Unlimited Resources Model Flawed????

from Stardock Forums
First of all I wanted to say that I am really enjoying SINS (notwithstanding the issue noted below).  It is a very ambitious and enjoyable game with addicting gameplay,  and I agree with those who say it's sort of Homeworld meets Civilization.  In any event I think it should keep me occupied until Starcraft 2 is released.  ;o) 

I've played a great many strategy games over the years, and one thing I've noticed in other games and most recently in SINS is that game designers these days seem to love the unlimited resource model.   There are some problems with it however.  I can recall in the good old days of Starcraft and Warcraft 3 that you had to pick and choose carefully your units and upgrades because of the limit on resources.  Although on the face of it the unlimited recource model should be better as it gives you greater freedom of action, I have noticed what I perceive as a problem with it.  That is, if you let the opposition (AI or human) get the edge on you in size and amount of resources collected (even by a narrow margin), then victory becomes very difficult if not impossible.  I can recall when I first played EA's Battle for Middle Earth that you had to move out quickly and occupy the resource points.   If you were slow to do this, then the enemy would occupy them and would eventually be able to send a never ending wave of troops after you.  

With SINS (and for that matter Sid Meier's Civ and Stardock's GalCiv) you have to move out quickly and occupy new planets and asteriods, otherwise the opponent will do so and you're toast.  What's worse, it may take an hour of two of gameplay before this becomes apparent.  In fact this has happened to me several times in SINS.  Of course one problem with rapid expansion is that it leaves yourself vulnerable to overextension, with the consequent strain on your budget and vulnerability to counterattack from barbarians and pirates, to say nothing of the other factions.

Anyway, not to belabor the point, but I think the bottom line with the unlimited resouerces model (and the thing that bugs me the most) is that bigger is always better.  There is no room for small and efficient empires in the paradigm.  Of course I understand that this can probably be offset to an extent in (multiplayer) games with a large number of factions where diplomacy is more likely to come into play.  I still, however, perceive it as a weakness because it can lead to rather linear and repetitive gameplay.   That is, games using this model can easily degenerate into a linear race for the resource points.

Am I wrong?  Love to hear the thoughts of others on this. 

PS.......I like the Advent the best.  They remind me of the Aeon Illuminate from Supreme Commander.  ;o)     
strategy
8,516 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
This was my #1 beef with Empire at War.

Note that they actually had finite asteroids in the betas, but those were removed. Forget why.
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
Sins used to use a finite resource model, but after some very long and thoughtful discussions, it became apparent that that model is more flawed than an infinite model.

What would happen is that while resources existed, everything was fine - but once the asteroids were depleted, the game slowed to an absolute crawl. Refineries could not even remotely keep up with ore and crystal demand, and the economy would more or less grind to a halt.

Of course the obvious thing to say is "Well, why not just buff refineries then?" - but the problem then becomes with a functioning economy plus the buffed refineries :P

When the infinite model was first introduced, there was no fleet upkeep, and it became obvious that an uncontrolled infinite economy didn't work well because the player would get way more money than he would ever be able to spend. Hence why the fleet upkeep system was put into place, so that even a large empire paying 75% upkeep needs to be careful with its fleets, because replacing a full fleet is expensive under max upkeep.

The finite resource model works best for games that are meant to be short, such that you know you should hurry up and win before everything runs out. But given the nature of Sins, that's not at all the aim of the game :P
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
I can understand your complaints about the infinite resource model, but I do think there is a place in it for a small and efficient empire. However, that empire's success or failure is largely dependent on the map layout.

I've found that Sins can be played very defensively. A small force, backed up by various tactical structures around a planet, can fend off a significantly larger force. Since small forces require less upkeep to maintain, that money can be spent on researching various technologies to make that force even more deadly. If we're talking about credits alone, the credits you save by maintaining a small force counter the credits another player might spend making a larger and less technologically advanced force.

There's no way to isolate yourself in the game. You need to expand to take control of resource points. It's the same with every RTS imaginable. But if you take control of a crystal or metal resource and that resource happens to be rare on the map you're playing on, you've just put yourself at a considerable advantage. Other players may be making more credits by expanding their empires, but you're making up for it by holding onto a rare resource, and on top of that, not spending as much on upkeep as everybody else. And chances are that the other players are spending additional credits by buying their resource off the black market.

Of course everything has to be balanced out, but as I said before, I think it's possible to have a small and efficient and effective empire with the infinite resource model. Controlling rare resources is key, and on top of that, controlling checkpoints is key. However, those two things are largely dependent on a map's layout.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Finally, what RTS doesn't involve a linear race for resources? You may have a choice as to which resource you want to make an expansionary base for, but in the end it's still linear. :LOL:
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
With the pace of this game, a finite resource model will slow the game to a stop at the end game.

Like it was mention before, map layout play a big part on what size of the fleet you would like to keep. My friend like to expend quickly in the size while I like to keep a small fleet with advance weapons. Create maps that have choke points and rare resource can easily solve the problem with "size is everything".

That's why I start to create my own maps to play which design with that in mind. Choke point for each group. Space between each players. Different kinds of plants. It all makes more option to win.

In the end, you do have to go over the other players' plants with overwhelming force. But how you get there is more important than just expand. You could make a big fleet and pay the price for upkeep or you could just spend it on pirate and have them attack for you. With pirate system, I able to compete with AI with very little of my own ships.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
You can do well with a small highly developed empire as long as you use it to destroy the bigger guy before he turns into a big highly developed empire. If you develop a strong trade and research infrastructure while the other guy is expanding, sometimes this pays off. I have seen many multiplayer games where one team expands too rapidly and can't hold the worlds from the team that took their time and went military. Then there are other games where a player expands faster BUT does hold it and is able to become the economy leader too. Nothing is 100%.


I don't mind infinite resources, but I wouldn't mind a more "closed" economy where there wasn't unlimited resources to buy off the black market. I think 1.04 will make this situation better though with some price adjustments.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Wow everyone, thanks for the very thoughtful responses. This is actually an issue that my fellow gamer friends at work and I have been debating for a long time. Read on:

Carbon - To me Empires at War was a major disappointment. The space battles were good but the land battles were abominable. But I suppose that's a subject for another forum. ;o) I can see though that Empires at War is an example of a game where the resourcing model does not work well.

Annatar - Excellent points Annatar. To borrow from what Winston Churchill said about democracy, "The unlimited resource model is the worst strategy gaming economic model there is, except when you compare it to all other economic gaming models." lol But seriously, I agree that heavy resource restrictions would probably not work well with SINS.

Ubersmake - Great points there. If I understand you correctly, although as a general rule smaller empires are at a disadvantage, there are some things that can mitigate this like map choke points and rare resources. Speaking of choke points, there were one or two SINS games I played where I thought I had the bad guys bottled up only to find they had colonies on another part of the map. Guess they must have snuck past me while I wasn't looking. And I suppose you are right in that the only RTS scenarios that are not races for the resource points are the ones that are heavily scripted (like Starcraft) or all those WW2 RTS's like Frontline or Code Name: Panzers.

Hin - Again excellent points echoed by others. I can see that SINS is such a well-designed game that the player has allot of options in dealing with bigger empires, like getting the pirates to do some of your dirty work.

Cykur - You make very good sense Cykur. For one thing I can see that in a game like SINS nothing is 100% and there are no absolutes. Concerning preventing big inefficient empires from becoming big efficient ones, I wish there was espionage in the game so that you can tell their technology level. Also, although I agree with someone else who said that buying from the black market can be inefficient, perhaps that part of the game needs some more tweaking as you suggest. Also, the way I see it, the big, big advantage of big empires is that smaller ones reach the limit on research once the maximum number of research stations have been built. Can you destroy existing structures to make way for more research stations? I've hit this ceiling several times in playing SINS.

Thanks again everyone for the great feedback. If I didn't know any better, I'd say at least some of you are game designers or experienced software developers. :o)

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
I wonder if anyone here remembers 'Ascendancy'?

It was a under-appreciated turn-based 4x game from the 90's with a full 3D map with star-lanes and 100's of stars.

It had an interesting resource model in that the player didn't gather or control resources explicitly, but instead had to build-up the civic/industrial/scientific capacity of individual planets. There were no 'credits', so ships could be built faster on heavy-industrial planets, colony-ships could be sent-out more often from heavy-civic planets, and heavy-scientific planets helped your research-tree but not your expansion or warfare projects.

Resources were infinite, but couldn't be saved up. They were expressed as a 'rate of production' capacity.

It took time to build up that capacity, which meant that your core-worlds would always be able to build ships faster than your new colonies. You couldn't just earn your credits on one-side of the galaxy and spend them on the other.

I loved that it kept the game focused on fleet-control and the grand-structure of your empire. A deep strike into enemy territory to take out his factory-world could be a game-changer.

I hope to see whether it becomes possible to drastically mod the economic models that Sins uses, as I'd love to play the game as more of a fleet deployment game than a resource-gathering game.
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
well you can scuttle structures and ships. I think it's alt+D or there's a button in the middle bottom of the screen like right on the bottm it's orangy and long.

And, speaking of small efficient empires, a smaller vasari empire using RA could be considered fairly efficient overall... I mean, their upkeep will be brutal but then the don't have to pay for an army so all the money they make is ploughed into research and planet development... I'd say that's a fairly efficient use of resources.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
No espionage, but the Advent Revelation gets a nice ability to see any planet they want for a brief time. It recharges fast, so it lets you look anywhere on the map you want. (I always am surprised when I see people listing this as a useless ability, it rocks.)

With 1.03 resources on the Black Market are so cheap it is very effective to have tons of tradeports and buy what you need whenever you see a price crash.