New Resource

[Trensicourt]

So you crash landed on a deserted world where you can build a nutrient dispenser right away with nothing, but metal. Logically, this doesn't make sense. You don't go from 3rd world tech to 2nd world tech in 1 day. It's IMPOSSIBLE! In my personal opinion, we need new resource to transition into next tech level. Right? Game Logic tells me having lots of metal allows you to get everything you need besides food.
You get what I am saying?

If you don't, then STILL read on, because I'm going to explain everything about this new resource.

The new resource is called E-Chips or electronic chips. E-Chips allow the construction of Sentries, Nutrient Dispensers, communications, and geothermal generators. Of course you can't make E-Chips right away, but you do start with 3. (No duh!) Depending on how wisely you use those E-Chips, you could be successful or end up in a disaster. But how do you get E-Chips then? You have to buy one from traders or you can research a E-Chip Mini-Factory. Once you have an E-Chip Mini-Factory that costs like 200 metal and 1 E-Chip to run;you can start making E-Chips!!! Be warned though, making E-Chips uses enormous amounts of energy and requires metal.

Q.) What if you used all your E-Chips and have no communication with trading ships??

A.) Easy, raiders should drop chips rarely, but travelers has a higher chance of dropping one if captured. Escape pods for example could drop 1 E-Chips, but a pod from your space ship can drop up 5 E-Chips at a time. (IF Lucky!!)

How does this sound as a tech transitioning resource?

[Galileus]

I liek wood moar. I kan get foodz from wood!

And now, seriously... for all the effort you put into explaining why making food dispenser from metal doesn't make sense, but from metal and another metal does... it does not make sense I feel it's a ham-fisted attempt at introducing a new resource. And as I've said before, wood would be simply sturdier. Awful pun intended. Sorry.

E-chips (or A.I. Chips proposed before, that sounds WAY better) dropping randomly from travelers? Mid/Late game production line? Farming raiders for resources? For something as crucial as building material for necessary buildings it does not sound good from gameplay standpoint either. It's a lot of grind for a very basic progression. Of course you need to grind for metal too - but metal is a constant, you have a set amount of resources scattered across the map and you know they are there. And while it takes time and effort, you never get yourself starved, unless your planning is bad. Game is fair. Now, if you get starved early game, because the roll was bad... it's bad. It's an unfair game that punishes you for lack of luck. It can slide in a rougelike, but not in a builder. Especially not in one that wants to promote itself with tactical combat - while some RNG in tactics is always fine, E-chips would be taking it way overboard.

Your solution to starvation is maybe easy, but also is completely wrong. Raiders or travellers randomly dropping chip still leave you starved - with no chance to counter that state. You can very well be dead before you get your hands on another piece of resources.

All in all, while I have no problems with technological transition, neither implementation of the idea itself nor "game logic justification" make a lot of sense to me. There is a nice term in philosophy that I cannot remember - it describes a solution that is based on adding a new layer to the problem, and then resolving new problems in same way ad infinitum. This is what I think you did here - you added a new layer that addresses some problems with logic and game-play, while also introducing it's own set of problems. And while in philosophy system based on such progression of problems and solutions can exist, it's simply impossible to implement it in game design.

Well, back to the drawing board for you! After all it's not like the idea itself is bad, more like it lacks love and polish. Or you can ignore this post, but this would make you a terrible person

[palandus]

I agree with Galileus on this (and several other posts . Technological transition, although does make sense, it seems like you are taking too big of a jump, and making a new resource absolutely vital to your survival, extremely rare. This adds complexity and not much depth. 

I personally think that to make your idea work, it shouldn't be an early-game necessity. Electronic Chips, could be useful for late-game technology due to the difficulty of acquiring them. Then again, most electronic chips today is made from silicon, which isn't a 'metal' (though a complicated addition to complexity but I digress).

If anything, I think that the Nutrient Paste Dispenser (NPD) shouldn't be an early game, if it would require E-Chips. I too am perplexed that you can build a NPD with extremely basic tools. I think that if the NPD was late game, then eating from it should give a morale boost rather than penalty for eating it.

[Trensicourt]

I'll make a new thread discussing about how tech evolves.

[Untrustedlife]

I do believe complexity is a good thing in these kinds of games (Just throwing that out there) especially when said game is so heavily inspired by the most complex game ever made, Dwarf Fortress
Of course depth should be added at the same rate as complexity.


You don't necessarily need a nutrient dispenser if you can farm. (though nutrient dispensers give happier thoughts to people)

Also in the next update you actually have to store your resources in stockpiles, so, having a bunch of people foraging for food would work early game.

If implemented better then the way the op has stated, i believe this idea could work.

[Galileus]

I do believe complexity is a good thing in these kinds of games (Just throwing that out there) especially when said game is so heavily inspired by the most complex game ever made, Dwarf Fortress
Of course depth should be added at the same rate as complexity.

Oh boy, you're so, so horribly wrong In depth vs complexity ratio, you ALWAYS want most depth per as little complexity as you can. And too much complexity makes games shallow, even if possibility for that depth is there. Like in Dwarf Fortress - with it's awful UI. The game can be deeper than hell, but what of it if it's complexity makes it shallow for 90% of the players?

"Most complex game ever" is a horrible, horrible insult. It basically means a game in which you constantly do math to make a simplest decisions Complexity can mean cluttered UI, huge rulesets you need to learn or awful (or non) tutorial. It does not mean a game with a lot of options and choices to be had. If tetris would ask you to solve 10 difficult math problems before making every move, and gave you 10 seconds for each - it would be a complex game. On the other hand you can have games like Civilization have very little complexity - because they are easy to pick up, you can learn rules with time and the pacing allows you to do that math when you need it.

Think of complexity as amount of math solving per second you need in order to play this game. Depth, on the other hand, is the amount of different experiences and possibilities a game offers (and allows player to experience). Too huge on complexity and you end up with a shallow game, simply because you are not allowing your players to experience nothing else.

What I think you mean is that such games should have deeper rulesets, with more intricacies. I do agree with that. Simply because of the pacing of the game you can allow your player to think a bit more about some certain decisions. But complexity should still be as low as possible - and this is done by teaching your player, introducing rules in batches and making it as easy to navigate the game as possible. The game can still be very deep and offer a lot of choices and different ways of playing - but the easier it is to get into it and actually enjoy game's mental exercises, the better.

Another comparison that may make it easier to grasp what is depth vs complexity: imagine a math lecture. If it's a lecture about adding 2 and 2, there is low depth in in. If it's about integrals, now, that a nicely deep topic to talk about. And then it's all down to the guy who does the lecture. If he's barely speaking your language and you struggle to understand what he means - it's an example of high complexity. If he's an experienced teacher than can transfer his knowledge at a pace you can learn, and provides a lot of in-depth and well explained examples? This is low complexity.

I hope I explained it in low complexity manner, this whole complexity vs depth problem is not the easiest one to lay out. You find a lot of people who mix up these two terms - believing that complex games are the ones with a lot of possibilities and basically games well suited for intelligent people who like to plan a lot. Can't blame them, really, because that is what this word usually mean - even is as a game design term it's quite different.

[palandus]

Hey Galileus have you ever played Dark Souls?

In my opinion, Dark Souls would be a great example of high depth with good levels of complexity. Once you've spent the time needed to understand how it works, you realize it is actually a very simple and relatively easy game, provided you are not insanely reckless, are willing to take your time / be patient and are willing to learn from your mistakes. Most deaths in the game are from being reckless, or being impatient. Some are sheer stupidity (like fighting a Taurus Demon with no shield), but that's a different issue.

[Galileus]

Dark Sould is a great example - not sure if for complex vs deep debate, as I've never spent that much time with it - but for "hard" vs "unfair" It's a stellar example of a game following it's own ruleset and playing fair with the gamer.

[palandus]

Dark souls is actually extremely deep and somewhat complex at least until you overcome the learning curve. In that:
-> Each weapon is useful in different situations, and if used effectively, can be extremely powerful, or extremely useful for a particular problem.
-> Each character type (ie Warrior, Mage, Rogue, Ranged attacker etc...) is useful to the endgame and poses different challenges and opportunities.
-> Increasing your level or spending your souls on equipment are both important, and choosing which is best for you is up to you. (Souls is both currency and experience for those who haven't played DS). Some players know how the game works so well, that they hardly increase their level and instead invest heavily into weapons, armor, and such instead. (That's how you can encounter a guy in PVP at lvl 20 Soul Level, wielding a +5 Lightning Greatsword, which normally you'd only find the upgrade materials for that VERY late game)
-> Playing aggressively or defensively both have its perks and both have its drawbacks. New players are generally advised to play defensively before trying to be too aggressive. You need to make calculated risks when playing over uncalculated (hoping on probability) risks.
etc...

Though a lot of people say its too complex BECAUSE of the learning curve. Theres a bare-bones tutorial, and after that the game just lets you learn things by trial and error (much error). Its an effective system, though it would be nice if it explained some of the more advanced things in a more indepth way. Like Parry/Riposte mechanics, or Dodge/Backstabbing mechanics, or building a class properly and not trying to multiclass/multirole, until late game if ever.