Do we really need mass points?

Just one simple reason for metal points:

Without metal points (and thus infinite exponential metal production) the winner of the match is decided by that persons apm and multitasking. The faster you can build more factories that build more constructors that build more metal extractors to build more factories to amass more units to overrun the enemy. Done.

There is almost no strategy to it. Its just a question of how fast you can expand your infinite exponential economy.


Edit: Yes, that's exactly how metal planets played in TA.

I don't see how it isn't possible anyway.

To be honest, either or both can work, if balanced right.

If you have mass points, mass points should feed you a sustainable economy with a modest amount of mass points captured

If you don't have mass points, the extractors should require tenfold to make the mass you would find at a mass point. This way you would require a lot of land to cover a lot of area in order to produce the equivalent you could get at mass points. This would be more like a metal planet in TA, except instead of full rate the extractors work at a reduced rate.

You could even have extractors work reduced-as-heck off of metal points and full-rate on metal points, and have the choice: can you approach metal point defense easier, or can you secure 1/3rd a planet of land to make up for 3 metal points.

I honestly think metal points make for a game type I like better, an "objective based" one, but I also think the game would work if metal extractors worked when not on metal points if each extractor that wasn't on a metal point only gave you 1/10th of what you get with a metal point. This really would require some land, and energy which also requires land, and both require time spent building, in order to use non-metal-points as your economy.

ALSO TO THE POST ABOVE MINE: it would stand that with the building queueing, anyone would be equally competent in building extractor farms. The thing deciding games without mass points, would be who can build and defend the largest land area, and who can attack the other's land area more effectively. Because fields of extractors can still be mowed down by tanks with proper timing, especially if the enemy is just building them and not defending them. It would require a balance of both.

Sounds Legit.

Mike

Gotta say, im kinda impressed that no one "flayed" the OP (as he put it himself) or called him a idiot or similar.

This community just got a big bonus star in the corner.

Even some of the members of this forum that I usually see posting comments that are seemingly dripping with pretentious douchebaggery (no names) managed to play nice. So yes, I agree.

At this point I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the community for the tone and tenor of the discussion.

I must say however that I feel mass points may well become a constraint (IF THEY ARE THE ONLY SOURCE OF MASS TO BE FOUND). As the developers have stated clearly that no form of Mass fabrication will be present I can only hope that it'll all work out. Either that or there be an option for infinite mass (build anywhere) or a mix (build anywhere but mass points give you significantly higher mass outputs).

Failing that I hope somebody will just put a mod together.

With that I now wave the white flag of surrender.

just please not that four mass points around the starting area of the commander! That for me always looked really weird and game plot device-y.

I feel that mass points are necessary. That way we can have metal planets and people can choose what kind of game play they want in each match.

We had effectively mass-point-less economy in the original SupCom with fabspam, which was more interesting than PA because fabs at least exploded bigtime. And it was boring as ****. So take it from the community- we've been there, tried that.

That's...........kinda the whole POINT really thought. Mass being only/primarily available form set locations allows the Devs to help control the primary gameplay they want via the game and the Map. It also helps to force conflict and expansion by spreading that primary resources across the map and promotes more dynamic play.

Mike

Don't forget reclaimables!

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's mostly people who could afford a $90 game without using mum's credit card, who are on the forums right now...

Enjoy this precious moment whilst the good price tag lasts...


Oh, and /flay

as said, there can easily be a mode to turn off mass points (and damn well should be!) but it gets SERIOUSLY boring when it just comes down to an APM battle right now
*SCRATCH THAT*
right now its a "who can grab that random res-point builder before he wanders into a battle" game

How do you mean? I get roughly 90 Euros a year, and have no work - I'm 18 and just started university. I could pay 110 for this game, but I don't want to; it's way too much for me. I 'never' buy anything, so I do have enough money, but still, 110 Euros is a lot for me. Further, I'm not sure whether this PC would be able to handle Planetary Annihilation. It is entirely possible that I am unable to play the game, without needing a new PC. That's even more money spent, then. However, I fully support this policy. The world doesn't revolve around me. Someday, I will get a new PC, and someday, I will get this game. Whether that is this year, next year, or half a decade later (the latter is probably the likeliest).

Or... What do you mean?

I think hes praying on "anti steam haters" emotions and is part of the recent elitism mind set caused (for some) by that (the whole steam price debacle).

Your age or financial situation is not directly connected to your mental maturity, so its kinda flawed logic, however you could argue that its more likely that a person is mature if they are older and have a good financial situation.

So while its "very flawed logic" its not complete bullshit (but allmost).

OK people in TA u can place metal excters anywhere and get
a little bit of metal out but u get the most from metal points

Currently in alpha the best way to win is to turtle up, build artillery, then shoot at the other persons base from afar, you'll have unlimited resources and there is no way for you to lose, so yes, mass points are very much so needed.

One more vote for mass points! looking forward to them. Without them, this would be too simplistic.

Metal Planets cool too: These were great Monty Hall type fun. Especially the one with (4) metals islands.... Turtle Nuke wars...

Poor Planets cool: And planets with scarce resources are un and interesting too! Please keep it interesting!

Variation: If I remember, some metals deposits yielded more metals than others. I liked that too.

Gathering!: Metals harvesting of boulders, artifacts, ruins, wreckage was interesting and fun.

YES.

WHY IS THIS EVEN A DISCUSSION.

*bangs head against wall*

What about differnt efficiency of mass points.
In general they could be build everywhere but they are not very extractive in for example jungle areas instead of mountain rich regions.

It would set a struggle for special landscapes but I am not sure how the balancing should work with this. Because there would not be a big resource for every commander in its set up territory. And there will not be any other resources than enegy and metal. But there could be aditional buildings with could increase the resource output on a higher tech. Something like a foundry or so.

The old Rise of Nations witch came up in 2003 had a very good system for buildings like that. But I am also in doubt aboubt if they could work in PA.

But what did not like on the old supremcommander was that there where only a few mass points on the map wide spread over the map. What is a strategic challenge of course but I think that getting resourses should be a little bit more mobile.

Maybe there could be ground sektions like oilfields (I have got this idea because the metal extractors look like horse head oil drills) where you are able to build more than one of them. And it is necressary to supptiude the tech one extractors with tech 3 extractors in the later game for a higher gathering rate.

So that where my thoughts about it. Thanks for reading and replying and I am sorry for writing and grammar mistakes.

With freindly regards Paul von Hindenburg