Metal Planet Death Stars Confirmed

A single nuke cannot kill a Commander at full health.

And that means the defenders were incompetant and didn't build anti-nukes.

Nukes are supposed to be commonplace. If they're commonplace, they aren't game enders. Just because they destroy a comm, doesn't meant they're a game ender. Gunships regularly kill commanders. That doesn't mean they're game enders.

Nukes and Halleys are not game enders. They're supposed to be common place. Recovering from nukes (when you play right), is very easy. Once planet smashing mechanics are finished, they won't destroy entire planets.[/quote]

Maybe deathstars won't be that different though.... maybe they can only be activated once and the damage is similar to kew. Also they never said that every kew will do the same damage isn't it possible that there will still be moons and asteroids that are planet killers?

I submit that we trust in Uber. A lot of assumptions are being made.

I, for one, am totally excited about the idea. And I don't trust anyone who isn't. They will make it fit right in. I'm willing to bet they already have a really good idea of how they're going to implement and balance it.

I think it's simply too early to tell what it'll be and/or do precisely. I don't think it's a case of "now it's active, fly round the solar system and ANNIHILATE EVERYTHING IN AN INSTANT" kind of thing.

It definitely seems to be more of a King of the Hill type planet.

And I don't like the idea of a king of the hill type planet. PA is supposed to be about multiple strategic choices and variety. With a game ending planet, there is much less variety and less strategic options. Go for this planet or lose – which is the exact reason why metal planets have metal spots rather than metal extractors being built anywhere.

Worked well in Total Annihilation.
Bare in mind that you can design maps, so a map creator can create a plethora of systems which will all require different strategies. So adding in a few metal planets will make things interesting, especially if planet smashing is a 1 hit weapon.

can we hook up some metal probes to brian's skull so that every time he types the words "game ending" he gets zapped?
dude, no one has said it will be game ending. you're flying off the handle on an assumption! sit down, breathe, and have a coke and a smile.

What works well on TA doesn't necessarily work on PA.

In TA there's only one map that everyone is on. In PA there's lots of planets. If metal planets allow metal extractors anywhere, then there's only one way to win – be the first one to get to the metal planet.

The death star description implies game ending. If it wasn't game ending, then the death star description is inaccurate and should be abandoned.

Brian you gotta dump the assumption that ownership of a metal planet is he key to victory.

Activating a metal plane is in all likely good not going to be an easy/simple/fast process and until there is information indicating that you shouldn't assume it.

I also find it humorous that you feel that metal planets are game ending simply by ASSOCIATION with Death Star, especially as in both examples of "actual" Death Stars they were destroyed by small craft.

Mike

huehuehue le orbital fighter ftw

There are so many ways for metal planets to be powerful weapons without being simple game enders.

• Planet destroying abilities may be one shot
• Planet destroying abilities may be on a lengthy timer
• They may be a way to obtain kinetic impact weapons equivelant to asteroids w/ Halleys

As I see it any of these may be countered depending on the associated mechanics being balanced for it and/or the rest of the system in question. And these ideas are just scratching the surface.

And as far as the phrase "king of the hill" goes, various well entrenched positions--such as a well positioned base with artillery/nukes/Halleys--can amount to much the same thing depending on the game's context. A metal planet with special abilities needn't be much different in that regard.

Evil lords have their reasons of which reason knows nothing

There will be numerous ways to attack planets, and what will make things interesting is that if it is a king of a hill situation, then all the other players will be focusing on the "king" to prevent their own destruction, so they themselves will have a pretty difficult time on said "hill".

Holy hysterical defeatism, Batman! Dude, you have got an iron death-grip on some really narrow definitions. Clam yourself! This essentially resurrects the debate about the merits and purpose of metal planets as special bodies, and in all the furor surrounding the topic, there's a point that no one seems to acknowledge. I've already described it fairly concisely here:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/gamma-livestream-question-thread.56918/page-8#post-883867

...and exhaustively here:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/metal-planet-uh-what.53651/page-2#post-841382

...but I'll just copy the most salient point for TL;DR: everyone who seems very concerned about these superweapons (why isn't planet smashing, the entire premise of the game, of similar concern?) tosses the term "game-ending" around ad nauseam. Sure, as the game is now, a giant, planet-killing, space-based laser might not seem very reasonable, but think about the game to come. Think about a system with 20 planetary bodies, an asteroid belt, and eighteen players. That's a system where losing a planet won't even come close to losing you the game, where planets are hopefully going to get smashed and popped over and over again, rather than a single planetary impact being the flashy but superfluous coup de gras in a match that probably could've been ended already. Know what I'm sayin'? With a match that large, you're going to *want* to see a fiery column of light lance across the solar system to detonate a planet from its core, while killer planets and asteroids rocket wildly towards their doom! I mean, *that's* what we're f'n talking about, amiright?!? Can I get an amen here???

In short, what may seem "game-ending" now may not be when the game has evolved into its final form. Y'feel me?

Anti-deathstar fighters confirmed!

Superweapons are not the premise of the game. The premise of the game is macro, large armies, and strategy.

As I have explained literally dozens of times on the forums, including on this thread, Planet Smashing is not game ending – when it is fully implemented. Smashing a planet won't automatically destroy everything on the entire planet. Small moons won't destroy everything on a large planet.

Moon smashing is supposed to be commonplace – therefore by definition – not game ending.

And no. I do not want a single planet that can detonate an entire planet from its core from across the entire solar system, and then turn around and do that again. That's what I've been saying. It sounds cool – but what sounds cool is not always good for gameplay.

Gold Two: The guns - they've stopped!
Gold Five: Stabilize your rear deflectors... Watch for enemy fighters.
Gold Leader: They're coming in! Three marks at 2-10!
Gold Leader: It's no good, I can't maneuver!
Gold Five: Stay on target.
Gold Leader: We're too close!
Gold Five: Stay on target!
Gold Leader: [shouts] Loosen up!
Gold Five: Gold Five to Red leader, lost Tiree, lost Dutch.
Red Leader: I copy, Gold Leader.
Gold Five: They came from... behind!
[crashes]

Wedge Antilles (Red 2): Look at the *size* of that thing!
Red Leader: Cut the chatter, Red 2. Accelerate to attack speed.

they promised awesome! delivery enroute.

What's wrong with it being a game ender? Killing a COM by any means is a game ender. The game has to end somehow, and activating a metal planet and firing it is just an elaborate way to kill a commander.

And also, with multiple planets and some kind of long recharge/single use feature for the metal planet, it's not necessarily the end of the game.

It'll be great

Maybe It'll be a one shot use?