists to do in the event that there's not enough.  Did no one consider, with the current building-set we have available to us, especially for Empires, that the very idea of Specialists is mostly moot?  It's quite possible that in order to get them all used, you'll need several highly specialized cities.  If we were to do a head-count of buildings currently in the game that could require specialists, and compare that to the number of citizens we're likely to have off of X Number of cities, I think we'd find that specialists would always be in abundance.  Particularly if 1 Citizen = 1 Specialist.  A level five city, by itself, would support over 2000 Specialists.  That's 2000 tiles of Non-House improvements.  I dunno about you guys, but I don't think there's been a time where I've actually had that many non-house improvements, even on Large Map games with 10 other Realms and having conquered two or three of them.  We're going to need cities that basically spam a certain improvement or two to get them all used, I.E., spamming Library's/Archivist's in a city next to a Lost Library.

And the thing about 1.1 is just that, they are making an attempt at fixing the current problems with the game, and will continue to do so, but in doing so, they may end up creating more problems, which will need to be fixed consequently.  Particularly with moving to a new system like this, it's imperative that we get it fleshed out so that there aren't problems.  The first step is concepts, which is what we're discussing here.

On that note, I do agree that the idea of refining materials, given the current Global-Pool system, will probably end up being more trouble than it's worth.  Abstracting the refining however, given that most everything about resource management is already abstracted, would work in theory, and probably in practice too.  I just don't like the missed opportunity to do something genuinely fun and interesting.

On abstracting it, it would go a long way towards making some of the more ridiculous unit costs make sense.  If I'm recalling correctly, it takes something like 6 Metal to 'create' a Great Scimitar.  It's a powerful, '4th Tier' weapon, again if memory serves, at least in the Empire Conquest Tree.  It has 14 Attack.

What if instead though, with the idea of abstracting refinement, it would end up costing 4 Metal, one for each tier before it, and the tier including it.  A simple 'Iron Great Scimitar' would then have an attack value of, arbitrarily speaking, 8 Attack.  Then, with the 'Iron Smelter' improvement, we gained the ability to upgrade our Iron weaponry to Steel.  So our 'Steel Great Scimitar' would cost 50% extra Metal for a total of 6 Metal, and gain a similar increase in Attack, bumping it up to 12 Attack.  Further after that could be a 'Ventri Great Scimitar,' costing 9 Metal, and giving 18 Attack.  (I'm proposing that the costs be additive, but it could work as a multiplier instead.)

The numbers are all arbitrary of course.  It would need to be balanced properly, but you get the point.  It -could- go further than that, and that would still make the Global Resource Pool work, without adding a bunch of hard-to-manage resources to said pool, as well as allowing progression.  I know this idea was pretty much pitched already, but I thought I'd flesh it out with an example as well.

The problem here is, with the current Abstract system, you never need more than one of a given 'Refinement Building' in your Realm at any time, unless you want a backup in case a city gets taken.

I do agree with the idea of being able to trade excess resources away independent of other Realms, but at a penalty in relation to such trading.

Ummm no.

Sure it SOUNDS cool, and in fact some games have done it. But was it done well, and/or did it add to the fun of the game? A few of the first posters in this thread hit it on the head. "more complication", "frustrating". etc...

Here is my thoughts on this. Basically in an action rpg (think diablo or hellgate) game they take some "garbage" and break it down into components, then they take those components with other components and combine them to make such-n-such item, or proc for said item. This is kind of what you want to implement except in resources, correct? One resource gets mod'd into something else and has more utility, correct? Ok, sure, you aren't breaking down 'greens' or other useless junk but you still combine something into another. Here is the first problem, those games do that to BREAK THE MONOTONY of grinding in a dungeon. By definition (well, my definition at least) a strategy game should never be a grind, or monotonous. If so, then it isn't strategy, it is mindless automation. Think 'Doom'. Now they do the same type of mechanic in certain MMOs, and it always works same way I just stated and again, is put in to break the monotony.

In certain strategy games, (I forget which ones... settlers maybe? I played so many strat games, I forget which was which) You have had to get a field, grow cotton, turn it into wool, make that into clothes, sell them on the open market etc... That worked fine in the games I played like that, because the OPEN MARKET was part of the game. Usually there is a huge trade system involved, and this game doesn't have it. Nor do I want a trade system in it (well at least not until we get the important things implemented and fixed.)

So to sum up, if you are only including this new mechanic to add complexity, I think it is a mistake, being as the game is slow enough as it is. If you are adding it to creat a new type of "game within a game" like the above examples, I think it is not needed, and can not be implemented without a whole new can of wyrms being opened.

I am all for tweaking the resources a bit (more crystal, less iron, get rid of materials....and for heyzeus sake, add some elementium resource, lol) but I don't think this is the time in the games evolution to implement a new game mechanic.

~end of 2cents~

I'm not against this, per se, I just don't see where it goes.

So I can turn resource A into resource B. So what? What can I do with resource B instead of just collecting enough to turn it into resource C?

Is this the prelude to an actual item creation system? Is there some new economy system we're not being exposed to yet that would need this kind of system to make work?

Can we combine resources? Will the resources unlock items - like if we want Uber Sword of Pwning +1337, we'll need to have resources A, C, D, H in certain amounts and the only way to get H is to combine B, E, and F?

I guess, I can't tell from the snippet where the hope is for the concept to go or how it will change the mechanics in the game.

Will we need buildings? Or magic? Or champions with certain skills? Or all of the above? Can we do it with food? Combine two or more foods to make another even better food?

Edit: What is "economy camp 1" I read in some of the earlier posts?

no offense, I appreciate your reply, and you are definitely correct about the implementation time line. But read my post and yours again....

OP asks a question. I chime in with a 21 line reply about why I do not agree with it. and you reply to ONLY the last 2 sentences. And one was a sig. LOL. Not busting your butt, but I think the two main points I bring up are far more important as to why I DO NOT agree with the tweak. And the last comment about "not the right time" is kinda just icing on the cake. I would be interested to know if you agree or disagree with my opinions on this mechanic in other games, and if it has a place here. If you disagree, please explain. If you agree... then you are a genius, like all who agree with me. LOL. (just kidding)

This.

I think this thread is slowly finding a well know divide in the 4x/city building game community. On one side you have those individuals who enjoy deep infrastructure creation as in Settlers, and on the other, you have those individuals who enjoy well defined easily mix/maxed singular structures as in civ or galciv. In the end it is hard to please both sides, those looking to simply build a singular structure with well defined properties tend to find the other side fairly tedious. Now, there are those who are in the middle, like myself, who like the change of maintaining an infrastructure, yet without it becoming incredibly complex. While I think there are many interesting ideas which could come from resource chaining, I think that it would be better done as a mechanic of the system than by forcing the player to manage each cities buildings to tailor to a specific resource chain. That is.

Game mechanic:

Resource X + Resource Y = +Z to some unit stat

Improvement Chain:

Resource X -> Xsmith -> Resource A

Resource Y -> Ysmith -> Resource B

Resource A + Resource B ->Zsmith -> +z bonus

Personal I find the game mechanic aspect to be simpler and requiring of less tedium on the part of the player, as the example of an improvement chain is far simpler than would probably be promoted. Consider the example of Settlers, where 6 or 7 buildings are necessary to even build a single unit.

The current challenge with resources is two fold. Firstly, getting a resource and its mine is all that is required to gain a boost to your income of a particular resource. Due to this, city spam becomes an attractive way to quickly bolster your resources, considering the large time commitment making higher level cities, Secondly, as the game progresses and resources are flooding into your empire, the game lacks any form of resource sink to keep an empire from amassing incredible amounts of any given resource. In the late game, most resources are so plentiful that their diplomatic value becomes 0 and resource trades become impossible, especially on harder difficulties where the AI can accumulate vast amounts of most resources. Therefore, how does one effectively overcome this issues seems to be the real question at hand.

One idea to handle this would be infrastructure chaining. That is a mine creates some raw resource, lets use metal for an example. Our Metal mine creates X raw metal a turn, and is collected by the controlling city. This city could then be required to be a smelter which turns our raw metal into refined metal which is then used by all the cities to create units/building/etc.  In fact our chain could be elongated to have a blacksmith be able to turn the steel into special weapons granting a bonus to units built in the city with the blacksmith. And so on and so on. This idea would could be interesting but the long and more complex the chain, the more some players will simply find the game more tedious.

Another idea is utilize current game mechanics to promote city growth and strategic city building. The first thing would be to make most buildings cost some kind of upkeep and add more than gold to the upkeep of units. Currently, most buildings are essentially free and easy mass build as the game progresses and gildar is the only resource whose income needs to be managed due to unit costs. These costs would not be some kind of magic that the player has no control over, like corruption in the civ series, but would be clear and based upon the strategy of the player. The Second thing would be to make the income of mines based upon the size of the controlling city and require specialists to utilize them. A level 1 city might only produce 1 metal per specialist running the mine, where as a level 5 city would produce 5 metal per specialist. In this way, a player would be promoted towards larger more meaningful cities for their infrastructure, while placing outposts to secure resources for future use. This would also promote the player to spread out their cities as city clustering would reduce the ability of a level 5 city from maximizing the output of resources. Then lastly, if one desires to add some kind of special unit upgrades based up resources, improvements could be create which require a city to have a certain type of direct resource income - like a mine in the city's control. This way, you could say that a level 3 citiy with a metal mine can build a blacksmith which increases the production rate of units built in the city, or a level 5 city with an air shard can build troops with air weapons.

Obviously, I am a fan of the second choice, as implement simple game mechanics would be simpler and would not require the player to memorize resource trees and manage a complex infrastructure.