Resources revisited. (regarding game balance)

I posted a message about the potential imbalance created by resources a week ago. That post did not get any replies. I have since completed two games, on large and medium maps; difficulty being crippling (incredible AI) and painful (genius AI), respectively. The games are on the metaverse under my name. My experiences in both have reinforced my belief that the objections raised in the earlier post need to restated.

Now my position regarding resources is that they are grant too much of an advantage to their respective categories. With medium-level mining technologies, it is not uncommon to get up to about a 50% bonus from a single resource. This level rises even more with further technologies. Since they are empire-wide bonuses, this is a HUGE advantage catered on its owner.

The single most devastating resource is the one that grants the military bonus. An empire's battleship-up ships, with a single developed military resource starbase are worth two or more of an empire that does not have it. In both of my games, after I secured a mil-bonus, victory was virtually assured. In the 'crippling' game I lost perhaps 3 dreads in a huge war in which it was basically me vs the-rest-of-the-galaxy, that is, everyone but the Drengin in the alliance against me. I repeat, THREE dreadnoaughts was all that I lost. Needless to say, the whole war was a tedius affair. With battleships and dreadnaughts costing an arm-and-a-leg, such advantage will win any game.

This would not have been much of a problem, because the alliance-leader, Altarians, already had two mil-bonus resources against my single one. But since they did not defend it, I made these starbases my initial targets, which were destroyed on turn 2 of the war. By turn 15, I had a developed starbase on both. My ships were 150% more powerful than my opponent's.

Add to these an economy and a morale resource, I had a virtually unstoppable economy, with spending at 100% and tax at about 50%, where morale never dropped below 60%. Per-turn income was fixed at about 100bc. Even Saddam did not win elections as easy as I did.

But even if the AI is somehow fixed to defend its starbases tenacously, this wont fix the problem of resources being overly powerful. In that situation, depending on how well the AI plays, it will be impossible to win the game at all.

So, let me humbly suggest: For the love of game balance, please decrease the efficency of bonuses. Exact level can be determined by play-testing, but my call would be at least an initial reduction by half.

Another approach that can be tried would be for resoruces to grant bonuses to nearby systems within a limited radius only. Say, a 3x3 square centered around the starbase.
1,029 views 27 replies
Reply #1 Top
actually, "crippling" only corresponds to genius level AI. "masochistic" is incredible AI. however, this minor oversight doesn't invalidate your complaint. i agree that with the current state of the AI, resources (especially military) provide too much advantage.

i suggest we wait to see if the promised AI improvements ameliorate this problem. your statement:

"But even if the AI is somehow fixed to defend its starbases tenacously, this wont fix the problem of resources being overly powerful. In that situation, depending on how well the AI plays, it will be impossible to win the game at all. "

is total conjecture. in any case, i'd be thrilled if the AI improvements made the game "impossible" on the higher AI settings.

cheers

h



Reply #2 Top
There are other options such as reducing the overall number of resources in any game, or moving the starbase module requirements significantly up the tech tree. In any case, I agree that resources are far too powerful right now, especially in light of the AI's inability to acquire and defend them properly.
Reply #4 Top
I'd just like to agree with this thread. Nothing much to add since the original post pretty much says it all.
Reply #5 Top
Za H:

I'm not sure reducing the number of resources would help the problem, if anything it seems like they would make it worse.

As it is, they provide a huge bonus, but at least there are several of them scattered about, so unless several races drop the ball, any particular kind of resource should be spread among several races.

If there's a smaller number, then you'll end up with things like the Drengin having the _only_ military resource in the middle of their territory and thus having a huge advantage over everyone else.
Reply #6 Top
Akaste,

I see your point about Military resources, but it has been my experience that economic resources are nice but not overly powerful. (I would always grab a Miliary, Morale or Research resource before an econ resource)

- Matt Lepinski :->

~SDC~
Reply #7 Top
Yes, I think I have overstated my case by mentioning economic and other bonuses with the military one. I still stand behind the assertion that relatively more significant inbalance is caused by the military resource, however.
Reply #8 Top
Just so we leave a place for those that are to say kindly "less resourceful". So many games have been ruined by catering only to the "elite" players and it is forgotten that some people play a more casual game and need these extra advantages to make the game fun and not a humbling defeat after defeat. I think this game can serve both types of players with it's multiple levels of AI but please don't lock us into a harder game without consideration.
Reply #9 Top
How about making military resources starbases a high-value target (higher than most enemy systems or combat ships) in war at the higher AI levels?

In peacetime, the AI is quite competent in grabbing resources as there are with their fondness of building large number of constructers.

We have to remember that the bonuses work both ways so the AI could get pretty powerful themselves.
Reply #10 Top
I agree with one way of viewing this thread - AI don't seem to value their resources (esp military) appropriately, which needs to be fixed.

I DO NOT necessarily agree that this means game balance is perverted by the resources (even the military ones!), and so I DO NOT think that they need to be nerfed. Particularly on larger maps, there are a lot of these resources, and they provide a depth of strategy that I think the game needs.

Toaddoq, while I support allowing game options and difficulty levels to permit casual players to have a good time, I don't think this is a reason to make a game "elite" players (as you put it) will not enjoy. Hardcore gamers are a central resource for a product like GC, and our support (BTW, that includes you - almost by definition, gamers who use these boards are 'hardcore') is crucial to getting the masses on the bandwagon.

~SDC~
Reply #11 Top
Daetrinn:

On the contrary, I would think that reducing the number of resources or their overall significance in game would limit how far any single player could advance ahead of others, AI or human. As resources begin to shift hands in current games, it quickly becomes an unstoppable snowball effect in favor of the winning party. I suppose what we need is a multilateral approach to this problem:

1): Improve the AIs ability to acquire and defend resources aggressively
2): Improve the random map generator so each player is gauranteed to have some resources nearby
3): Move some of the starbase mining modules further up the tech tree
4): Reduce the quality and/or quantity of resources to limit the snowball effect

I suspect a well implemented random map generator may alleviate the need for a resource nerf, but the resource nerf is definitely easier to do programming wise. There is another alternative of course:

5): Reduce the quality of resources but increase the number of resources at the same time.
Reply #12 Top
2): Improve the random map generator so each player is gauranteed to have some resources nearby
This is the solution.
My main problem is the randomness of ressources positions


~SDC~
Reply #13 Top
One of the biggest problems is that the military resource is three pronged. You get an economy resource and your economy improves. You get a tech resource and your research improves. You get a military resource and your attack values improve, your defense vaules improve, and your HP improve. Any one of these alone is a big addition, all three together is pretty devestating to the opposition.
Reply #14 Top
I conucr with akaste and Za H ... resources, especially military, unbalance the game. They are, I believe, one of the most significant reasons an SB-centric strategy is so successful. Combined with the stackable nature of SB module improvements (and the capability to build multiple SB's in a sector), overwhelming advantages can be set up by a player.

I second Za H's recommendations in post #11.

~SDC~
Reply #15 Top
Shame the AI cant determine what % my ships would be weaker if they destroyed my Military Resources. If they saw for Example my ships would be over 25% weaker they make it a priority. Same for the Economic Resources.

Would this be ahrd to code in?

~SDC~
Reply #16 Top
has anyone played through a game with the latest version? the AI starbase strategy is supposed to be significantly improved. which would make this thread moot. i started a game, but i didn't have enough time to get to the stage where starbase strategy becomes important.

cheers

h
Reply #17 Top
Im 4 hours into one Horatio..i'd like to be able to say its improved..but its seems no different to the older version to me.

Maybe Brad could explain exactly *how* the AI has improved Starbase AI. this would allow me to quantativly judge it, rather than guessing as i am now.

~SDC~
Reply #19 Top
Trying out 3 bright and 2 intelligent. Only my second time at this level, lost the last one i tried yesterday :D

Im at war with one of the Intelligent AI's, but he still seems to ignore my Starbase loaded with Military upgrades, in favour for suiciding ships on my plannet.

They seem not to nitice the two Military Resources i have obtained, maybe they havent scouted them yet, as they are way out of the way in the corner with no planets anywhere near.

Again, im not sure what kind of Starbase AI im meant to be looking for, maybe im missing something.

~SDC~
Reply #20 Top
I think the changes were in the way the AI uses starbases, not in how they target yours. I have noticed that the AI now builds starbases to boost production (and maybe culture as well, haven't verified yet) instead of just resource harvesting.
Reply #21 Top
Hmm interesting Ringlord. The intelligent Drengin *Have* made starbases in their core systems, i havent explored the Intelligent Yor AI yet, the other 3 Bright AI's have not done this yet.

~SDC~
Reply #22 Top
Granted, I have not played beyond Intelligent level, but I too have noticed the weighty benefit of resources.

/ds
Reply #23 Top
I had the Arceans trying to build terror stars in my territory. Of course, that doing so was bleeding its economy (10 BC/month tax on starbases in another empire's territory) didn't help it much. But, still, it had built one terror star and nearly finished a second when I declared war and blew up their navy.

~SDC~
Reply #24 Top
I also have noticed that the benefit of a military resource seems to have a far greater impact in my games than that of any other resource type.

Perhaps military bonuses should only apply to (say) only HP or only Attack? Or maybe only to speed? :-)

I believe this would help balance the military (super)resource to be more "equal" to the other resources.

Not that all resources being roughly equal in value (depending on playstyle of course) is necesarilly a good thing. Just my preference.


~SDC~
Reply #25 Top
Also remember that military resources only have value when you are at war. All the time you're at peace they are useless, unlike the other ones.

Has anyone seen a lifeforce resource yet?