I never liked having 2 or more resources in a game.
But did I know exactly what I didn't like about it?
It seems that after all these years, I slowly come to realize. That there can be multiple resources in a game without realizing. And I can accept that.
But what do I mean?
For starters. Multiple resources that are needed to build something. There is always a resource that is abundant. Starcraft has minerals and gas. I never had a problem with both. Only with 1 at a time. This because one of the 2 was always ahead on the other. It simply meant that the distribution amongst units was different. And thus way to shallow for my taste.
With Settlers of Catan, I discovered that the same issue would only occur, once you had build up your country. But you could trade. Although, at that point, the game was almost over.
Trading is something I also did in AoE2. Getting that market asap. And simply mass trade my wood for anything else. The thing I got in return when actually gathering the resource that I need directly, was time.
But what if... You only need 1 resource for something?
I discovered that I designed my own game in such a way.
Players gather 1 resource for producing anything.
Facilities are a resource for that they can trade the one and only passive resource, into units or other facilities.
And then there is activity. Which costs Action Points instead of resources.
So, my resources are:
- Money, which is passive and a 1 time for each entity.
- Facilities, which are semi-passive/semi-active.
- Action Points, which are active because they are needed constantly for each entity.
How do you guys feel about this?
Are my assumptions correct?
Wow, never did I expect to see someone to be an advocate of having multiple resources.
I was always one of the single resource to balance.
I tried multiple resources in the past.
Example:
Lowest armor costs resource A
Medium costs A and B
Highest costs B