Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

They did. Mavor backed up that interpretation in one of the early streams.

Additionally the functionality is implicit. You can make the connection even without any of this information.

If you don't like it, it's really simple, don't play it. Metal planets are going to be over powered no matter what you do. It's part of their design specification.

Link and Timestamp please. If you're having trouble finding it may I humbly suggest that you use the Livestream Index.

Source please.

To my recollections, the devs have never stated that metal planets are going to be TA's metal-maps. The occasional infinite money map is fine, but as a key component of one of the planets? That would seriously distort any games containing metal worlds.

No, it's not that simple. You're trying to deny an entire class of planet, just to make it conform to your very blinkered and entirely unfounded viewpoint on the subject.

You're the one doing the denying, without special features such as this, it's just a weird looking regular planet and is a waste of resources.

You are free to play all of your games on earth type planets exclusively. Since every other type of planet will have some special features that give them extra power.

Still waiting for that source bmb.

Also a Metal Planet is slated more than a 'weird looking' planet. It is likely to be a Death Star. That's enough of a speciality.

Not my job to spoonfeed you public information.

You want them to refute something you can't prove? Brilliant. You're managing to refute yourself.

Make it optional. @bmb you can't tell me to simply not play on metal planets. How about I flip that argument around on you? No infinite metal extractors on metal biomes and if you don't agree just don't play on metal planets. Solved! Not. (Fyi I would love to be able to have both options)

I'm afraid you are making the statement here which is contrary to the prevailing opinion. As a result, you need to provide the evidence. You have multiple people who are happy to be proven wrong if you have a link. All we want to see is an Uber dev stating that metal planets are going to have extractors all over the planet, as that is very different from stating that there will be recyclable resources.

Indeed it would be very easy for them to implement universal placement, as this was how extractors worked at an early stage in the development cycle. The fact that they already had it working the way you are suggesting, and then moved way from it speaks a lot more about their intentions.

By that logic, you are welcome to play all the games you want with metal-multipliers turned up to maximum. That seems to be the way to satisfy the most people as those who want infinite money planets can have them, while those who don't can avoid them without dropping an entire planet type.

I am not sure what special features that desert worlds or earth world will have.

Unfortunately the prevailing opinion in this particular thread is aligned with mine. And has no bearing on whether I need to provide evidence or not. The information is there and you can find it if you want to. Not my job.

*Chuckles* less than 7% majority is not a significant margin bmb.

I think you're in denial at this point, and all because you're claiming something that you are unable to prove. Metal maps were never confirmed to be money-maps. You've misconstrued the so-called 'promises' of the Kickstarter to suit your own personal goals.

Give it up.

But it is a majority, invalidating any claims to the contrary.

Resource multipliers do not serve the same function as metal maps. And cannot be equivocated.

Not a significant majority. Claim that you've got the numbers all you want, but anyone with even a passing knowledge of statistics will be entirely unconvinced of your self righteousness. That you insist that you don't have to prove anything is damning enough proof of your obstructive and baseless position. When stating a controversial point as if it were truth you should be prepared to provide evidence of its validity. That you are unable and unwilling to do so should be all the evidence others need to dismiss your misinformational rantings as just that.

Resource multipliers exactly mimic money-maps and could very easily be configured on a per-planet basis. You're in denial bmb. Give it up.

You're the one making endless ad hominems here.

And no, they don't exactly mimic anything. Multipliers are global. Metal planets are a special feature in a system, and only scale linearly with the amount of extractors, and don't affect the balance between the cost and return of individual extractors.

Sorian said it best; multipliers are a handicap.
Metal planets are a strategic resource.

I'm not attacking you personally; just your argument.
Multipliers would be trivial to implement on a per-planet basis.

I am also unable to find that quote by Sorian, despite using the search function with a multitude of different phrasings. Would you mind linking to where you found it?

You just spent several posts claiming I'm in some sort of denial and claiming I am self righteous and obstructive. And claiming I have ulterior motives and somehow you imply I must have rigged the poll because it doesn't agree with you.

I'm not sure why per planet multipliers is a thing, that is a completely different gameplay idea from metal planets. Is it supposed to replace it? I thought you didn't like having more resources per planet. Why would you replace it with something even more unbalanced?

TA-like metal planets were never stated as part of the kickstarter.
Uber devs have never, to my knowledge, said they would implement them.
In fact, I recall (but cannot at this time look for the source) Neutrino stating he did not want them, instead making metal worlds into giant weapons.

Polls on forums are useless. They only represent those that choose to vote, and therefore have selection bias.
They represent a tiny fraction of the community, and are therefore statistically insignificant.
And, in most cases (though not this one), the options are either biased or do not represent every possibility.

All that can be said from this poll is that 197 people who have chosen to vote want it, and 174 do not. That's all. No other claims with regards to the wider community can be made.

Everyone started on the same map in TA. But having a separate metal planet like TA in PA is an instant win for the first player to get there.

Furthermore, this poll only indicates that 197 out of 368 people agree with the initial post. Out of a backer base of over 44,162, this means that your "majority" is from a sample of about 0.8% of the number of people who backed this game. This doesn't even begin to consider the even larger number of people who have pre-ordered the game off steam.

This is why forum polls are universally terrible. They don't even begin to reflect majority opinions.

Edit: Ninja'd! Damn you Raevn!