Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

The same could be said for any resource concentration on any map. And the reason you put resource concentrations in to begin with is to force players to fight over it. If you don't fight for the most important resource on the map then of course you are going to lose. Level design 101.
PA however has the great equalizer of the titular annihilation. Already we are seeing it come into full force as a powerful weapon that can defeat even massive economy leads. And this is before any other significant orbital invasion mechanics are in place.

I have already covered the nature of the poll, please read. Apparantly it only suits you to read and respond to the parts of my posts you can attack.
The reason I continually cite it is because certain parties like to appeal to the "popular opinion" in this thread, where the poll serves as proof of them being wrong about that.

If you feel that I'm representing you unfairly on a personal level, rather than an academic one, then there is a report button that you are welcome to use.

And unless you're arbitrarily restricting where a player can spawn, making sure no one player can control the money-map planet from the start, then you have a severe imbalance which will result in one player being unavailable due to sheer economic superiority.

---

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the gap between the 'majority' and minority is shrinking.
How amusing.

It's entirely possible that your argument will turn against you bmb. Will you swallow your words if that happens?

Metal planets not being start locations is so obvious as to be self evident. Just like you don't put a starting point near 10 mass points in supcom but stick with the standard 4. Even if another part of the map has 10 points in a concentration.

Though of course this is really an issue of map design. You could have a one planet system with only a metal planet, the weapon is then irrelevant and it plays like a traditional metal map. You could have a system made of multiple metal planets, battlestation vs battlestation. You could even have an assymetric map where one player starts on a metal planet and the rest teams up against him. The possibilities are many.

Ah, you're in favour of arbitrary rules to solve a problem of your own making. Good to know.

Even when players can't start on the metal planet, you still cause the game to be a one-dimensional rush to get to it first. That may be balanced, but it just isn't fun.

Then don't play on that kind of maps, just like you shouldn't play on setons clutch if you don't like that kind of thing.

Setons is a single map, not a planetary biome type. Don't equate the two; they're not similar.

Planets in this case are just a type of map feature, just like the reclaim at the center of seton is a map feature. You can have maps without reclaim, maps with a lot of reclaim, maps with concentrations of mass, maps with sparse scattered mass. And you can have systems with and without metal planets. Systems with multiple, systems made entirely of etc.

Yep, we all agree that variety in maps is a good thing. Those maps still shouldn't be broken by design.

And yet you contend that metal planets should have no special significance from other planets. Whether or not a map is balanced is up to the map maker to ensure.

Your words are not in accordance with your actions.

I agree cptconundrum, None of what bmb has suggested makes mandatory money-map planet types sound any better.

---

Edit: why are you willfully ignoring Metal Planet's Deathstar like abilities bmb?

They aren't mandatory. The system editor doesn't start you with a metal planet you can't remove.

That ability is not really relevant to the topic. Though I'm sure you'd argue for its removal as well in the name of perfect boring balance.

Luckily for the game and its' community, he doesn't actually get to decide these things. He can make a mod later on if he wants.

But I can't play on a metal-map without you forcing it into being a money-map. I don't want that, and it's very apparent from those that are opposing you here that I'm not alone. You won't allow me to have a Deathstar without it also being a money-map. Why are you insistent on them being inseparable?

And I in no way would want to remove the Deathstar mechanics. You're putting words in my mouth.

---

No kidding.

Why would you play on a metal planet if it is no different from a normal earth type planet?

If you are continuing to appeal to popular opinion which in all reality consists of you and and one other guy right now, I must continue to direct your attention to the poll. And continue to highlight the fact that this behaviour is expected by the silent majority of the community, making no qualitative assessment of whether or not they prefer it.

Because it can turn into a Deathstar.

---

Direct my attention to the poll all you like; there's more than just one person here who knows they're largely irrelevant. This poll proves nothing other than 197 people want money-maps to be permanently linked to a planet type; nothing more.

Which isn't relevant to the topic.

That's every map with a metal planet that you don't start on...

Edit: Add that to not starting on metal planets, and you've just said metal planets should exist.

Edit 2:

It's very relevant, since you have been arguing that building extractors anywhere is a way of differentiating. Death Stars are a way of differentiating.

And a majority of supcom maps have central mass concentrations, it's not just seton. Seton is just the most extreme example.

That you don't like it and can't avoid it makes no difference to whether central mass concentrations are a good idea.

But somehow I doubt every map will have a metal planet in it. So that isn't even relevant.

Reclaim is not the same as a money-map (or in this case, what would equate to a money-island in a traditional RTS map structure). You're equating the two without any apparent comprehension of the misinformation you're spreading.