This thread has so much potential, so many possible directions to take things. Let me start with what I think is most important:
Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
this is more of a question about whether the metrics themselves are flaws.
All metrics are flaws. That is, blindly following a recipe without understanding is inherently flawed.

Human social interactions - including things like playing an RPG - are inherently complicated. There is no "one size fits all" solution. You should not try to replicate exact textbook kisses per hour with your SO or exact textbook cuddle times with your kids. Instead, you should aim to understand why certain metrics exist, and attempt to produce counterparts to those metrics that produce the same results for the specifics of your scenario.

Consistently hitting an arbitrary "80% resources consumed" mark? That's terrible in general, and terrible for your group in particular.

It's terrible in general, because it makes the world a grey, unmemorable, low-agency mess. Remember day 27? Oh, was that the day we ended with 19% resources left? No, that was day 43; day 27 was one of the usual 20% days. Bleh. No, I remember the fight where my "not a Frenzied Berserker" ran out of HP, and PSP, and finally dropped, leaving just one man still standing at the end of what otherwise wouldn't have been a terribly memorable or important fight.

It's terrible for your group in particular because a fairly consistent "80% resources consumed" a) was probably higher than they wanted (did they ever seem unhappy going back to town after each fight, not counting the time that you made timing **** them for doing so (which was hilarious)?); b) showed that they lacked agency to control pacing and difficulty / tied into their trust issues & their belief that you just made stuff up to **** with them (to maintain your "intended level of difficulty").