Building Metal Planets

Nothing about the 12 hour game I mentioned was average. That was more of an upper limit example but a real world one I have encountered. I'd like to remind you that max players for a game will be 40 players not 8, and players can join at any point in the game too. PA will redefine the genre, so you might have to throw your old RTS assumptions out the window... I imagine a 40 player FFA with new players joining as others die off could go on almost indefinately.

Coming from the guy that's making assumptions about things we don't know all that much about yet it comes across as kinda hollow.

Yes, there has been talk about 40 players games, but I doubt they'll be as common as you seem to assume, you'd need one heck of a server for that most likely. Secondly it's unlikely all games will feature mid game joining, and frankly we know less about this kind of stuff than we do the player limit, there are still so many unknowns that its downright dmagaing to make the kind is sweeping assumption that you are.

Yes I make assumptions, but they aren't wild assumptions, its true that PA will be different from both TA and SupCom in many respects, but hey will still share many elements and PA is still fundamentally an RTS.

Mike

That's kind of what I'm getting at with your posts. I am always talking about the maximum. Maximum player limit, unit count, map size etc. Whereas you often as the word "average" in broad sweeping, all encompassing terms. I make no illusions that I'm talking about the absolute limits I will be able to push this game to. If you read back you will see I don't make any assumptions (or try not to). I say "might" where you say "will".

Yes, I'm putting emphasis on the average state, because that's the state you design your game for. You don't design a game around the extreme edge cases. Starcraft 2 is a pretty good example of this, they focused all the balance pretty much exclusively for 1v1, to the point here there are side effects seen in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4, if you want I can tell you how to start a spawning pool at the 24 second mark in a 4v4 if you want.

There are instances of design elements that play into the more 'extreme' states, KEWs/planet destruction being a prim example as it results in a smaller playing field as the game goes on, which is idea for larger games because no matter how many players you start with, it comes down to essentially 1v1 in the end, and maps that are big enough to support 40 players, are waaaaaaay too huge for a 1v1. So even then, you design not so much to make the game accomadate those 'extreme' states as much as trying to mitigate those states, planet destruction is not about making big games viable, its about keeping the play area in scale with the players.

Mike

So, back to the topic at hand then. Just because big games are not the average doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. Just because Building Metal Planets doesn't make sense in a 1v1 doesn't mean it doesn't make sense in the game at all.

So we're back to the point of the time frame for constructing a Metal Planet isn't compatible withe the time frame of the game, even larger games because as already pointed out the length of a game isn't directly proportional to the number players in said game and that hand-waving the build time away results in a disconnect of he game's internal logic.

Also it's worth noting that based on what we currently know Metal Planets don't do anything that you can't already do with an asteroid, but the benefit is that you find the metal planets rather than build them, so it might do the same stuff as an asteroid, but for a much lower overall cost and time investment. That alone trumps the entire idea of building them, it's just not cost effective.

Mike

The scale between building tanks and building planets is absurd. Asteroids are used because the scale of investment matches everything else happening in the game.

Amen!

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with flinging a bunch of asteroids together to try to make a larger, planet-like body. It would just be a massive investment (Like at least 10-15 asteroids for anything useful), and you might not have a lot of metal deposits to use. Would make sense, in a way, considering how many people are probably just gonna tech rush to get to planet killing things.

Just my penny or two.

It seems some people don't realize planets come in many sizes. Earth sized planets might not make sense to make but moon size planets? Asteroid sized planets? If size is your only argument against this idea, its a very weak argument...

How many tanks fit into a Planet, a Moon or an Asteroid? As long as Metal Planet Costs more than the engines for an asteroid there isn't any point.

Mike

Cake planets FTW

But it's the only argument I need.

An efficient war machine makes use of all the resources available to it. Asteroids are very convenient because there's no effort wasted in bulking them up. They already come pre-equipped with tons of raw material, useful as a foundation for the real devices.

Going into TA lore, metal only represented the rare elements that restrict a robot's design. The rest of the material was common elements, ripped up from anywhere because there's no effort required to find them. Asteroids can very well be comprised mostly of the bulk materials needed to build things, while the rare metals are the only limiting factor.

not sure if any has read or heard this, but in out of space time is faster than on planets so it is possible to build faster, lol not that i think its the best idea for most Modes in game.

i do think this is better to be a mod or have it for a game mode like that of AOE WONDER

Building Metal Planets does seem a bit out of reach even for a game of this scale.

What if, instead of building Metal Planets, there would be a way to "call" one in? It could be a very expensive building, or a neutral, well defended, capturable building, like a giant astronomical array. With that you can contact a metal Planet currently not in the Solar System, or a cloaked one , that would make its way to you and appear after a set time.
Seeing that it is a Planet, it is obviously not your personal Death Star, but being the one that called it, you might get a bonus. That could be just the Information, that the Metal Planet exist, where it is, or maybe you get a couple of defensive structures, or some units, on it, to secure a landing zone for your units...

This would obviously have to be limited by the server/host, so that you cannot call in 20 of these and can toggle it off.

The idea behind annihilating planets is a shrinking battlefield that forces you and the enemy together (Info taken from Mavor in the quoted article).

Building planets clearly goes against that idea (in my opinion).

Since i agree with the idea envisioned, i'm against creating/building/assembling any form of planets/astroids/moon while the game is running, be they metal or otherwise.


Link for the full article (do note that its a old article, some info/data/etc mentioned may no longer be relevant): http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/08/15/plane ... interview/