How Resource Management Actually Works?

from AshesoftheSingularity Forums

OK, so I've probably clocked about 15 hours in the game, and I'm at the point where I am getting more curious about certain essential (but somewhat opaque) aspects of the game. 

 

Specifically, last night I was starting to pay more attention to resource management.

 

I grasp the concept that you're supposed to claim the resource nodes (so they can start churning out resources for you).

I also grasp the concept that you can build refineries and "boosters" to increase the speed of resource production.

And I do understand that there is a capacity for resource storage, which can be upgraded with Quanta.

It also seems readily apparent that when I build things, I spend resources (metal and radioactives).

This much seems perfectly clear.

 

Now for the more vague stuff.

I am not 100% sure whether, after I build a unit, it continues to cost resources -- but I am pretty sure that once the unit is built, it is no longer consuming any resources.

So I am going to proceed on the assumption that only construction of units costs resources, and that there is no maintenance cost. 

 

So given these parameters, I am left wondering about the strategic significance of resource consumption and storage.

The tutorial addressed these matters only a little... and didn't leave me with a sense that I fully understood the "big picture."

 

 

I'm just trying to think it all through...

 

I am wondering, for instance, if it matters when resources go negative. 

I played a level last night where I built a whole bunch of extra armories, so that I could produce more units faster. 

I noted that my resources eventually went negative, but the construction bars were still incrementing gradually.

So is the "negative" simply indicative that I have spent my storage, and am using more metal than I am producing at each moment?

Does this actually matter in a strategic sense?

 

 

I mean, you always want the maximum quantity of resources you can get your hands on -- so you can produce as much as possible as quickly as possible.

But, once you go negative, which seems to be inevitable (because you always want to produce MORE), then it doesn't seem like it will matter how you manage the resources...

 

In theory:

... the resources are being accumulated at the same fixed rate... 

... the ships still cost the same...

..  the game tries to make production happen at an optimal maximum rate (essentially a fixed speed)...

 

 

So in a negative resource scenario, which seems to be quite common if I am trying to take optimal advantage of my resources, is there really a difference if I have three armories or seven?  

 

I mean, it would seem to me that if I want to build 50 ships and I am at zero or negative resources...

... the same amount of production would still be happening each moment of the game...

... the production points would essentially be distributing equally among armories... 

... every available point of production would be consumed at each "click" of the game...

... the total resource cost of the 50 ships would would still be the same, whether I produce them three at a time, or ten at once...

... so the 50 ships should still take the same amount of time to produce regardless of quantity of factories...

... right?   

 

Granted...

If I do produce three at a time, I might see a couple of ships sooner...

BUUUT if I produce ten at a time, then when they finally pop out, MORE ships will appear...

... and I will ultimately have the same number, in the same time to complete, as if I just kept producing three at a time?

 

 

 Hrmm... Really not sure on any of this... just speculating...

Anyhow... would appreciate some insights into importance of resource strategies. 

 Just not quite seeing the depth yet. 

 

 

 

24,762 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Am just popping this to top of list again... I think this is an interesting thing to ponder.

 

I don't know if there is any strategy to resource management at this point... but would be curious what others think.

 

What strategies are you applying.

 

The above just represents my own thoughts on the matter.

 

Am still just trying to figure everything out...

 

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

My claim is that going negative on the resource utilization is sub-optimal.  The easiest way to think about these things is with the numbers 0 and 1.  Suppose at a given time you start with zero resources stockpiled.  And at that time you are doing nothing other than starting the production of 1 unit from a factory and that the input of resources equals the output to produce that unit.  And under these conditions it takes 1 minute to produce that unit. After one minute you will have a unit and remain with zero resources stockpiled. Now suppose that you had two factories and instead of one unit you produce two units, one from each factory.  You will then see a negative resource utilization which translates into a slower build.  It will take two minutes to produce two units simultaneously.  You also would have had 2 units after two minutes if you just used one factory producing one at a time.  So it seems like there is no difference.  However there is a crucial difference.  Using the one factory you will have the use of one of the units for a minute longer than if you had used the two factories.  And in both cases you used the same amount of resources.  So to sum it all up:  Same resources used, same total number of units produced after a given time but in one case you get to start using some units earlier.  Thus going negative is bad.

Reply #4 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I'm not going to argue, because I seem to be in no posiiton to do so, having lost every multiplayer I have attempted to date.

 

(only three, but still.)

:)

 

Reply #5 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

since you builded armory and if you have negative income in metal, but the income is stockpiling instead, the reason for that is simple

its tied to the radioactive negative income.

basicly you are gaining resources but because there isn enought rad, the metal production also get stalled.

if you had positive income in rad and metal like 1+ on each and you build 4 tier 2 units, what will happen is that the metal will be drained until it gets close to an empty stockpile but because the rad stockpile went out first and is now into the neagtive the metal drain got 3/4 stalled thats why your stockpile is filling up (but it still says -22 drain)

 

and that is true but only if you have a positive income in radioative you can controll your eco that way by building more buildings requiering radioactive. (basicly production speed goes down from 100% to something of X %.

this also cuts both ways

Reply #6 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I hadn't considered that scenario.

 

SO, if I understand that last post, when you are creating new units and structures that require both types of resources, you will stall out in mid-production when one of the resources depletes???

 

I guess this makes sense.

 

So, in that scenario, presumably the non-depleted resource would build-up... and eventually you would be wasting resources???

 

So the resolution might be to start producing metal-only units, or something (assuming you go short on rad)?

 

And of course, gain more rad nodes???