Thoughts on Gold Generation
So I've played 5 games so far, and I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. Let me start by trying to explain my overall thoughts on the resources in Atlas.
One of my favorite things about the game is how it handles its Resources. It's enough like an RTS to feel familiar, but the gathering of resources is largely automated. Gold is passively gained, workers gather Scrap automatically and even build themselves automatically. While you have to be proactive about finding and securing Gems, the actual gathering of them is a click-and-forget system that makes the macro aspect of the game much more relaxed than in a typical RTS.
I also like that the two subsets of units, your Squad and the Mercs, are purchased by separate sets of resources. This makes for interesting strategic and macro decisions throughout the game, from lobby to victory screen.
Additionally, I think I understand the purpose of this separation. Passively generated Gold is intended to keep each player's Squad size roughly equal to one another, at least in terms of relative power. Mercs, built using Scrap and Gems, which can be fought over, make each army unique, and since they die permanently, protecting them is important to keep an advantage over your opponent.
Now let me try to explain why I dislike how low the Gold generation currently is. I have two reasons, one is an opinion based on what I enjoy about the game, and the other is an observation from the games I've played thus far.
I've played now with four of the different "Decks" of Squads, and toyed with both sets of Mercs. In every game that I've played, the units I've most enjoyed playing with are the Squad units. I love their synergy with one another. I understand the reason for the Mercs, and I like that they exist, and I even like most of them and what they do. But, they aren't the core of the game play to me. My Squad is what makes me truly unique among the players in each game. I want to focus on that uniqueness. I want more of that uniqueness. As the Gold generation stands, my Squad stays relatively small over the course of the game. I tend to have only two of the T2 or T3 Squad units (I once had a third T2!), and 10-16 T1 Squad units depending on my "Deck." Maybe I'm just being greedy here, but that doesn't feel like enough for me to really get into the synergy of the Squad.
My second observation I think might be more important to the game overall than my opinion on Squad size over the course of the game. I noticed than in each of my games, I never got more than one power upgrade for my units. I always felt like it was more important to have more units, and when it came time to decide on a new unit or an upgrade, it nearly always seemed like the correct choice was a unit. I think part of the problem here is that the upgrades are almost as expensive as the T2 and T3 Squad units, which is a lot of gold. So when I have one T2 and one T3, and I have 200 gold, I have the following choices:
- Buy an upgrade.
- Buy a few T1 units.
- Wait for a little longer and buy another T2 or T3 unit.
I always felt like waiting another couple minutes or whatever the timing is to get that powerful and interesting and fun T2/3 unit was the better choice, once I have a reasonable-seeming number of T1's. The upgrades don't seem to have a big enough impact to warrant effectively upgrading a single unit, until I manage to save up and purchase one more of whatever I upgraded.
So those are the things I think make Gold generation feel bad. Here are my thoughts on solutions.
It would be an easy thing to ignore my first problem as simply me being greedy about wanting more units. That's fine. So lets look at my second observation. In essence, I think the problem here is that the upgrades cost too much of a precious resource for what they give me. If I buy an upgrade, I want it to feel like there's been a noticeable change in the power of my units, especially when I'm essentially buying that upgrade instead of another one of an awesome unit I am likely to have very very few of. The obvious solution to this, I think, would be to lower the price of upgrades, even if this means tweaking the numbers of what the upgrades actually do.
This change has the benefit of not altering the mechanics of the game in any real way.
Two possible changes to Gold income that DO affect core mechanics:
The simplest of the two would be to slowly ramp up Gold generation over the course of the game. As an example (because I don't know the actual numbers), Gold passive generation can change from 1g/5sec to 2g/5sec to 3g/5sec* late in the game, at some point capping to a maximum amount (*note, these are not suggested numbers). It doesn't change a lot, but it allows a player to switch gears at different stages from focusing on building each Tier of Squad units, to eventually choosing between a unit and an upgrade without feeling like purchasing one means not having the other for a lengthy period of time.
The one i think is more interesting: if towers and the resource-gathering structures were each worth a small amount of gold (say 15-20/30-40 respectively), players can gain a very small advantage over the opposing team, which can have an impact over time, of maybe a few units or a couple units and an upgrade.
This has the added benefit of placing further importance on these structures and playing strategically around them. A tower becomes more than a tactical target, and each player has to carefully weigh the pros and cons of building resources gathering structures each time.
I do understand the intent of keeping each player's Squad relatively equal in terms of strength, but I think even this last option will not grant any team an insurmountable lead over another. For one, this actively gained Gold is bound to be spread out among team members, and if the Gold numbers are low enough, a single player killing 3-4 structures is only likely to get about one unit out of it. That extra T2/3 unit or upgrade feels like progress is being made against an opponent, without dramatically unbalancing the Squads.
I think giving players this slightly more proactive opportunity to generate Gold would help make players feel more involved in the creation of their Squad throughout a game, and increase the sense of advantage being gained without actually snowballing the player or team towards inevitable victory.
A final note, after some limited discussion with Atlas folks on the client chat, I do realize that static gold generation was a piece of this particular test, as part of the overall intention was to test how people interact with the Mercs. So in that regard, I'm sorry this long post is about something you weren't really intending to test. But I hope it's helpful. I'm no game designer, merely a player, and I'm actually pretty sure all of the solutions I proposed have already been thought of.
Thanks for reading. 
Comments
Awesome feedback
~ What would you think about making gold a dynamic resource like gem and scrap bases are now? What about the current static system do you like? Is it it's predictability, simplicity, or something else?
The thing I like about the current system is I don't have to think about it a lot. In Starcraft for instance, you are constantly monitoring and checking your bases to ensure your resources are coming in at peak efficiency. In this game, I build a building and move on immediately, I click a Gem and continue on my way (while having to make the choice of where to position to protect those Gems). I like that the current Gold system allows me to focus on playing the game, as it does in a MOBA. What I DISLIKE is that I don't feel like I'm getting as much from that Gold as I think I should.
The only real thought I put into the resources is when and how to spend them. Gathering is either passive or happens through direct gameplay and conflict with the opposing team (Gem gathering naturally creates conflict by virtue of its proximity to the enemy and THEIR Gems).
I'm not sure I'd want Gold income to be mined the same way Scrap is. I like that each income happens in a unique way. I also am a fan of keeping the main content of a player's army fairly equal to the enemy's. I think my third suggested solution, though it eventually creates an IMBALANCE, occurs slowly enough that it will never be the biggest deciding factor in the outcome of a game.