Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

Yes... yes it was. I'm not suggesting that extractors everywhere on a metal planet is required to solve any problem. Just like having a difference between bots and tanks doesn't really solve a problem. It's just cool, and kinda makes sense (not necessarily from a game play perspective). Not everything needs to solve a problem to be worth adding.

My quote is only to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that removing limits on extractors for metal planets will make them higher priority targets on maps that include them. They will already be that way regardless because they are weapons of mass destruction. So please, if you are going to go around saying this is a bad idea for any other reason than "I don't like it" put some thought into the reasons why and support it with facts. That's pretty much the biggest argument I've seen against it and it's just dumb.

I have a better idea: read the thread.

It does. The problem you get otherwise is that the game gets boring and one-dimensional.

As i said before: without the superweapon, it becomes a king-of-the-hill. Except, king of the hill specifically puts no benefits to the one holding the hill: you just score points. With metal, you get snowball effect that's beyond any proportion since you can literally spam a thousand mass extractors, and simultaneously harass the solar system with the new stargates.

With the superweapon, a metal planet has sufficient gameplay to it to fullfil your needs. Moreso because it likely will require some form of activation that can't be done that early game. I've seen dozens of suggestions including specific control points or the use of the commander. The thing is, it's easy to make it require effort to use and give it a king of the hill type of gameplay.

Metal everywhere is just a gimmick that's more likely to be detrimental to the game.

If your "better idea" to my reasonable request of supporting opinions with facts is to insult me then you are adding less to this conversation than BMB and are wasting everyone's time. You are not worth "discussing" with. Shame on you.

PS. "The problem you get otherwise is that the game gets boring and one-dimensional." LOL. Anyone could literally say this about anything! Are you a human or a bot simply typing random words? You are the laziest troll I've seen yet on these forums

As I said before and as iron has pointed out, metal planets will be the centrepiece of any system they are included in. This is not a bad thing. You don't autowin because you touched down on a metal planet a few seconds earlier.

There's some irrational hatred of the idea of any location you can hold being important for winning, often from the same people who advocate that expansion and map control should be important to winning. That's some serious cognitive dissonance.

Really dude?

if you read the thread you'll see that everything i've said in the last two pages has been thoroughly explained by me before. I'm basically regurgitating it. I don't need to explain something that i've explained at LEAST 3 times before in the same thread.

With infinite metal, you practically do.

i'm not part of that group. I hate the snowball effect it induces.

Only if you look at it as a per-feature thing, not as a grand whole.

Say PA has 1 tank only. That means there is one interaction possible: Tank Vs Tank. AKA boring
Add a bot: now you have three interactions: Bot vs bot, Tank vs Tank, Tank Vs bot (and vice-versa, but that's pretty much the same).

That's a tiny bit more variety. Now add a plane. You get 6 interactions (bot-bot, plane-plane, tank-tank, tank-bot, bot-plane, plane-tank).

The more units you get, the more interactions you get. By limiting those interactions per unit and per layer, you get variety (e.g. a bomber only interacts Air> Land or a fighter only air-air) .

Obviously there's a limit to this because at some point, with finite layers, you get finite roles to fill. Especially without upgrades (Either like Supcom1 or Supcom2).

So yea, tanks and bots being different prevents them being interchangeable and "bloat". you can only add so much stuff before it becomes useless.


Planets don't quite follow this rule since we can simply play on a white sphere with red no-go zones and call it a map. Some planets make the white a desert and the red a mountain, some make the white rock and the red a lava pool. The Metal Planet is already different since it's obstructions are laid out differently thus leading to different gameplay (e.g. two players close to the polar cap can fight air to eachother but land is substantially more difficult).

Adding some kind of mex rule to it is just a rubbish solution to a non-existing problem. It adds nothing useful. I proposed a couple of things regarding how Uber can treat this "feature" that makes us both happy. Aforementioned "mod the server" was part of that.

Unless Uber surprises us next patch with a metal planet of doom, this discussion is pointless since it's just going in circles. And if you, Iron420, read the thread, you'd already know that.

So basically in so many words you admit that you don't like a particular style of play and therefore don't want it to be in the game at all even though you are not forced to play that way.

Well if one generates in your system, then you really are forced to play that way.

What happens to bad, unplayable maps? They DIE. Money maps are unavoidable, so give it a few runs and see if it makes a good money map. It could very well be terrible for a serious game, but sometimes you just gotta **** around.

TA had a special planet property that determined how useful extractors were on dirt. For metal worlds this value was maxed out. There was no law that forced a TA metal world to have infinite metal, just as a grass world could be a pure money map. It didn't allow for much of a middle ground though.

Are there other ways to make game changing planet properties that aren't a money map? Of course. It'd be great to see various planets place more pressure to use a different play style.

Im not saying they should be possible, but they shouldn't be available unless the player specifically requests one.

This shouldnt be opt out of money maps, this should be opt in.

But this isnt TA, and i found that system to be very confusing actually. I prefer the node system.

Or uber just fixes the actual problem, in stead of imaginary ones. And yes, i have no shred of doubt that a moneymap mod will come out. I'll probably download it, mess around a bit and then de-install and play normally, happy that i don't have to put up with it in regular games.

I'm still at the quantum cake (have your cake and eat it too) proposal i put up 4-5 pages ago.

If you read the thread you would know that i said that it shouldnt be default, but that if people really wanted it, theyd just mod it in and play it anyway. I find it to be a god-mode gamebreaking non-fun crappy feature that has no place in a serious game.
I have a problem with it being uber-supported, but i know that i cant nor want tot stop people from simply modding it in.

Also yes, if uber puts it in im forced tot play that wat. So again, its modding territory. Then, everyone is happy.

Finally, if you read the thread (detecting a trend here) you'd realize im still not saying any new things. Might as well have shamelessly selfquoted. Or you could've read the thread.

So, in conclusion, the same conclusion as before:

Mod it. Everyone happy.

There, shameless self quote from page 8 (which makes my proposal 9 pages, not 5 pages old)

Good job editing your post to remove the part where you admit you just don't like it.

If uber puts it in it's super simple not to play that way: Don't use metal planets in your systems, tell the people you are playing with that you don't like metal planets. Wha bam, done.

That still doesn't cover the issue with randomly generating a system.

Use a template without metal planets in it.

And so invalidate the planet completely?
No, your obsession over making all metal worlds into money maps is stupid for all of the reasons people before me have stated.

Making the default metal world, or any world a money map is a bad idea, plain and simple and should never happen.

Keep shifting those goalposts bro.

I have shifted nothing, and you are not discussing your points.

Dude, what's your problem? really, i'm curious. Did you really think that if i didn't want you to see my original post, i'd directly quote it? You know, so you can click on my name in the quote and immediately jump to my post? That i'd even explicitly mention the page of the post so you could go check it out?

Did you think i'm hiding that i don't like it? Page 1 of this thread, the first thing i say is that i don't like it. I go on for 9 pages about why i don't like it. I've shown several times that you can have your cake and eat it too.

Now i'm confused. You want moneymaps because you think otherwise it hurts metal planets and then propose the one thing that will surely banish metal planets from any remotely serious game?

Really?

You are imagining things. Nothing he's said or i've said in the past 10 pages is news. Those goalposts were firmly in the same place they've been before.

So let's get back to that mantra of the last 10 pages:

Read the thread, and if you have anything meaningful to add that hasn't been said already, come back. Or come back and say that i was right all along, by which i mean that nothing i've said in our discussion is news and that you're just echoing the first ten pages.

We can agree or disagree, but don't go act like a smartass. You're just showing you didn't read a thing yet you blame us. This applies to dear mr Iron240 too.

Metal planets aren't imbalanced, they are equally effective for everyone who wishes to use them. It's just a different way to play. In fact they are more balanced because their layout approaches symmetry, and metal distributions wouldn't be random. It is silly to talk about serious competitive gameplay in a game that is founded on random generation.

It's not random it's procedural; there's a difference.