Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

I think only if you couldn't build Energy on Metal planets, or Energy spots on Metal planets were restricted.

Due to the non-local economy model this would not work.

There's nothing wrong with putting more metal on metal maps. Infinite metal, however, is another thing entirely. Perhaps double extractor yield or something similar can work?

There's still plenty of other options to keep metal worlds hectic and fun. One option is to remove radar, everything has stealth by default. More units get dragged into close combat, and more ambushes are possible. Another is to introduce unique facilities that only work on a metal world. For example the devs once talked about a death star weapon that could kill worlds. Don't forget the planet killing angle! A metal world may be extra durable and resilient against planet cracking damage. This means more high yield weapons can be used without destroying the world.

Metal planets are going to be the centrepiece of any system they are included in. That's just how they are designed. I don't see why you are so intent on denying the majority of voters in this very poll a gameplay element that was a stretch goal, when all you have to do for it not to affect you is not play on maps that include them.

Not to mention of course the majority of backers who do not go on forums and whine about balance.

Each planet type does add different gameplay, it's just not finished yet. Water planets of course restrict you to only naval, trees are reclaimable, desert planets are barren, moons and asteroids have no atmosphere and hopefully low gravity, gas giants are orbital only and supposedly provide massive amounts of energy, and metal planets are made out of bloody metal.

Metal maps are simply a logical extension of the base mechanics of this type of game. Like it or not, it makes sense to include.

Majority? a 7% difference around the 50% mark is that significant for you?
*chuckles*

Because a small majority isn't still a majority. And that justifies ignoring their opinions.

Even if it were the other way around, it would be a no brainer because all the "no" side has to do is not play on these maps. It's extremely simple.

Straw man harder.

You're right. A small majority isn't really a majority at all. Way to defeat your own argument with incompetence.


Honestly, I couldn't care less about which way this argument goes, but your flagrant misuse and lack of understanding of statistics and what constitutes a significant statistical conclusion bothers me.

Don't dance around the issue. You want to deny 50% of voters and an unknown quantity of backers who had been assured metal planets would be made out of metal this functionality because you personally don't like it, when all you have to do is not play on those maps.

Yes I'll deny 50% of the voters if the other 50% is against it. It's a divisive issue that hinges on internal consistency over gameplay. Poor gameplay is the bane of a game, and internal consistency plays second-fiddle to Gameplay in most good games for a reason.

The other 50% is not being denied anything, the ability to not play on metal planets does not go away because they are included. Additionally, they are the ones who backed a feature they didn't want. Their problem.

You are being extremely conceited.

Glad you noticed.

A money map is just that, a money map. You don't need a metal world to make a money map. All it takes is a metal maker with no upkeep. Even the idea of recycling a metal world is accomplished with simple wreckage.

So what else can a metal world provide? A gigantic doom station is one. Massive game changing behaviors is another.

You keep imagining new ways to deny the function when all you have to do is not play it if you don't like it.

You keep desperately trying to force your money-maps on the rest of the community, thus removing an entire planetary biome from the game for ~50% of the playerbase. You're doing more damage to the game by enforcing this money-map onto the Metal Planet, rather than just setting the planet's metal density to a very large number, or just setting your income modifier to be excessively large.

Stop trying to take Metal Planets away from 50% of the community just because you can't handle gameplay being more important than your personal suspension of disbelief.

Game, set and match.

Every other biome has the exact same functionality that metal planets do now. You lose nothing. You continually ignore the meaning of my posts that refer to the statistics.
And clearly don't understand how a poll actually works. The only thing it says is that less(!) than 50% of the kind of person who votes in this thread prefers it. Which says nothing about the demographic that does not go on forums to whine about balance prefers.

What we do know though is that those people who backed on kickstarter was promised this functionality. So you have 173 people confirmed not to like it, and everyone else expecting it. In which even this unrepresentative sample is in the majority.
This is the true meaning of the poll.

Sometimes it is good not everything people vote for is done this way.
Money maps are awful game design, I am very glad you are not the game designer here.

You are not everyone else. 'Recycled' is not a very specific term.

And that helps your position, how exactly? You're trying to imply that an unknown quantity would be significantly in favour of this proposal?

Do you realise how laughable that is?

At no point were money-maps promised in the Kickstarter. Your continual citation of this misconstrued piece of information merely proves that you can't seem to understand anything beyond taking it at face value.

Again you ignore the meaning of my post.

I think you're ascribing meaning where there is none.

bmb, you keep saying that we were promised that PA metal planets would function in an identical fashion to TA metal maps, but he devs never said that.

Mike