That''s right, resource buildings will now have a limited lifespan.

Once a resource building has expired, the land becomes baron of resources and the resource building turns to rubble. Any resource building built on the same spot will simply not generate resources and will turn to rubble too.

I''m currently working on the code now, and so it will be implemented soon. First in NewTest, and once working well there, TrialGame1.

As a result, however, the taxing of your existing resources will be abolished, and I think even the 1000 Build Points rule will be gone too.

So it means limited resources to a degree, but no ongoing taxes or building limitations.
Keep in mind this is only for resource buildings (not including farms).

Any thoughts on it, let me know.

Oh, clicking on land will now also show how much life it has left.

And on the map, I''m thinking of replacing the . with a * for land that has no resources left.

At this stage, I''m looking at 10 cycles for resource building lifespans.

Of course, if any of this doesnt work out, it can be changed

I think this will work out quiet nicely, will certainly create more competition for the land/resources.

What about, in forests, to have the resourses slowly grow back over time, say 30-40 turns?

I think that in general the idea of having limited resouces is ok, but I find a few problems with it. First off having the resources last fo however long and then never be in that area again is bad. Socondly, about them lasting for only 10 cycles, I think that is way to short an amount of time. Third, if you bring this limited resources thing into being you should remove the code that allows players to only have so many resources. Fourth, tying in with number one, the players are WAY to close together for this limited resources thing to work. And fifth, over a period of time (10 cycles being a VERY short period of time) then players will have to move farther and farther away from their castle, having to build more and more outposts, and basically runningo ut of build points over time (under most circumstances).

I agree with The Man, there''s a total shift in philosophy here since defense situations like starting out near others players while give penality to the defending side. Also, a 10 cycles lifespan is quite insane due to the ressources and time needed to expanded to the chosen area.

May I suggest leaving food/wood producers like this and
opt for mines with "vein foring upgrade"? It could be something like metal/stone depleting during cycles and an upgrade available at the mine/quarry that allow to re-increase production for a cost...The cost could increase with time.

They have a point but i think it sounds like a good idea.

i think this is an ok idea except that 10 cycles is not enough. There should be more cycles alowed

What about if you get all the metal from the land, then try to get the stone? Shouldn''t stone still be at 100%, not 0%?
Just a thought.

Continuing from my last message: The 10 cycles thing is NOT

working AT ALL. Every one of my resource buildings (except

farms) got killed in less than a day, human time. Having to

expand with outposts (using up the minimal build points that

you have) and then having to build new resource buildings

TWICE A DAY is insane! You can''t even build three buildings

up that fast! Let alone rebuild EVERY SINGLE ONE of your

resouces buildings, plus an increasing number of outposts;

even if there WAS space to expand to. But there isn''t space

to expand to since the players are all SO close together

that they have barely enough space to build their FIRST set

of resource buildings. Something has to be done, this ISN''T

WORKING!

Thanks...

I''m sorry, apparently my last message didn''t get onto the list.

I agree with overlord: Based upon our current map setup having limited resources doesn''t really work. And especially with the resourses last less than a day, like overlord said.

I think that the amount of cycles should be extended to at least 20 hopefully more so that people have time to prepare for it and arn''t having to biuld things constantly.

In reply to the Overlord, I believe that you may be mixing up Cycle with Update.

Cycles are set on a per game basis. In the TrialGames there are TWO Cycles per day. So your resources will last FIVE days real time.

Updates happen every hour. When they occur you get a percentage of your accrued resources for that cycle. With each cycle being 12 hours, on each update tick you get a little over 8 percent of your resources for that cycle.

I also thought that 10 Cycles was a short time frame, until Requiem (or was it Proteus :-) convinced me otherwise. This trial game is set to run 50 days which is 100 Cycles. So at most, you''d have to rebuild your initial resources 10 times through the life of the game.

Like it or not, you have to admit that this significantly changes the strategy. And don''t overlook the new tech additions, the removal of tax and the default production for the castle. These factors combine to significantly increase the output of your resources, so you won''t need as many of each type.

Before we all knock the concept, I suggest that we play this game with the new schme in place and see if we like it afterwards. That is the point of beta, isn''t it?

How ''bout this:
Expand the life range of resourse buldings in Newtest only, cause we have 1200 turns, at 12 turns a day for 100 days. To rebuild 120 times is insane.

In reply to Zymurge: I think that the current code setup

for TrialGame1 coupled with the full upgrading of the new

techs (which happens to require a LOT of resources) works

for the most part, except for the limited map space issue

again. But for NewTest it most deffinetely does not. As

Crispy said it IS insane to have to rebuild ONE HUNDRED AND

TWENTY (120) times in the span of a game, and as I said

before you would have to rebuild more than once per day,

there being 12 cycles in a day, and the buildings only

lasting for 10.

Just to clarify, NewTest is not a REAL game.
It''s there simply to test the code not the time/balance issues.
The game speed and length is not standard so please dont use NewTest as a guage for these sorts of things.

Since each cycle in NewTest is only 2hrs, you''d need to be playing every 2hrs to make it a real game, which obviously wont happen. In future, fast games like these will have a much shorter lifespan.

In the end, limited resources works well as it forces players to plan and manage their income. It also means expanding is vital to success as well as conquering neighbours.

Unlimited resources like it was before was just silly, and devalued resources. I for one never cared if I lost a building or resources as I had SO many and with lots of income buildings generating infinite income it never mattered. Now it does.

On another note, I will probably be removing the BuildPoints scheme. So you will be able to expand as far as you want without worrying about the points.

I still think 10 cycles is a good number.
Remember, 1 building x 10 cycles = 4000 resources at 100%!
Even at 75% thats still 3000 income from only 1 building. Now you''ll probably be building alot more than just 1, so the overall income that you will get is quite large.
Its now important how you spend it though.

Thanks Proteus, what you have just said helps. I think that

in future games if there was none of that build point stuff

and if the players were spread out a little more on the map

it could would, and robably would. I still think that 10

cycles is a little bit too short, considering how many

cycles it takes to build buildings. That is my other issue

if the limited resources thing continues (which, in

principle,I deffinitely agree with) is that under the

current scheme you can only build three resource buildings

(at top speed, which is comparbly pretty slow). I don''t

think that buildings should be instant builds, except for

the first half dozen, but I think that to work with the

limited resource thing they would either have to build fast

or you would be able to build more at a time at "top speed".

I again agree with overlord on what he is saying and I think that he is right on the ball. I also think that what proteus said does make things more understandable, but neccessarily workable.