Will metal planets ever get oceans?

Or will they all just be death stars?

So your saying they should be like the other planets instead of being unique?

Mike

I don't think it is a bad idea to have a water like layer. I mean you can set water level to 0 if you don't want any, but the prospect of boats battling in large bodies of coolant intrigues me.

But how is it any different from regular planets? If every planet offers the same experience, why bother offering different planets?

Mike

Why limit what a planet can offer? The metal planet will still be different in how it looks (much like how other planets are different). And we still don't have everything a metal planet has to offer available to us. I mean if the only thing that makes a metal planet different from the rest is the oceans then how is it really any different than a moon (looking at it from that perspective)?

It's supposed to be like a death star and eventually be able to be turned into a weapon from what I heard. Like an actual death star haha

And you may need some coolant to disperse all the heat that weapon is going to generate =P

I just don't see a problem with having large trenches of coolant with the option to build navel in them. Sure not every metal planet should be naval ready, just like not every Earth planet should have naval built in it because what good does controlling a lake do you? xD

How is that a constructive comment?

I enjoyed some of the old TA metal maps with bodies of water on them. I don't see why it would be such an awful idea. In implementation it could be something as simple as those equatorial trenches and polar "pools" filling with water.

TA Metal Maps have nothing in Common with PA Metal Planets aside from sharing the very basic word of "Metal".

Why do Metal planets need a water element when not only are there already the 'jack of all trades' earth type planets but also the Naval-Centric Water planets?

Mike

It just seems silly to me to go through all the trouble implementing naval (and even going so far as to make naval-only viable) and then limiting it to only one planet type (water worlds are just earth with no landmass). Air units work on all planets, land units work on all planets, why spend an equal amount of time on naval if they're not going to be viable on at least a decent portion of the available planets?

What is wrong with having naval viable on a subset of earth and metal planets, while still impossible on lava, moon, desert, frozen, etc etc...

I'm not saying metal planets NEED water, I was just asking if this was planned or not, if they don't plan to do it, then that's fine by me, but on the flip side if you don't want water on your metal planets, don't generate them that way. Why deny people the option if they want it?

A metal planet with water on it is more unique than just another metal planet. What sort of variety have you seen in metal planets so far? There's bound to be more in the final version of the game, but why no oceans? It should at least be an option in the planet maker.

I rather like the idea of biome mixing and matching. Hybrid planets wouldn't be the norm in the randomly generated universe, but a rare gem. It would be nice to see some alternate configurations of metal planets too, with trenches cut in different ways, and without the circle on the top and bottom, etc. But in addition, lets at least have the option to make hybrids.

Because they look cool. Would you prefer playing on metal planets that look more or less the same except for the size? It would zpice things up a little. Metal planets with and without atmospheres, with lava, with craters, each with unique attributes, the possibilities are INFINITE.

Nor should they ever, it seems. Planetary purity, must be maintained.

So lets extend this logic to units.

Oh man Unit Z gets a shield and shields are so cool so lets give them to the rest of the units too! They're still different units guys!

Mike

Im going to go against popular vote and say no.

The way metal planets are now, it would be all "water" or no water, there is no elevation on the planet besides the smallest of cracks, nothing even remotely big enough to build anything on.

Maybe if a mechanic like extracting metal from the planet ate some of the surface and it leaked fluid or a complete rework of metal planets happened, but I like them as they are.

Mike, why the hatin'?
Anyway, the more apt comparison would be: "Let's not have Unit Z be the only single unit in the game that has shields, so that there is more variety and complexity in the game."
I think it's a very valid idea for expanding the possibilities within the game, and if you don't want to use it you can always disable it via water height.
As an avid TA veteran, I also think that the metal maps have a lot in common with PA's, and PA should draw on the same strengths that made TA great (as they have done a fantastic job of doing so far!)

There is already a selection of planets that allow for Naval play, there is the difference between having some planets support Naval and having all but one planet type support Naval.

We already have "Naval Only" water planets, Earth types that support varying levels of Naval play, and the potential that Lava Planets to support Naval to a lesser extent, isn't that enough?

Mike

Non-sequitur.

Why would map design logic apply to unit design logic? Is it supposed to?

Variety isn't specific to Map or Unit design, it's a core element present anytime you have lots of things that are different from other things. My point is that there is already a lot of Variety for Naval play, and adding more planet types to that isn't adding more variety, it eventually gets to the point where everything is the same.

Mike

And another thing knight,

You seem to think we're pushing for this homogenized vision of PA where all planets have the same qualities making none of them unique. I don't think that's what any of us had in mind, and in fact in my previous post, I suggested that only a small fractions of planets you would come across would have SOME hybrid qualities.

This kind of hyperbole is not advancing your argument, and to be quite honest, I'm with you in so far as planet types having unique qualities that create a unique gameplay experience. I'm with you on that. But who's to say these hybrid planets can't have unique qualities of their own? There have been some suggestions on that front already, maybe metal planets with oceans periodically drain, stranding your ships, or flood with lava, or any number of possibilities that shake things up. Sure, it can be done to where everything is mixed together into a gray blob, it can also be done correctly creating MORE types of play. It's a matter of how, not if.

I've been advocating unique planet characteristics since my Planet Diversification thread, and I disagree with your assertion that having planets with varied characteristics will blend them all into nothing. If done right, and sparingly, I think it would greatly improve the planetary palate currently in game. Speaking towards an appropriate fraction of hybrid planets to non hybrid planets, I think no 2 planets should be alike, but 1/10-1/20 seems like a reasonable number of metal planets with oceans to metal planets without, just throwing out a number.

I guess it just comes down to the fact that I'd prefer planets to be more consistent. To me a one in ten or one in twenty chance of something just muddies the waters of planet types.

I'd rather the planet/biomes be very specific and consistent about what they are, leaving more room for new planet/biome types down the road.

Mike

functional differences are more important than visual differences, at least for me.
Therefore, I would prefer metal planets to be naval free, limiting your strategic choices. Even looking from the visual style, I can't really imagine looking classic navy vessels anything other than ridiculous on a piece of metal, even if conjure something up like coolant streams (for which I see no practical reason to be outside without any cover)

And the argument, we have air units without atmosphere. Actually, I would prefer air units (or at least the sub-segment of fixed wing aircraft) be limited to atmospheric conditions, but that is another discussion which is already running somewhere else.

In the end I would like to have planet types with all the subsets of unit classes, orbital/air/navy/land.
To be fair, I haven't found a sensible reason to exclude orbital from any type, but ok.