Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

I'm sorry, but you really haven't.

It's not broken just because you say it is. PA will have a multitude of ways to invade or destroy planets. As I said already we are seeing that annihilation can basically invalidate economic advantages. Not to speak of what is to come.

Maybe you didn't read it or didn't understand it. But I have.

I think it's time to give up and let him win. Bmb, you're right. The game is going to be awful because it won't have money maps.

How do you build up the means to do this when your opponent is, from a very early point in the game, not resource capped?

They'll be able to build a Halley far quicker than you could, and wipe you out first. They can build units faster than you can. They can build nukes before you could even build an anti-nuke. How do you counter someone who can easily counter you first?

Lol totally

As far as I'm aware you can't build halleys on big planets. And you can't send nukes very far. Really we don't know how the interplanetary balance will play out just yet. But I think it's fair to say that if someone is disadvantaged they can still bounce back as we have already seen. Your reductio ad absurdum isn't doing you any good.

Infinite metal extractors isn't the same as infinite metal as they are still bound by the rate at which you can build them. One potential problem compared to TA is the lack of an energy requirement. We just don't know how that will change the balance yet either.

If you completely own a metal planet air units won't do you any good. If you don't completely own it your opponents will have the same metal advantage as you and be able to spam air at an equal rate.

I'm not sure how the balance of T2 bombers relates.

But it doesn't relate to metal planets.

It's not reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that any player could overcome the advantage of a metal planet. I was simply showing that anything a player tries to do in order to achieve this, the other player who owns the metal planet can do too, and far, far easier.

As for "But I think it's fair to say that if someone is disadvantaged they can still bounce back as we have already seen.", to quote you from before, this isn't true "just because you say it is". How do you overcome someone with an absolute advantage over you? You haven't answered this.

Because you are able to wipe out their economy with a smaller investment. It's not a what if, we've seen this in action already.

Correct, but it has no baring on the topic since no one suggested that you could. An opponent with a huge economic bonus is going to be able to colonise and consolidate on many more planets, moons and asteroids than someone without that bonus and be able to build Halies much faster.

See above.

How does this impinge upon the fact that one person is going to have an economy far in advance of the other player? With a massive economic advantage a player will be able to defend themselves very happily against an offensive... unless you're suggesting that planetary invasions should be geared hugely in favor of the attacker to counterbalance the advantage of a player in control of money-map which has severe implications for games that don't include a money-map.

Where have you seen this? As far as I'm aware metal planets don't give the economic boost as of yet, so your assertion that it'll all be ok counts for naught when applied to this new situation with vastly different parameters.

You can't just claim that people will be able to stage a comeback without accounting for all of the (hitherto unknown) factors.

Let me remind you that if one person has won the economic advantage of a metal planet then either they deserved it because they outplayed their opponents, or their opponents deserved to lose because they didn't even show up for the fight.

Being able to bounce back because of the orbital gameplay is simply a bonus and a credit to the design of the game.

Being the first person there doesn't sound like an achievement worth such a hefty reward.

Orbital play has no effect on this situation. A player on a money-map is not at any specific disadvantage compared to any other player on a different type of planet and is arguably at an excessive advantage since he has no limiting factor on his economic or military expansion, orbital or otherwise.

You're at a stage in the game where you've just built your first orbital unit. It would take a lot of time from that point, on a normal planet, to be able to build up an attacking force that can hit another planet.

During that time, you're opponents economy has expanded hugely, they have the resources to defend it all AND build an attacking force to hit you.

It's because they rushed there first. That's it. That's utterly boring.

You still haven't shown this to be true.

I don't need to show anything, the real gameplay is showing it.

Maybe you don't like rushing, maybe you don't like winning either. But it's not like getting there first by a few milliseconds will auto win you the game. There is a significant build up period on any new planet where you are still very vulnerable. Regardless of how "free" the metal is.
Someone having a presence on both the metal planet and another planet will have an advantage over the one who just rushed for the metal planet. But that still doesn't mean the battle is won.

First you advocate that expanding and claiming territory is the core of the game and then when you come upon a situation where that is actually important to winning it's imbalanced.

Your words are not in accordance with your actions, once again.

Do you realize you've spent several pages arguing over whether a certain type of gameplay you don't personally prefer should be in the game just because you personally don't like it?

You don't understand how a debate works bmb. When you claim something to be true you have to be able to prove it.

Current 'Real Gameplay' as you put it is indicative of precisely nothing when you throw such a massive curve-ball into the mechanics like "no restrictions on extractor placement"

This isn't a formal debate and I don't have to prove anything. Especially not common knowledge. If you haven't seen or played games where that has happened yet it's not my problem.