Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
a) So much easier to balance.
|
I don't understand, what is there to balance, from a design point of view? Say you've got a very uneven system, in which metal is needed 4 times more than crystal and crystal 4 times more than eonium. Why is this a problem? Everyone will get roids in a ratio of 16:4:1 and the "problem" solves itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
b) You can max out in spending your resource, no need to swap around resources.
|
I don't think this is a problem, considering that we have 3 different ways already to trade resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
c) Easier for new players to understand, I could walk around with my money all in change 1p,2p,etc or I could just use my credit card. Which I think is easier.
|
Having more than one type of resource is hardly a revolutionary game feature. Anyone who's played Starcraft, Red Alert, Civilisation and ****ing Farmville knows how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
Governments themselves are the thing that drives the "planet", why do you need a government if your the ruler of the planet. You would have advisor's. Doing it this way would give the idea more credibility.
|
I agree that the word "democracy" (for example) makes very little sense when you are the sole and absolute ruler of your planet for 1177 ticks.
In fact, I think that the whole government game mechanic (regardless of what we want to call it) is a bit pointless. It's just yet another way (on top of races and population) to boost a certain part of your planet in favour of another. Why do we need 3 different mechanisms for this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLobster
But this also means that it would be good to have negative effects on your planet, for example increasing research (+20%) would decreasing construction (-20%).
|
This seems a non-sequitur.