Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

Seton which is heavily rush based is the most competitive map in supcom. Lots of pro strategies in RTS games revolve around rushing. It probably belongs in ladder for that reason more than not.

setons is not a metalmap .....

But it is a rushing-for-the-mass map. Rushing is not anti-competitive, it is highly competitive.

cause it has only limited metalspots as i said before making positional play more important but not unfair or one sided ... a goldplanet is like throwing a hundred or thausand metalspots packed toghether in one place losing or controling it has too much impact on who gets the advantage ... spreading and limiting them lowers that impact and makes for fairer matches ... that is the case with setons even though it has a well amount of scrapmetal on its center ....

I'm not sure how it is unfair since there would be metal for both sides on such a map. If there was only metal on one side that would of course be imbalanced but that's what symmetry is for.

and there in lies the problem .... you dont have any symmetry in pa ... the battlefields are also moving
so making a symetric system is .... out of question ...

Sure, if extracting metal from a metal planet causes it to gradually disappear as it gets mined away.

Metal planets are in and of themselves symmetric. Systems might not look symmetric but the parent/child relationship causes it to be so. Two planets orbiting a body are in symmetry because the travel time between them is equal regardless of the distance between them. Even if this were to change you could still force symmetry by giving them the same orbit.

the metalplanets i played on werent

Your 'majority' is dwindling bmb.

I wonder if you'll change your tune if your opinion suddenly becomes the minority...

You still have not understood what I actually mean with the poll. I am only referring to it because appealing to public opinion is some sort of sport around here.

Backpedaling already. Appealing to public opinion is a sport now too? Does that mean you admit you were only doing it to stir up controversy or something of that ilk?

What I mean is that I'm assuming a metal planet is not actually a solid ball of metal, Uber has said its basically a death star, so under the surface it would probably be full of complex machinery and electronics, so 'reclaiming' it would most likely render it inoperable.
Its more a space station than a ball of solid resource.

This is a great point and not one that opponents of the idea seem to be addressing. Unused metal anywhere else in the game is considered wreckage. In Sup com if a building was wreckage you could build that same building in the same spot again for a discount of time and resources, reclaim it for the raw metal or destroy it with weapons. It makes sense to give that choice to the player.

For a metal planet, it seems to be the same. A non-operational hunk of metal that happens to be as big as a planet. You should be able to either:

• Reactivate it for a portion of the inital cost
• reclaim it for it's resources
• destroy it forever

All of which have precedent in this game and previous and all are doable within the current game mechanics and engine... Consistency is good, arbitrary limits are bad. Mmmmmmmmk?

Other then the OTHER 22 pages, yes?

Just because it's called a metal planet, because it looks like it is made out of metal, doesn't mean that it is a good idea to allow the player access to it by reclaiming it or building metal extractors.

I don't think you can reasonably cite 22 pages of discussion at once.

I don't see how you can ignore it just because of it's volume.

If you want to give a specific example you should do so, if you aren't going to do that then you don't really have a point.

Quite happy to demand others to cite their sources, yet unwilling... or more likely, unable to provide his own.
There's a word that describes an argument like that.

Do I need to provide a source with my opinions? Here is one: -me