Finite resources or not?
 

I saw a couple of comments, am curious just how many players are on each side of the board.

For me personally, I hate unlimited resources. I tried that back when I played Stars! and felt it unbalanced the game. I feel the same way with SEIVg. It makes the game too easy. If you never run out of minerals, why bother with storage facilities. With finite, if you don't watch your storage capacities, you may have to scrap some extractors to keep from not only losing the surplus, but losing the ability on that plantet altogether. Thats why there are value improvement plants are in the game.
If you think the SP game is too easy and you use infinite resources, perhaps you should try some harder settings.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

"If you think the SP game is too easy and you use infinite resources, perhaps you should try some harder settings."

The AI doesn't handle finite resources very well, so actually that setting could make the game -easier-.

Phoenix-D

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See, I have. It was hard to build up enough of a fleet to take a planet from the AI. It kept beating me back. When I finally could however, I saw it had nothing left. I took over all the AI's and saw they were broke. And this was on high AI bonus. Most people have seen the same. Results are summarized here: Wiki

Bottom line, it only seems like a challange, after a small amount of planning, it's only a slighty different game.

If you want a challange, play "can only colonize owm planet type/atmospheres" and hand pick TDM-Modpack races. My favorite:"Romulans, Klingons, Praetorian, Sergetti" set them all to rock/oxy except for Sergetti, and I play terrans. Give them High bonus. I still can't win on that. Ohh think I'll try again this morning. See you all in a couple of days. Heh

[ January 26, 2003, 14:00: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

First of all I can't stand finite resources.

"too bad thay can't put out a special patch that would put all of us on the same page. (IE upgrade 1.49 to 1.78 gold, or whatever the current patch # will be). I am a little supprized they didn't do that when the "gold" was released. "Gold" should be the final Version of a game, not a new Version. The gold should have been called SEV, and they would be working on SE6 now. It just strikes me as odd."

Reason they didn't make a patch from 1.49 to gold is there are too many hard code changes to the game. In other words all changes are not made just in the data files like most of the patches. There were changes in the exe file.
To me it makes perfect sense to do it this way. If they would've made Gold, SEV. I wouldn't like it probably. I mean when you go from IV to V you should have alot of big changes, interface changes or what have you. Just as III did when it went to IV, or II did when it went to III. There just wasn't enough big changes to validate it being SEV IMO.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

If i were to play against humans, i would choose finite because it's more realistic. Against TDM races i always choose infinite resources otherwise the AI is to much weakened by this.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I prefer infinite. I think the resources disappear much too fast in finite games. How can you suck a planet dry in less than 20 years? In terms of time, infinite if realistic.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

Having completed (just) four games, I think finite resources would hurt the AI more than myself, because I know how to take advantage of the asteroid fields and the AI doesn't.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I think finite resources can be fun if you are playing against other human players. The AI is not so good at handling it. It also helps to increase the finite amounts in settings.txt to extend a finite game - or just use FQM with all those plentiful asteroid fields.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

"I have noticed some people are playing SEIV gold, and others are playing SEIV 1.49. Lots of threads about what people would like to see in the next patch, too bad thay can't put out a special patch that would put all of us on the same page. (IE upgrade 1.49 to 1.78 gold, or whatever the current patch # will be). I am a little supprized they didn't do that when the "gold" was released. "Gold" should be the final Version of a game, not a new Version. The gold should have been called SEV, and they would be working on SE6 now. It just strikes me as odd."

Gold was essentially an expansion pack to SE4. It was sold the way it was because if you sell it stand-alone, the coding is easier AND you can attract new players easier. Classic doesn't get any patches anymore because all the focus is on Gold (like how SEIII doesn't get any patches anymore), and no upgrade patch because then Malfador wouldn't get paid. Which they deserve every penny of IMO.

Phoenix-D

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

Gold does not mean a new game, it means an expansion of the original game. Normally, a lot of new features are included in the Gold, but it is not enough to be considered a new game.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

Phoenix-D http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I agree with you. I would think there would be a patch to upgrade to Gold.

As Fyron says it is not really a new game.

I must say I am a bit surprised as I had just assumed MM had provided a patch for the upgrade to Gold.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I can agree with some of what your saying. When I play, I tend to stripmine a planet down to 0/0/0 and turn it into a research/intel facility after that. If I want to keep mining that planet, I can build a value improvement plant. Perhaps, the AI should build more of those.

If one feels the AI should mine more asteroids, that is fine and the problem is in how they handle remote mining, not with finite resources.

As for planets running out of resources too soon, in years terms, that I won't argue. That is a balance issue imo, and not an AI fault. The game is too mineral intensive and support too high and mining capabilites too excessive for any kind of realism. A planet's resources being depleted in 20 years is not as silly as being able to mine 1% of an entire planet's resources with one mining facility. However, there are other facilities in the game that counter that.

OTOH, depleting rare minerals is not that far off base. Space vessels are not run on abundant charcoal and saltpeter. I imagine they run on things like uranium (how do you think the uranium gets "depleted" for DUC weapons). If earth had to build a fleet of space vessels that used that, not running out within 20 YRS would be an amazing feet. Plutonium, Gold (circuit Boards), Diamonds, Kryptonite (some as of yet undiscovered mineral), ect. There are a number of examples that one could use that are limited on "this" planet. Just because currently the demand for use in not there, does not mean they become infinite when a demand is created. Esp, in the needed quantities portrayed in the game.

As for modding the game, I would prefer to keep this topic on the most current Version and not some tweak. That has it's benefits for both sides of the argument. I personally prefer to play games that are not modded. the exception being to fix bugs. IE: starting resources choice of 1000kt and only a base 500kt storage available. Whether you choose to fix the starting option or the base storage value is a matter of choice. (I chose the base storage value) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly, you both spent a lot of resources on a war. Both races suffered the cost of that war. Not only was the AI broke, but you were too. Correct? And if not because you built value improvement planet, ect., and the AI didn't, then the problem is in the AI build priorities.

Regarding the other topic, I don't have a problem with Gold being an expansion pack, as it was a considerable amount of time after the SEIV release. The ones that piss me off are the ones that come out with the "expansion" pack 2-3 months after the game is released. All they are doing is splitting the game in half to make you pay double of a single game. That CLEARLY is not the case with SEIV. Don't get me wrong, I am glad I didn't have to hunt down an original copy of SEIV to use the Gold expansion, but there were enough changes made that you can't play SEIV against a SEIV gold player. there may not have been a lot of major changes, but there were enough. And an "expansion pack" should be able to "update" and original release. That is why I said it is #5 and not 4.5. Of course, if they called it SEV, people would complain there were not enough changes. lol. Guess it's just a matter of perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

You can not play SE4 with someone that has a different patch Version of the game. So, it only makes sense that you can't play gold with non-gold. MM was considering including non-gold on the gold CD, but there was not enough space after all of the extras were put on.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like I have stated, I don't have a lot of games under my belt. But in my current game, I don't see that as an AI defect. The Phong and I both expanded during the early game and met about half way across. There has been a steady flow of ships and intel attacks from them, and I have seen advanced tech conning at me. They have colonized a number of systems, and although some things make me wonder, resource gathering facilities have been balanced. Personally, I would not put 30/30 reasearch facilities on a plant and not put a data bank there, but hey, maybe he didn't have the right tech at the time. But I have seen a good mix of gatherers on most of the planets. The gathering facilites also seem to coinside with the best value on that planet. Granted, the AI could use some work, but resource gathering has not been an issue.

I have noticed some people are playing SEIV gold, and others are playing SEIV 1.49. Lots of threads about what people would like to see in the next patch, too bad thay can't put out a special patch that would put all of us on the same page. (IE upgrade 1.49 to 1.78 gold, or whatever the current patch # will be). I am a little supprized they didn't do that when the "gold" was released. "Gold" should be the final Version of a game, not a new Version. The gold should have been called SEV, and they would be working on SE6 now. It just strikes me as odd.

[ January 26, 2003, 12:37: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I prefer unlimited resources just because even the thought of limited resources sounds constricting - what if everyone runs out and it turns into a stalemate where everyone has so many defenses and not enough attack fleets? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Still, maybe I should give it a try sometime, given my penchant for joining PBW games with "unusual" twists http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

i tried a few games with finite resources. i noticed the first turn after completion of a mining base it would show several hundred thousand in resources as being mined in the empire status window. but then would reduce to what that facility would actually produce on the next turn. has anyone else noticed this.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

There was a game hosted by 1fstcat called Limited Resources. The idea was that on a map with 8 players and only a few planets, resources would become very valuable in the end.
But in the end everyone had enough of them and only 5 % of my mines were depleded.
So it ended as a normal hack and slash SEIV game.
Although yuo had to make some efforts in designing a race, much more focussed on maintance, mineral/organic and radioactive mining.
We are now starting with limited 2 and I'm really curious if we can deplete our mines faster and get a real fight over resources.

Sparhawk

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless I am very much mistaken, the AI can upgrade facilities, but not replace them. Those planets it fills with mineral miners in the early game will remain like that...

Between human players it depends a lot on maintenance reduction bonuses and careful planning.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Current space ships (e.g. the Space Shuttle) use hyrdogen fuel cells (hydrogen + oxygen & a catalyst = electricity + water?) and solid oxygen fuel. Hopefully in the future they'll have nuclear fusion working - as fusion only requires hydrogen, which is rather abundant in the universe.

A technologicallly advanced race (e.g. Asimov's First Foundation) would be able to work out how to use dwindling resources efficiently.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

The AI is no good with finite resources.

It also doesn't make direct representational sense to be able to mine a planet down to zero in a matter of years.

However, I think it does make more interesting multi-human-player games using the unmodded game set. I have seen a couple of these in advanced stages, and they limited fleet sizes and development practices in interesting ways.

You can still get unlimited resources when playing finite resources games - you just have to build enough Value Improvement Plants.

I think it may tend to have a side-effect of creating lots of research planets, and zipping through the tech tree, so I would recommend using High research costs.

It's also lame that the resource total replaces the extraction rate multipliers, so every planet extracts at base rate, so you lose the interesting detail of having some planets more productive than others.

But if I had to play an unmodded game, I'd want to play PBW (no AI) with limited resources.

PvK

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Current space ships (e.g. the Space Shuttle) use hyrdogen fuel cells (hydrogen + oxygen & a catalyst = electricity + water?) and solid oxygen fuel. Hopefully in the future they'll have nuclear fusion working - as fusion only requires hydrogen, which is rather abundant in the universe.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but what do they build the reactors out of? Do they need, say, Technetium catalysts?

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I think a key to limited resource games is playing them on ancient maps. That will make the planets a lot more valuable.

jm2c
Rollo

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

I haven't played too many finite resource games so I can't comment too much on differences of gameplay. I can, however, comment on the "realism".

In my opinion there is no justification for a finite resources game. It is completely UNrealistic to think that the creation of a few dozen dreadnaughts would deplete the resources of a planet. It is realistic to assume that some planets would be harder to harvest than others. This seems to be most accurately reflected in the infinite resource paradigm. The constant rate of acquisition in finite is what smacks of unrealism.

While I am aware that the resources of any planet are, in actuallity, limited, they would not be in the scope of virtually all games (usually Lasting less than a century).

Others may feel different but the very thought of my planet 'drying up' in so short a span wrecks my suspension of disbelief, and hence my enjoyment of the game.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

While I briefly played in one limited resource game, it wasn't long enough to really comment on the overall playability of those games.

One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned is the greater necessity of using Value Improvement plants. In addition, the Religious Nature Shrine assumes greater value, and Crystalline (I think) has a particular facility which gives it an edge in a long limited-resource game.

A limited resource game can put several strains on players that can make a more interesting game. Super-large fleets are more problematic. Resource converters/Recycling centers are more valuable, as are storage facilities (already mentioned). Players have to consider heavy mining (as in laying mines) much more carefully, and each ship and facility construction becomes a more weighty issue. Players will have to balance trying to overcome opponents with only enough force, because too much can make them over-extend themselves and suffer later and lose...and too little can cost them the game more immediately.

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

Exactly cheeze. Well said imo. That is why I said infinite resource games are easier. if you don't have to really worry about storage limits and the like, then sure. Build 20+ massive base ship fleets, drop Mines and Sats everywhere with reckless abandon.

In my games, I am basicly building a fleet for each wormhole in my home system. That fleet is responsible for anything discovered beyond that point. If I build "back-up" fleets, I lose my arse in support. If I build too many radioactice extractors, my surplus is lost, and I may need it later. In this game, earlier on I did that, and had to go back and "recycle" a large number of them. Due to the mineral intensive support system, I didn't have enough of that, and far too much of the other. I had not researched resource conVersion yet and was killing my own planets with org/rad depletion. talk about hasty micro-management. I still had a need for those two, so scrapping "all" of that type of facility would not have been the right thing to do. balancing the M/O/R is a real see-saw challange. It was quite fun. infinite games are missing that aspect.

My current game is down to a two front war, but I have over 60% of the galaxies claimed (by colonization). Made some not-so-desireable race setting choices, so I think I am gonna apply the patch, and give it another go.

This Last game, was cluster/large. 3 of the AI's were in real good shape by the time I found them. another 3 were of mediocre challange, and not much can be said about neutrals. I colonize the system next to theirs and they go on a traditional "there goes the neighborhood" rant. I sign treaties with them, and they get mad. they attack, I graciously allow them to join my empire. I needed some methane breathers anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

All of that adds way too much micromanagement and makes the game less fun to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Finite resources is not necessarily _harder_, as much as it is more of a pain.

[ January 28, 2003, 08:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Finite resources or not?
 

perhaps that is the true debate. I enjoy micromanagement and more of it is not a problem with me. I had to deal with a multitude of complex things with my career also. I loved what I did and was good at it. The nice thing about a game, is if i choose to let some m/m slide for a while, it don't have repercussions on others.

The only true reality with a game. Is it comes on a pLastic disk, and becomes unusable if folded. I have to laugh when i read, or post myself, about things that are or are not realistic. Truth of the matter, is we have no idea what space travel will require or cost, nor do we have the technology to do it right. Hell, we havn't even "colonized" our own moon, let alone other planets, or intersystem travel.
And please hold the "area 51 is really a moonbase" theories. (altho that might make a good thread. lol)