Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

Really? So, by everyone else you mean 50% of the people that voted on this thread? Look pumpkin, if you're going to try to be right, you have to make a point that is actually defendable. Using blanket statements like "everyone else" can be disproven. Making you wrong.

Why bother? I've already written you off as irrelevant.

Concession accepted.

Wasn't there a thread like this before? Probably without a poll.
My answer: Hell no. Why? Because that would be horribly broken. The person who gets to the metal planet with an advanced fabber first could just spam out extractors and then begin spamming everything else. Units, satelits, nukes, halleys, everything. It's just broken. There should be NO metal spots on metal planets and that's the plan, too, I believe.
Metal planets will be huge weapon stations that will have a very strong weapon or something like that. They will have a special ability that will make them worth taking, despite giving you ZERO ressources.

EDIT: The only ressources a metal planet should have might be "alien metal generators". Special buildings you can fight over on metal planets to generate ressources. That wouldn't be overpowered or broken and at least give you something to fight about instead of just spamming out metal extractors.

I second that.

Bear in mind there is already a significant imbalance in the resources offered by a planet based upon the size of a planet - larger planets have significantly more metal spots. So currently the person who gets to a bigger planet with an advanced fabber already has a large advantage.

But this is at least obvious. In a Supcom game you'd expand to the biggest islands (when on an island map) as well.

I strongly, insanely strongly disagree with the sentiment that a planet with more metal spots is the same as one with infinite metal spots.

Build-everywhere style metal planets is fundamentally a different thing than having a few more.

I would opt for nice geometrically, evenly distributed metal spots.

It gives metal planets:

-a different feeling. The geometry shows it's not natural
-the same rules. Metal extractors should always be built on metal spots.
-the same status as other planets: a resource amount relative to it's size
-the same restrictions on metal, making Mex-building a thing of map control and not a thing of efficient management.


It seems pro-mex-everywhere people either enjoy the nostalgia or the rule of cool. Ultimately, it removes the metal planet from play as a serious map and makes it a gimmick and not a fundamental part of the game.

I third it for the fluff reason which has been brought up but not explored fully: these planets are not dead but asleep.

To my understanding these planets are more like a Death Star than a "naturally occurring planet which just happened to be made predominantly of metal". As such, an efficient mechanical design will not include throwing a bunch of scrap metal into the surface layers so that it can be used willy nilly. It would make sense that there would be specific locations to draw raw materials from, that not anything could or should be recycled for convenience. There are systems at work under the surface, and destroying them should cause those systems to falter and perhaps fail, with possibly catastrophic results.

I mean, how does a MEX know the difference between raw material and a coolant supply pipe? Or perhaps a structural support? Or a waste processing tank? How would a MEX know not to bore into a reactor buried under the surface?

The idea of scavenging materials from the planet you live on in an uncontrolled fashion is similar to what killed Krypton in the most recent Superman movie. If the option were available to place extractors anywhere, would it be possible to have those resources gathered at some cost? Perhaps the planet slowly stars dying? The weapons on the planet, when finally activated, lose efficacy?

If some mechanism like that existed, I could see the option being available as worthwhile, but think the default should be that only specific areas are acceptable for mining.

I think this is the best compromise, with the addition of a mod which allows mex-everywhere to keep those who enjoy that sort of gameplay happy. Also different models as Ortikon has suggested:

That's a very good idea. It would add quite the layer to the game if metal planets were controllable and/or active.

I would like to re-iterate this:

-it is important that it's easy to spot modifications to gameplay. I don't want to need 10 minutes to search every aspect of the game to figure out if i'm playing standard or to some other person's preferences. Making such hard-to-spot options a thing is just gonna confuse people.

Also, i think that different models is more than fine; i think uber has that planned anyway.

Yeah I agree. Uber have already stated that they aim to encourage mods, so I would hope that they will make sure it will be easy to see if you are joining a vanilla or modded game - otherwise people will be joining games and being surprised by much worse than mex-anywhere metal planets

Don't worry, there will be a default options. It would just be something the anal among us would worry about. All that aside, gosh, playing PA sounds like quite a hassle to you, maybe too much stress than it's worth?

I'm sure there will be something in the future that will allow players to know about maps before playing on them, so you aren't stuck on a map type/size you don't personally like. Don't worry about it, lol. Failing that, you can always make maps you like, and if people share with your preferences, they will join your game.

For the love of god people... Don't ask the devs to simplify things on the map making end of PA. If anything, MORE options are needed.

If you are going to be condescending, you may want to proofread your post.

Also, nobody has been asking the devs to "simplify things", at least not on any permanent basis. Perhaps you understand concepts like "tournament rules" for video games? Same applies to development. Uber shouldn't need to take input from folks who are not playing a predetermined standard, because they would spend an eternity trying to balance for every iteration already possible with the knobs we already have to twiddle.

I don't think you understand the point of having a Default is. As I said earlier, Saying it should be an option without stating which option should be the default is useless. Everything can have options once Mods happen, but that doesn't matter, what matters is the "standard' that the gameplay is created around, the foundation of the 'Gameplay house'.

Mike

Wow. This has really gotten off track. If you don't mind, I suggest we return to discussing the metal spot placement on metal planets.

If I'm correct, these are the main opinions so far:

• Stick with current setup.
• Metal extractors should be allowed anywhere on metal planets.
• (This is my favorite and I think it would fix the issue of having a natural-looking metal spot on a unnatural planet without changing the balance.)

(Please quote any ones that I missed in new post below.)

I said "everyone else who dislikes metal planets", not "everyone else". Try actually reading the passage you're quoting before making yourself look even more foolish.

Now, hold on a second fellas. I think I'm being a little misunderstood here.

Gosh, you're right, I'm clueless!

Well, I guess the default option would be... However many MEXs appear on maps currently? Just a certain number per area. I mean, is it that much of a stretch? Rendering an idea as useless because THE default setting hasn't been predefined by the House of Lords isn't giving it's due credit.

I mean... The standard number of metal spots may change in future gameplay patches, as it should. That doesn't invalidate the option of changing it.

Awwww, again with the standards... Standardized planet types, standard numbers of spots on maps, standard everything! Just... Perfect for tournaments.

I have every confidence in the modding community, but I don't think such a basic feature should be left up to them to make. Seriously what is this notion of standardization? For tournaments, players would start on the same planet, or in the same scenario. I don't think they would use randomly generated planets by default, do you? Planets can always be saved for later, and distributed to everyone. This is not a FORCED option, it's just something for fastidious mapmakers. I never intended for this entirely optional feature to force itself into the standardized Gameplay house. I'm sorry if that's how I presented, well, I would be except that nothing I said even hinted at that.

But, remember, I'm talking about an OPTION to change the density of metal spots on custom planets. A fairly basic feature in RTS mapmaking utilities. It's not asking for much...

The way tournaments have been done so far, from what I've seen on YouTube, they've been on randomly generated planets. Players start out on the same planet, fair game! However, I think playing on vastly different environments would better test your skills. You may be good at certain scenarios, but not others, so your whole skill set is tested where it wouldn't be in a standardized scenario. Not to the same extent at least.

Ahh, thanks! I'm now more convinced this is a good idea thinking back on it.

Good! I hope no one ever does.

Presumably, players would start out on the same planet in most scenarios, so you would have access to equal amounts of metal spots. It would be a different kind of game, but still balanced. I guess my deal is that the extra options should be there for those players who want to use them, it shouldn't be left up to modders to add basic map making features like MEX density.

They don't have to though, I hope some planets genuinely ARE superior than others. That would be a tactical element for the galactic war, choosing planets over others that might be closer, or otherwise more desirable. Would the alternative be preferable? Uniform MEX distribution on all planets?

Well yeah, the thing is that trying to balance the game that has as many options as this is next to impossible to tackle all at once, Uber has to pick one to work with and work out from.

It's not about hating on options, just that whether or not something has option(s) doesn't matter when it comes to choosing with the Game will use as the standard.

Mike

On the topic of balance, if 2 players start off on a planet with a large amount of metal spots, or a scarcity of metal spots, they will have access to the same amount of metal, but they will have to play differently to take advantage of it. It's fair, from the map aspect of it, but will force players to play differently. I think this would be a good addition to the tournament setup, as you can test a players skills in a wide variety of maps, instead of standardized maps. 'Wide variety' doesn't mean unbalanced, it just means different, different playstyles for different maps that are fairly balanced in resource distribution.

For imbalance, if I was in a match with a player that was vastly better than me, I would at least like the option to start out with some environmental advantage. So this map option not only can be fair (with players starting on the same world with = amount of metal), but can also correct for unfairly balanced players. The devs talked about the possibility of starting out on worlds that were going to eventually collide as a possible scenario, another possible scenario is 2 planets with slightly varied qualities to give the underdog an advantage. Again, a possible scenario, not the rule, not something to be forced on players.

I guess a good analog is Forge in Halo. You can make crazy, nutty maps that appeal to particular players, or maps that can and do make it into the matchmaking as a standardized map.

But for the crazy maps, they can be unbalanced (Zombies v Survivors), or they could be balanced, like modifiers that affect all players equally. I'm accepting of both of balanced and unbalanced gametypes/scenarios existing, or being able to exist. All maps can be uploaded, and played by whoever wants to play them, including the standardized maps.

The problem is that that this change isn't applied 'globally', it only would happen on Metal planets, which already have the potential to massively shift the gamestate with it's giant Laser and being able to potentially fly around on it's own.

I'm fine with 'build extractors anywhere on metal planets' being an options, but the default has to be that you can't build extractors anywhere.

Mike

You have no idea what an option has for the game.

Options are variables for balancing. if you want to lose control of balancing, thrown in as many options as you like
Options water down the game as there's no coherent gameplay, just whatever you scrap together.
Options means more time figuring out if a game you join is a game you want to play. As KNight said above, joining a 6-planet system match is idiocy because the game -currently- cant handle that. Unless you like staring at a useless computer for 15 minutes.(actual figure: not some overstatement)

That being said, not ALL options are bad.

An AI should have many options. After all, you're usually playing alone against it and it should be modifyable to your skill.
The Systemeditor should have the tools(options?) to build a good map, where you can make whatever scenario you like. If you want more metal, just place a bigger planet. Maybe some planets should have more metal than others, but a metal slider is IMHO a bad idea (unless the slider has a small impact to make some planets a bit better or a bit worse)

Gameplay options like mex-everywhere, or other ones that you can't figure out unless it happens or unless you read a list of changes, are bad. It makes the game confusing, unintuitive and it will -if implemented in beta- disrupt the beta process.

IMHO, mex-everywhere metal planets either need to be their own planet, or they belong in modding territory (which i don't mind, since i won't download the mod).


Conclusion:
Make it a mod.
keep the gameplay the same, vary metal by planet size (preferably not by a slider), make metal planets Death Stars and not endless supplies of metal.