Gold Income should probably be made to trail off as the game progresses just to put more emphasis and importance on individual fights. If gold income is static(say 10 per ore pile all game long) It creates problems for placing any importance on units as you there is no limit to your mining capability. The question is, late game, how important are armies to team fights? For example, with finite resources a late game team fight where say all the heroes die but only one commanders army is wiped creates a steamroll scenario where the team with the army can just run over their opponent because the enemy's commander has no resources to produce anything. Without finite resources, the opposite occurs, where losing an army can have little to no importance.
There are a bunch of ways to go about balancing these scenarios... You can place diminishing returns on resources piles as the game progresses. You can limit unit production facilities so that u can't remax an army quickly. You can even have a system where resource collection rates increase as the game progresses(although i think this makes engagements boring as you could potentially see evenly matched teams fighting the same late game fight over and over again).
Personally, I like the idea of diminishing returns because it punishes the loser of major battles while allowing for the possibility of comebacks. The main point is that battles need to have a sense of increased consequences as the game progresses.
Edited by AngryHobo, 18 March 2012 - 11:50 PM.