 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
Why does that make sense? Usually the more you produce, the cheaper it becomes as you become better at producing the necessary supplies and have learned the techniques.
The way that things become more expensive when you build more is when resources are beginning to be lacking. Eventually building a ton of things will make it more expensive because there isn't enough cheap resources to build it. But at the start, the more you make - the cheaper each becomes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bhg_paul
|
|
"The more you produce the cheaper it gets" might be true in the narrow context of making widgets in a factory. It becomes less true and can even be reversed when you're talking about the support and logistics costs required to maintain a large organization.
The same can be said of buildings. Try building an 800 square foot building in south Alabama. Now try it in downtown New York. If you applied the "more is cheaper" logic, that building in New York should be *much* cheaper. In fact it's the other way around. Infrastructure carries many direct and indirect costs.
So given that ramping costs are at least a reasonable nod to realism for a game that is necessarily abstract, let's talk about gameplay. If units got cheaper every time I built one then the player with the most units, everything else being equal, will *always* be the player with the most units. This means that once a player begins to win, even by the smallest amount, the advantage they enjoy continues to magnify. In fact what is far more desirable in a game is a system that keeps a leader from becoming a runaway from a slight advantage and that gives an opportunity for players to overcome minor setbacks. Brian has written at length about this philosophy. I suggest you read his "The Poor Get Richer" article on Gamespy. It does a better job of covering the concept than I can do in this limited post.
Just think of the ramping costs as representing the roads, clothes, food, middle managers, ammo, postal systems, schools, water treatment centers, belt buckles, and government offices you don't actually have to *manually* make but that are obviously part of any actual nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HuangShang
|
 |
USA, SoCal, L.A.
Jul 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhg_paul
"The more you produce the cheaper it gets" might be true in the narrow context of making widgets in a factory. It becomes less true and can even be reversed when you're talking about the support and logistics costs required to maintain a large organization.
The same can be said of buildings. Try building an 800 square foot building in south Alabama. Now try it in downtown New York. If you applied the "more is cheaper" logic, that building in New York should be *much* cheaper. In fact it's the other way around. Infrastructure carries many direct and indirect costs.
So given that ramping costs are at least a reasonable nod to realism for a game that is necessarily abstract, let's talk about gameplay. If units got cheaper every time I built one then the player with the most units, everything else being equal, will *always* be the player with the most units. This means that once a player begins to win, even by the smallest amount, the advantage they enjoy continues to magnify. In fact what is far more desirable in a game is a system that keeps a leader from becoming a runaway from a slight advantage and that gives an opportunity for players to overcome minor setbacks. Brian has written at length about this philosophy. I suggest you read his "The Poor Get Richer" article on Gamespy. It does a better job of covering the concept than I can do in this limited post.
Just think of the ramping costs as representing the roads, clothes, food, middle managers, ammo, postal systems, schools, water treatment centers, belt buckles, and government offices you don't actually have to *manually* make but that are obviously part of any actual nation. |
 oh, i see , i get it now  but i probably will still be using this option very little
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rohag
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhg_paul
"The more you produce the cheaper it gets" might be true in the narrow context of making widgets in a factory. It becomes less true and can even be reversed when you're talking about the support and logistics costs required to maintain a large organization. ...
Just think of the ramping costs as representing the roads, clothes, food, middle managers, ammo, postal systems, schools, water treatment centers, belt buckles, and government offices you don't actually have to *manually* make but that are obviously part of any actual nation. |
Too true. "Corruption" in Civilization was a realistic dynamic, but, as corruption rates fell with the advance of a civ, I felt increasing "Bureaucracy" should take its place. Were it not for copyright issues, you could call it the "Dilbert Factor." 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bhg_paul
|
|
Actually, several of the skilled RTS players that we've had test the game have become some of the biggest fans of this game principal. I think that once you've played the game you'll see that it contributes a great deal to gameplay and is logical in context. I don't know what else can be said except I think you may feel differently once you've had a chance to play. Hopefully that' won't be too much longer...
Paul Stephanouk
Producer - Big Huge Games
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-01-2003 07:58
|