Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

Or you could just have an equivalent number of regular Metal spots and not force tedious micro on teh player just because he wants to build up on a Metal Planet

Why would it matter? In the end it would all add up to huge benefit for mass.

Admittedly this is a convince sample that is still ongoing nonetheless, but this is a sample in which anyone who has bought the game that uses the forum can participate in, so I assume everyone else either has not found this, or does not care. From that the forum has displayed a heated discussion about the topic at hand.

I would not say it is circumstantial, nor will I pretend to be an expert in statistics, but I feel it is enough to speak volumes.

Note: I never said good and popular are the same thing (I call fallacy).

I suppose this could be considered a popular vote, and yes people tend to go for easy solutions, I am not for easy solutions, you never said I was. Nor do people always know exactly what they want, past annihilation players would have a better idea than us coming in on Planetary Annihilation, I respect peoples wish not to have it vs always having it.

Note; This is a backers only section of the forum, so I assume you mean veterans of the series are not around, for everyone in here is a backer of this game, unless you mean most backers are not most are not participating in the forums/voting/posting, which comes to a different point of how does one get all those who own the game to voice their opinions.

As for how your putting it, it sounds you don't mind if someone mods it in, but you don't want it officially implemented, while I respect your desire. What do you think about a check-box that a host enable money map functionality via, if he/she so desires, but the default is for how they (metal planets) function currently? Such implementation would I feel would not propagate the mentality that "uber added it so they want us to use it," for the default would be as it is currently (metal planets have specific mass extraction points), but as an added option to change things up if one so desires, it can be enabled. Personally I think such an easy flag should not have to be modded into the game from a third party, for that may open up a whole can of worms, including redundant mini mods that are not compatible with each other.

I would still like to note: I am for a flag that can be checked for creating a game whether or not metal planets are mine-able anywhere; I am not for it being implemented as we're forced to have every game with a metal planet be a money map. If we have only a black and white option, I would lean the way of leave it as it is now, but I do not believe the question at hand is as two sided as the poll stands.

My first post on this thread (2 posts prior to this one) has various approaches as to how the topic at hand could be handled in an effort to get closer to balance and uniqueness so that everything does not have to be effectively the same but re-skinned, of course some of the options might be too much to be implemented this late in the game.

Please make it an option! Options are good, despite what the party poopers say.

Also, is there any way to make the metal spots on metal planets look different to the normal ones? Maybe just make it look like a flattened box or port hole so it fits in with the metal planet design better.

Yes you did.

Or: "if it's so popular doesn't that mean it's a good feature"

You directly link popularity to good.

i call phallusy

I've played a bunch of RT Strategies and when i was younger (i'm not THAT old tho) i used to eventually resort to cheating the hell out of a game. Whether legitimately (TA and metalplanets) or with every cheat imaginable (AOE, AOEII, AOM, Starcraft). Back then i had some short-lived fun. Now i realize i ruined my fun.

The community around here seems to contain both new people and "veterans" and the names Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander and Starcraft pop up regularly. Still, even large community votes like the Lore votes do not pull in that many people compared to the 50 000 or so backers so it's clear that a relatively small group of people makes the Backers calls.

It sounds like that because i've said it on multiple occasions.

I prefer to have it as a flag in the code and not in the lobby. Again, i prefer it to be a mod. And since Uber has repeatedly said they support modding, such things are likely to pop up as soon as Release is there.

As a slightly amusing sidenote: I get about 4/10th of my likes from this thread, mostly from the "you missed an option: Hell no" post yet it's mostly me and KNight doing the talking. I'm not sure what to think of it.

Continuing on:
I think the "final decision" depends on how Uber is exactly planning to address the various options (that will eventualy be) presented in the Lobby. The current one is extremely limited in it's information. Partially, that's good. partially, it kind of sucks.

I just realized -and i am sorry for bringing up this game again- that Supreme Commander had a tab with "MODS" and that it contained economy modifiers (like: 2x income, infinite economy, only commander generates economy). I would love to have this. Not the "mods" tab, but that such experimental game forms are listed as Mods by Uber and not as "the way it's meant to be played".

Because that's what my -i guess you can call it a rant- monologues are all about. The Way It's Meant To Be Played. Sorry Nvidia. TWIMTBP is that the game has ONE way that's absolutely guaranteed to be fun and ONE way that the game plays and is fun and EVERYONE plays. It is THE game. If you play Planetary Annihilation, you play The Way It's Meant To Be Played. And if you want it differently, that's up to you. There have been games out there that muddied their TWIMTBP. I guess that you can infer that Minecraft is one. It's a game that supports everything and adds everything and stands for nothing. It's survival isn't survival, it's Creative mode (free everything) with health enabled. It doesn't have a TWIMTBP. Now, Kerbal Space Program is adding a Career mode that's a tutorial and it is weakening the game.

The purpose of TWIMTBP is that you have a fun game and that everyone who plays it has a fun game. Lasting fun, where effort is reward, where risk can have rewards etc. If you make a game and add a sidebar with options to turn every design decision ever off and make it easy, that's where TWIMTBP (i created a monster!) dies right then and there.

That's why i would prefer it to be in a Mods tab, even if it's there by default and made by uber. Whenever i use any of the options in SupCom's Mods folder, it makes me feel kinda bad and it makes me feel like cheating. Which is exactly what i like.

I realize it might seem like a weird and minor difference but i think that mentally, it's a world of difference.


A TLDR: Put the option under Mods, even if it's an Uber "mod" and even if it's technically just an option.

Well the basic idea behind a Like system such as the one we are using is to help cut down on the countless;

type posts thus leaving more room for actual discussion without any 'filler'.

Mike

It was more about the "does that mean that what i say is all that can be said" or "are people just +1'ing". I don't know the context.

Well the intent of the system is that liking a post should mean that they don't disagree with any aspect to it but also may or may not have anything to add. Generally if they only agree with a portion they won't Like your post but reply to it to discussion what they agreed with and what they don't and why. Obviously there is no set rules for how to use the like system and many people will interpret if use differently.

Even me, for example if there is a well written post I am likely to Like it even if I don't agree with certain aspects of the post because regardless of what I think I like to see people really dig into the details of things and show their thought process. But I still wouldn't Like something I don't agree with in terms of it's topic or overall message just because it's well written.

Mike

Aaand now the poll is perfectly even. The pro and con people even seem to come in alternating waves.

OF COURSE they should be buildable anywhere.

If you think that a game on a metal world will be about "micro" or "more about economy management" then you need to play some decent games of TA on a metal map.

If you can build metal extractors anywhere, then it's completely the opposite of micro or economy management. It all but removes micro and economy management from the equation: it becomes much more about logistics and getting big firepower fast.

Games on metal worlds in TA are insane slugfests. They are awesome. PA is supposed to be AWESOME. Make it so.

I'll add to that: Metal planets should be rare anyway, I would doubt that many have been entirely encased in metal...

Certainly in competitive TA metal maps are regarded as "noobish" and not played often. However, they ARE fun and are played occasionally.

If you look at this from a "realism" perspective, metal worlds would be unlikely to have more than a couple of KM/miles deep of metal - under that they would be a regular planet, right?

So perhaps regular metal extractors could pull metal from anywhere, but advanced ones going deeper would get diminishing returns, or require a deposit to be placed.

I would argue exactly the opposite... A metal planet within a system becomes a strategic focal point - a battle for domination of the metal planet. And if one player succeeds in holding it, the others will surely start hurling asteroids at it... Whee!

I like to have an option to play with metal planets in the Total Annihilation style. While I understand that this feature is not usefull in PvP, I love to play with friends against the AI in an epic battle of material. So a little switch would be perfect.

Don't confuse for complexity for profundity. What you propose adds complexity for no increase in game depth.
Why add an extra building, that cannot be used on the majority of maps, when there is a simpler way to accommodate the end goal within the building set available?

Metal worlds were an ok idea in TA, because you were all on the same map. But here it could be a nightmare. could just make it so that you get increased mass from there.

Why not? So what if it can't be used on a majority of maps? Doesn't even have to be a new building, just increase the rate that you get metal from metal planets. The issue here isn't about that, but rather if metal extractors should be buildable anywhere on metal planets. My answer is no, the solution is either specialised extractors, or just extractors yield more. But not buildable anytwhere.

Just why would anybody want to be forced to invest micro on building hundreds of metal extractors, when there are other solutions improving a metal planet's metal output in much less micro-intensive ways?

Yeah I think this is would a major balance thing, maybe just have double metal production from metal planets.

Plus guys it's more of a giant space station/weapon so you wouldn't just strip it of it to get resources, how realistic is it that it even has Mec points. Might be worth having a different texture for the Mec on metal planets so it looks more like the metal is generated from the planet rarther then ore just randomly being on the artificial planet, then technically u could still build a standard metal extractor onto of it. And you could just place these is special Unrandomised patterns or saybols to show that it was built.

What do you think?

I would like to address the post below the one I am quoting, that was is well drawn out and I appreciate you demonstrating that this point is not so black and white, as well as what you are for/against and why, you have quite a bit of constructive input there.

My response to the following post is because I am being misunderstood probably because I am being verbose, but I must be to make my standing clear for otherwise this may continue, this is my nail to that coffin, for there is nothing more to be said for the following is all based on a moot point.

This is all semantics, for this is based on a series of thoughts in an Inception arguing a moot point, for you agree it should be there, but not blatant (obvious) as to meet your criteria of the way it is meant to be played. Which gets to the point that this subject is not as black and white as the poll lends itself to be, the poll itself being a straw man for a yes or no is an oversimplification for this heated topic.


On another note my argument of fear quoted above is that of if so many people are threatened by the idea, yet it is evenly split, then it has some validity, and you have voiced you’re not 100% against it, it just depends on the shape/form. A census is always nice, but the people here I like to think are the people that care the most, thus despite this being a convenience sample, I view it due to the number of votes : population as being reliable; is there a statistician in the house?


I suppose one could argue that one should only implement good+ (good and better) features, or rather that I implied either that or am for implementation of bad features, but neither of which is what I meant, for the text around it and of which it is critiquing is not being considered – straw man, is close to an ad hominem, is a red herring for your avoiding the topic at hand via arguing this, that aside:


What I meant in part based on the convince sample that this poll is, which we have different thoughts about its' strength, that aside; I encouraged you, one of the more verbose advocates against it in these forums, from being a naysayer (for it was being looked at yes or no), to share how you think implementing (a flavor of) this in some way/shape/form should go via voicing your opinion as to what you want and why whilst you included your past experiences of predecessor games to bolster your point, that is a strong argument, and if everyone did that rather than make something yes or no, sound bites, and posturing statements, then we would have many constructive debates and swayed points rather than pandering and alienation to ones beliefs. Only in discussing this as we have, has two parties in this thread come to agree, compromise to a point, whilst gaining a larger grasp on the views.


No more suspense: The way that my statement was constructed was such that even if I was wrong I was right, it was a setup you see: If I am wrong in assuming that if one extrapolates this poll out to the population of the community and potential community as a whole, that roughly half people like options (money maps), and if you are right that if Uber were to put it into the game in some way/shape/form, (I assume most everyone is what you mean by people for otherwise people can assume what you mean by this: ) “that people will think ‘even the makes think it’s fine’ and you won’t be able to find a lot of games without moneymaps,” which to me at the time meant and partially means to me still that the people either A don’t know what they want and Uber knows it is money maps (I don’t believe this), B the people really want money maps (I don’t believe this (keep in mind people here is most everyone), or C that you see validity in the yes side of the poll, and fear that it will come to that because it is what is predominantly wanted, and you’re going to be the minority that rallies your friends in order to speak out against it (I sarcastically believed this). I knew no matter which way it was construed that I would be right within the context, for your argument itself was a fallacy (ad populum due to the scare tactic of if this goes in there won’t be many games other than money maps, which no-one wants a lack of options,) for I do not feel it is strong enough to warrant and back itself, nor is it true (especially depending upon implementation), and rather than call you out on it, I gave you a series of statements that solidified my standpoint and made it so that if you attacked that baited point, that I would be right. Let us put this past us though.



That being said, I still advocate my series of ideas that were in my initial post (see page 7) as for various ways to handle the poll at hand in hopes of creating a solution more unique than a Boolean check-box.

Another possible way to handle it:

- you can put extractors anywhere, but they cause damage to the surface and deform it over time, eventually resulting in the destruction of the immediate area and the extractor itself. Possibly with actual metal spots where you can build and this wont happen.

So you can go mass economy if you want to crap in your own nest, so to speak...

Or a combination of this and diminishing returns... and advanced extractors can either only be built on designated spots or they deform/destroy a larger area faster.

btw arm24: it's a moot point, not a "mute point".