Stockpiling Sucks

Stockpiling resources in order to build something is never interesting. Never. Not even a little. In games like Pharaoh and Children of the Nile, the essential element of the game is the player waiting for resources to stockpile, on many occasions for a far longer period than the total time necessary to set up the infrastructure necessary to acquire said resources. In other games, such as Sins of a Solar Empire, players specifically manipulate the system of resource stockpiling in order to avoid penalties from increased mobilization -- one player acts as the "pocket" of another, with the pocket player producing without using, and the combat player using without producing. So, in addition to the tedium of waiting for resource accumulation, the stockpiling method also lends itself to exploitation. Finally, and this is key, a stockpiling system gives the player significant and unwarranted independence from their means of acquisition by allowing them to stockpile a sufficient quantity that the standard opportunity cost assessment of investments that would usually apply falls to the wayside. This is especially apparent in the late game of many real time strategy games, where players can afford to utilize all their structures simultaneously without significantly impacting their reserves.

 

Grand Ages of the Roman Empire, on the other hand, uses a flow resource model. In this system, every resource producing building immediately produces to its current capacity as soon as it is activated -- and that capacity can be increased through research and the assignation of more qualified personnel. These flow resources do not stockpile or otherwise accumulate, although additional buildings, once onlined, are summed to increase the total flow. While being built, units and buildings consume a portion of the flow temporarily, but cease to do so -- excepting an upkeep fee, in all cases lower than the consumption required for initial creation -- once construction is complete. 

This flow concept of resources allows for deployment of structures once a sufficient infrastructure is created to maintain them, rather than forcing the player to wait a mostly arbitrary amount of time for resource accumulation to complete. It rewards the player for map control and an aggressive, raiding play style without compromising the ability of more passive players to develop. Furthermore, upkeep costs function in a more organic manner than the now traditional method of map control penalization -- decreasing the average income from all sources by an arbitrary percentage as the number of units increases, as in Sins of a Solar Empire and Warcraft 3 -- allowing the player a finer level of control over the level of penalization over a wider range of resource types. Finally, it rewards careful placement of resource acquisition structures -- careful locating of the aforementioned structures increases the average marginal benefit without increasing the average marginal cost. 

 

Therefore I advocate that, where appropriate, a flow, rather than a stockpile, method of resource acquisition be used.

17,935 views 32 replies
Reply #1 Top

Interesting ideas I don't know if the economy system is already set in stone but this could definently help make the reasource managing easier. 

Reply #2 Top

I don't really like this system. I think it puts too much focus on trying to make your kingdom/empire as big as possible to accomadate as many as possible +flow structures. With the stockpiling system, you can still get the "big" stuff (giant castles, super spells, whatever) it just takes longer than the person who controls more resources.

With the flow system, if you control a smaller section of the map, you can't get the "big" stuff no matter what, because you don't control enough of the resource to get a large enough flow. So the player is basically forced to expand as much as possible in order to get the largest flow. I don't think the game should be limited like that.

Reply #3 Top

You're assuming that upkeep is linear rather than geometric, that a large empire would have the same average upkeep per unit as a small one, and that efficiency gains through superior placement or technology do not provide sufficient offsets against sprawling empires with less exacting placement.

You additionally make the assumption that it is a bad thing for large empires to be rewarded with units/structures otherwise inaccessible to smaller empires, and that land is the sole source of resource acquisition.

If we reject even one of those assumptions, your conclusion -- that a flow model is overly rewarding of larger nations to the disadvantage of small ones -- does not follow.

Geometric increases in upkeep for each additional resource acquisition structure would tend to disadvantage larger nations by creating a diseconomy of scale. Average upkeep (here used loosely to mean all costs associated with keeping a mobile or stationary unit) could be increased with a "distance to capital" corruption modifier or a population check. Finally, a loss of per unit efficiency due to the greater quantity of assets in a large empire relative to available player attention per turn (a quantity that generally remains reasonably fixed for a given player, but varies widely amongst the population of players) should almost invariably decrease potential gains for bigness, except for the most obsessive of players. 

There is the additional assumption that bigness should not carry a reward distinct from the mere fact of being big. In Civ4, a player who possesses only four cities cannot complete several national and world wonders that require at least five of a specific building. In Magic the Gathering, a player with only two mountains cannot cast a card requiring the mana of three. Neither of these are inherently bad, so long as the player has access to a sufficient number of additional tools that allow them to remain competitive with a smaller than average resource pool. 

As to whether land is the sole source of resource acquisition -- this is a game where nations are ruled by powerful channelers can remake the world at will. I assume that magical acquisition of mundane resources will be possible, either through direct player action or the creation of magically financed structures. A small, magically focused nation could -- were this assumption incorrect -- therefore create a powerful empire irrespective of their negligible geographic footprint.

Reply #4 Top

In general I prefer the stockpiling system, but I think your fears about the big stuff are misplaced. Big projects can still be undertaken with the flow system, they just take longer as the resources going into them per turn are reduced. The part that I don't like is that constant construction is encouraged. You can't possibly have a fast buildup to a war, because you have no stockpile to draw on beyond your current resource budget. You can't save any kind of buffer for the lean times, either.

Reply #5 Top

If you check my OP again, you'll note that I viewed increased fragility as a plus rather than a minus. Stockpiling allows players (including the AI) to disassociate their ability to fight from the reality on the ground -- after all, a player who has stockpiled resources for eleventy billion turns (where eleventy billion is any integer greater than zero) is fairly invulnerable to shocks to their resource acquisition network, and thus to raiding. 

To pull again from Sins of a Solar Empire, in the late game a successful player can, due to stockpiling, typically afford to lose several fleets and planets before they are materially injured in a serious way. With a flow system, a Sins player would be immediately injured, having lost potential capacity. 

As a response to the "use it or lose it" mentality a flow system tends to engender, yes. That's an unstated goal of the system, and a fairly blatant means of signalling the player that they are over or under-investing in resource acquisition -- and unlike in a stockpile system, that feedback on investment is immediate and robust, not dependent on a long period of time and heavy spending beyond their means.

However, I do agree that every system should have at least some give. Therefore, I'd suggest enabling the player to temporarily sacrifice a certain amount of output in any resource or group of resources in order to increase output in another resource, or group of resources, with ratios determined with reference to relevant factors. 

 

Reply #6 Top

To pull again from Sins of a Solar Empire, in the late game a successful player can, due to stockpiling, typically afford to lose several fleets and planets before they are materially injured in a serious way. With a flow system, a Sins player would be immediately injured, having lost potential capacity.

This, I think, is a somewhat flawed analogy. In late game Sins, you have so many planets generating so much income that a loss of one or two planets is not going to put a dent in your income. Stockpiling doesn't matter because the income is so high.

You're assuming that upkeep is linear rather than geometric, that a large empire would have the same average upkeep per unit as a small one, and that efficiency gains through superior placement or technology do not provide sufficient offsets against sprawling empires with less exacting placement.

You additionally make the assumption that it is a bad thing for large empires to be rewarded with units/structures otherwise inaccessible to smaller empires, and that land is the sole source of resource acquisition.

If we reject even one of those assumptions, your conclusion -- that a flow model is overly rewarding of larger nations to the disadvantage of small ones -- does not follow.

What resources do not require having land? Gold requires people, people require cities, and the cities require land to be built on. Wood, metal, food, shards, etc all require territory to be occupied. Getting the technology to increase flow requires resources in itself.

Technology or placement cannot make up for large empires. A small nation with 2 effecient metal mines is not going to be able to compete with a large one with 15 not as effecient mines. And what happens when the large nation starts researching the better techs?

Supreme Commander uses the flow system, and the only way to really play that game is to expand quickly and as much as possible. Yes, it is somewhat different because SupCom is one battle, and Elemental will be a whole empire, but I think the point is still valid. In SupCom, turtling up behind a wall of defences isn't viable, because you need as much room as possible to build structures that increase the flow of resources. Elemental with a flow system would be the same. Players would spam cities full of nothing but inns (for example) to increase the flow of gold.

 

Reply #7 Top

I'm not convinced that there's that much between flow and stockpiling resource models. There are positive and negative examples on both sides. What makes or breaks the system isn't the model, but its implementation (surrounding mechanics, e.g. pay-as-you-go vs.  pay-up-front). I prefer the stockpiling model because it does insulate production from resource control -- although, obviously, there should be limits -- but I'm willing to concede that certain mechanics can be added to a flow system to provide similar insulation.

I guess I just disagree with:

Stockpiling resources in order to build something is never interesting. Never. Not even a little.

Reply #8 Top

MoM stockpiles gold and mana (makes sense for gold, who cares about mana) and doesn't stockpile food (it rots, whatever). You can have both ideas together.

Reply #9 Top

Stockpiling resources in order to build something is never interesting. Never. Not even a little.

Just your point of view.

Reply #10 Top

Supreme Commander did this wonderfull but for one had a stockpile and two I don't think that was the only reason it's economy was so neat and three: using the recourse model of a sciencefiction game and putting into a fantasy model isn't always the best. Supcom had only 2 recourses and many of it's brothers and sisters do too(CnC starcraft sins).Fantasy games however usually have many more recources and Brad already said Elemental will have 30+ 

Reply #11 Top

In Kings Bounty you stockpile (collect and get thru advancement of levels) mana, mind and might runes. Then you have to spend them and its very difficult to prioritize. I love such mechanizms

Reply #12 Top

I disagree with the OP.  I like both the asset management (stockpiling) and the 'realism' of only being able to build things for which I have accumulated the resources.  After all, I cannot build a stone wall in my yard without gathering stones from the nearby woods. 

Reply #13 Top

You suck. XO

Reply #14 Top

You folks all realize that un-utilized assets cannot be stored indefinitely, right? On a timescale consisting of years, everything other than stone or metals will decompose in a relatively short number of turns.

 

Furthermore, having resources stock up indefinitely rewards players who do nothing other than hit the end turn button, and penalizes those who are active about using their resources. The lazy should never be rewarded over the "hard working". 

 

Finally, I notice no one has bothered to comment on the potential for a geometric increase in upkeep costs to limit the ability to "spam territory, receive income". And I additionally note that no one seems concerned that while flow systems do limit the rewards of territory -- because unused resources dissipate -- stockpile systems do not, as unused resources accumulate indefinitely. 

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Aeon221, reply 14
You folks all realize that un-utilized assets cannot be stored indefinitely, right? On a timescale consisting of years, everything other than stone or metals will decompose in a relatively short number of turns.
In reality, yes. In gaming, such mechanics suck ass.

That said, you can store most things beside food virtually indefinately, if you preserve it properly. Including wood.

Reply #16 Top

I don't really see how saving your resources is being lazy. Or how spending them is "hard working." I myself usually save resources for a reason, like spending them later...

Reply #17 Top

Quoting Aeon221, reply 14
You folks all realize that un-utilized assets cannot be stored indefinitely, right? On a timescale consisting of years, everything other than stone or metals will decompose in a relatively short number of turns.

Your population is always the same, never dying of old age and just increasing by a neverending quantity of new people already adult and equally inmune to aging.

One soldier you train in your first turns, if not killed during battle, could survive until the very last turn of the game as it won't die of old age either.

The buildings of your city never need repairs due to the passage of time.

Arable lands can keep producing food non-stop, soil depletion never happening.

Reply #18 Top

 

You folks all realize that un-utilized assets cannot be stored indefinitely, right? On a timescale consisting of years, everything other than stone or metals will decompose in a relatively short number of turns.

Magic.

Furthermore, having resources stock up indefinitely rewards players who do nothing other than hit the end turn button, and penalizes those who are active about using their resources. The lazy should never be rewarded over the "hard working".

As a committed socialist, I disagree.

Flippance aside, this is a gross mischaracterization of stockpiling models. It isn't intrinsic to stockpiling. Well-implemented resource systems, whether flow or stockpiling, force players to make decisions when to begin production in order to optimize resources and manufacturing. (Similarly, poorly-implemented flow systems would force players to constantly produce without taking these considerations into account.)

Finally, I notice no one has bothered to comment on the potential for a geometric increase in upkeep costs to limit the ability to "spam territory, receive income". And I additionally note that no one seems concerned that while flow systems do limit the rewards of territory -- because unused resources dissipate -- stockpile systems do not, as unused resources accumulate indefinitely.

This goes both ways. Stockpiling models can be modified to eliminate these concerns too. The problem with this entire discussion is that it's so abstract. This conversation might be a better one to have in a few months when more of Elemental's mechanics are locked down.

Also, if you're going to accuse people of systematically ignoring you, then you should at least bother to respond on-point.

 

Reply #19 Top

I noticed that several people brought up realism claims in favor of stockpiling (stuff can get stored), so I pulled the same (stuff degrades). For rather obvious reasons, neither is a valid argument in a video game, and several other posters have taken the time to point that out.

This goes both ways. Stockpiling models can be modified to eliminate these concerns too. The problem with this entire discussion is that it's so abstract. This conversation might be a better one to have in a few months when more of Elemental's mechanics are locked down.

Also, if you're going to accuse people of systematically ignoring you, then you should at least bother to respond on-point.

Systematically ignoring me? Interesting way of putting words in my mouth. I did ask that people respond to some of the specific qualifications I added, but only so that I could modify points in response and further hash out the conceptual backing for the flow system. Please don't bring the drama llama, because then I'd get all troll on you and things would get stupid. Stupider. Whatever. 

Since my goal is to promote an idea (that there is an excellent alternative to the standard resource stockpiling model) rather than comment on a specific gameplay mechanic ("farms should produce a flow, and stone should be stockpiled"), I disagree with you that this is an inappropriate time for this discussion. And, considering the sheer number of replies, and the rapidity with which they have accumulated in comparison to my other Ideas threads, I'm of the opinion that, pro or con, others agree that this is a viable topic for discussion.

As a committed socialist, I disagree.

Don't you need a permit for that?

Flippance aside, this is a gross mischaracterization of stockpiling models. It isn't intrinsic to stockpiling. Well-implemented resource systems, whether flow or stockpiling, force players to make decisions when to begin production in order to optimize resources and manufacturing. (Similarly, poorly-implemented flow systems would force players to constantly produce without taking these considerations into account.)

I'm willing to concede that, yes, well designed systems compare favorably to poorly designed systems of the same type. However, you failed to include any relevant set of criteria for comparing two equally well crafted, but functionally different, systems. I maintain that, due to the inability of the player to continue endless aggregation of resources, the stockpile system is inferior to the flow system in the middle and late game periods -- periods where the players have a sufficient resource gathering infrastructure to develop titanic stockpiles.

Because the flow system maintains a tight connection between the productive capacity of the player and their ability to purchase over the totality of the game, and because the stockpiling system fails to maintain that same tight connection over the totality of the game, I argue that the flow system is indeed superior.

Reply #20 Top

Systematically ignoring me? Interesting way of putting words in my mouth. I did ask that people respond to some of the specific qualifications I added, but only so that I could modify points in response and further hash out the conceptual backing for the flow system. Please don't bring the drama llama, because then I'd get all troll on you and things would get stupid. Stupider. Whatever.

Cheers. :)  

I disagree with you that this is an inappropriate time for this discussion. And, considering the sheer number of replies, and the rapidity with which they have accumulated in comparison to my other Ideas threads, I'm of the opinion that, pro or con, others agree that this is a viable topic for discussion.

Discussions can be both animated and shallow.

I think that the type of model is less important than its implementation; so much so that debating between models is pointless without knowing the context in which those models are implemented. More on this below. (I think that your arguments about why modifications to the model would solve the various concerns people raise demonstrates this.)

I'm willing to concede that, yes, well designed systems compare favorably to poorly designed systems of the same type. However, you failed to include any relevant set of criteria for comparing two equally well crafted, but functionally different, systems.

You're right, Kripke, I didn't provide any criteria. (My snotty comment for the post. I also think given your writing style that you might appreciate the reference.) I don't think it matters. Let me explain.

Is Starcraft a good game? Arguably, let's assume that it is. Would Starcraft have been a 'better' game if it had used a flow system rather than a stockpiling system? Perhaps. It would have been a very different game that would promote a different sort of strategic thinking. Is Starcraft a better game than Supreme Commander? Here, we may have to agree to disagree. Regardless, I think we can agree that there are both positive and negative examples for both models, i.e. good and bad games that have used the stockpiling model and the flow model. If we can't, then we're down to bedrock, and there's nothing I can do to persuade you and vice versa. This is important for what follows.

... due to the inability of the player to continue endless aggregation of resources, the stockpile system is inferior to the flow system in the middle and late game periods -- periods where the players have a sufficient resource gathering infrastructure to develop titanic stockpiles.

The problem isn't stockpiling, but 'titanic stockpiles'. This is only a problem for certain implementations of the stockpiling model. Namely, it's a concern for games that use the stockpiling model in conjunction with other contextual features: relatively indecisive battles, relatively low production costs, etc. Conversely, there are games which manage to avoid the titanic stockpiles problem because they lack these contextual features. But these games aren't obviously worse off for it. This suggests that the problem isn't insurmountable or even that surmounting it incurs a significant cost.

(As an aside, we can quibble over the exact threshold for what constitutes a titanic stockpile. I think yours would be significantly lower than most of the respondents, which is why I think you're having a hard time persuading people.)

Reply #21 Top

The game already use a "flow" system. You don't stockpile anything, but gold. Not even mana.

Reply #22 Top

Mana is stockpiled, it's just capped.

Reply #23 Top

The game already use a "flow" system. You don't stockpile anything, but gold. Not even mana.

How rude of you to ruin the voyage of discovery for all these fine folks! This was developing into a real page turner!

But, since the jig is up, I guess I should mention that just about every turn based game since Civ1 has used a flow model for building and research -- with the obvious exception of that terrible series known as HoMM. 

 

Reply #25 Top

Quoting zigzag, reply 22
Mana is stockpiled, it's just capped.

In actual build yes, but in the future no. They said that spells will be used like in Magic the gathering. Each spell will need a fixed amount of a particuliar mana shard. For instance a fireball would need to control 1 fire shard.

Maybe they'll add some way to stockpile for next turns or whatever.