Need energy to make metal?

Would it not make sense that metal extractors use energy to be able to pump up metal, that being said shouldnt metal extractors stop pumping in metal when you are out of energy.

This will make energy a more viable target to destroy, and more important to protect. What do you think?

Running out of energy already:
- shuts down production
- shuts down special weapons
- shuts down intel and counter intel
- shuts down special abilities

The optimal strategy to recover from an energy stall is to prioritize extractors, no matter the deficit.

It does not shut down production because you still get metal from your extractors, i dont mean that the extractors would go 100% offline because that would put you almost dead in the water if you dont have any metal in storage for new powerplants, but make them run on half..

It would have 0 impact on the game to do that.

As it stands now, stalling already reduces your ability to spend.

Ex, if you are producing 10k power and are trying to draw 20k power, everything will build at 50%

You may still be getting the metal, but unless it is going into storage, will be totally wasted.

I vote yes, do it TA style. You should put this to a poll.

IIRC it's a confirmed no on that, it's been talked about a few times before.

Original thread: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/planetary-annihilations-economy-system.44173/

There already was a poll and a quite lengthy discussion on this exact topic:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/should-metal-extractors-consume-energy.54006/

Yes there was but noobs obviously don't search. Also our numbers have increased a lot with the Christmas sale. With every topic having twenty related threads I don't think a newer fresher poll would hurt.

WTH? I thought this game already did that.

As in, metal extractors produce less during an energy stall.

You don't notice it because fabrication also gets reduced, so you are making and spending less metal at same time. However, this way, you also don't come to a dead-in-the-water stall

Someone told me this is how FA does it, and that seemed appauling to me, that extractors would shut down and leave you unable to even build more power to rectify the situation. How do you fix power without power then?

Firstly, I don't think it is very nice to call new members "noobs". Secondly, the search feature is terrible, it took me several minutes to find the thread I linked even though I had a good idea what the name of it was and posted in it a lot. Thirdly, polls don't really mean much, features should change based on which option is best for the game, not which option is most popular.

Lets be hones everything which performs some actions and is not considered passive (f.e. storages could be considered passive, walls) should consume energy with of course exception of power sources because they clearly produce more than consume.

Optimal strategy given a surplus of metal is to prioritize builders that are closest to finishing an energy plant.

Yes, exactly. OP should go and play Forged Alliance, power-stall and see how much fun it is.

Also, in Forged Alliance it's very common to be running at a mass (metal) deficit, then when you reclaim something big you suddenly get a massive power crash - this is caused because up until that point the energy has been pro-rated against the metal you're using, but when you suddenly have enough metal to spend at 100%, your energy crashes through the floor.

PA has been specifically designed so that this doesn't happen, which is why fabbers use 100% energy even if they are using a fraction of metal.

Yes. But most importantly is to not sacrifice any metal in the process.

Forged alliance gave ALL energy from power plants. This was not true in TA. Everything in TA had some kind of energy production, and as such permastalling was not possible.

Most things in TA had energy production, yes, but most things also spent energy equal to their production. It's just as possible to stall in TA. It's a lot more common in FA because of the magnitude of the costs for things.

The only factor in TA that helps is that each con unit produced a tiny amount of resources and had a tiny amount of storage.

so tell me what decides what is best for the game??? A general consensus of its players doesn't??? You have to implement it to test it as well. Just arbitrarily saying its not doesn't exactly mean it's not good for the games sir.

If you take offense to being labeled that term used worlwide to described new players you're obviously a high school diva....

No, it's really not. The TA economy was far more robust than any successor has ever been able to achieve. It had its quirks, but even on a bad day it was easier to manage.

No, that would be bad.

Currently:
You lose almost all of your energy production and now only have the 1500 income. You still have ample metal income so your build rate is limited by energy. Your commander wants 1500 energy/second to build at full speed so he can build at full speed provided nothing else is using energy.

With this change:
Metal extractors themselves use energy so that 1500 energy is split between your commander and all of the metal extractors that are draining energy. You'll need to shut them down to direct more energy to your commander so that he can build more energy structures, but that may drop your metal production into the negative as well. Now you're even more crippled than before.

Energy is already so vital to construction that I don't think it needs to be made even more important/crippling to lose it.

Continuously making polls on the same topic in the hopes that one will eventually show favorable results is not very useful. Most polls are biased in their options, and the fact that the poll question is at the top of a thread means that most people respond to the question before even reading the thread containing the arguments for/against it, which means that most responses are not influenced by the intelligent discussion contained within.

Game changes should be decided based on what makes the game "better" (which is a loaded term when referring to games), not changes which are the most popular. For example, making orbital use a simplistic model made the game "better" but was arguably not the most popular option (at the time anyways).

In my experience, "noob" refers to someone who is just bad at the game, irrespective of time played. "Newb" refers to new players. The terms are usually used interchangeably, but generally the first term is considered at least slightly derogatory, which is why I suggested it be avoided.

Anyways, this is way off topic at this point so lets continue the discussion via PMs if you wish...

As for the actual topic, all of my responses are already contained in the thread I linked, and anyone wishing to discuss this should read that thread, particularly the responses made by Ledarsi and other well known forum-goers. If you can't counter the points they brought up then I don't think extractors using energy is a very good idea.

A'ight, bros, let's keep on keeping this on topic.