Metal Planets - Should Metal Extractors Be Buildable Anywhere?

Arguing an opinion without facts; there's a word to describe such a position too.

Stating your opinion doesn't magically exempt you from having to back it up against a conflicting argument, nor does it magically make your position 'right' and unassailable, nor does it give you carte blanche to start demanding that other people should be backing up their arguments against yours.

Stating your opinion does not constitute an argument bmb. Try again.

Do you have anything substantial to add or are you just going to attack me all day long?

He's not attacking you.

Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion bmb?

Restating your opinion over and over again without any evidence to back up your position isn't conducive to a discussion or a debate.

I have backed it up with reasoning many times. I don't need to provide external sources for reasoning or opinion.

Many people seem... dissatisfied with your level of logical reasoning. Perhaps you should try again. Would you care to explain to me (and others) exactly how a player with, for whatever reason, a considerable lead in reaching a money-map planet will not simply win the game through sheer economic force, without him simply making an error or depending on other forces, that may not be present, "ganging up" on him?

Why is the conflict over a money-map any more compelling than a battle over a Death Star like super weapon?

Why are you set on enforcing your worldview upon others by forcing metal planets to conform to your opinion of what they should be?

Why is it that you are willfully incapable of separating the world type "Metal Planet" from the resource "Metal", as many others have been able to do so?

Please take it as read that your attempts have so far failed to convince me and that you should try to exercise more logical reasoning than you have previously. You may base your arguments on things you have stated in the past, but you should be aware that attempting to hand-wave away my (and others') concerns by telling me to "read what I've already written" will result in failure.

If you could reply with as succinct and clear a reasoned response as possible, it would be appreciated.

What others think of my reasoning has no bearing on its correctness, and so is utterly irrelevant. They may use reasoning of their own if they have a problem with it.

I have already talked about those points at least 4 times each now and I don't feel like repeating myself yet again.

Once again you appeal to public opinion, once again I must remind you.

Your opinion isn't fact bmb.

I see. Such has been your response to anyone asking you to clarify. You are declaring that you are correct by fiat and that it must be the fault of the reader if they are unable to follow your own personal logic.

Do you think that it is possible that the points you have raised have in fact, not been adequately related to the viewer of this thread, or is such a potential mistake on your part inconceivable?

I'm confused by this statement. I'm legitimately unable to decipher what you mean. I believe that you are using the term "public opinion" incorrectly, since the statement doesn't make sense with its inclusion, given the context.

If there is a mistake then you must address the part where you think that mistake is. If I thought there was a mistake or had reason to think so I would not have said whatever I said.

Each time I write out a long post clarifying such as you are asking me to do again and again that post is ignored. It makes little sense to keep doing it when it has been done so many times already.

Appealing to public opinion is a logical fallacy whereby the opinion of the audience or the public is used in order to determine whether a statement is correct. You constantly say "you are the only one with that position" or "everyone disagrees with you" etc. Ordinarily this can be ignored, but in this thread, unlike others where you have done the same thing, there is evidence that directly contravenes it. So even if it did matter, which it doesn't, you would still be wrong to assert that.

And you're twisting my words to fit your defense. Nowhere have I said that you are the only person with that opinion, nor that everyone disagrees with you. Some do; that is the truth bmb, and I am not appealing to some unified public opinion, merely those that are unable to comprehend your line of logic. I've read every single one of your posts in this topic and each one fails to explain your logical reasoning beyond your own personal opinion.

While I respect that you may have your opinion I disagree with your policy of aggressively palming it off like it's some kind of objective truth.

depends on weither or not it brakes gameplay in a frustrating point ... for instance it is already difficult to invade a planet that is well defended ( yeah i know roster not done yet but ...)... now imagine the same against a metalplanet without trying to use nukes or astreroids as that becomes rather boring before you can do anything else and even by the time you managed that that guy may have managed to outproduce you in every possible aspect ... consider how a match will play out early or mid to late game ... once a player managed to drive his opponents of the metalplanet i dont see a real comeback in invading that planet nor defending against the rising numbers of unitswarms that come after that ... goldplanets will be a very onesided affair in a multiplanet match

My position is that the incongruity between what the planet looks and sounds like it should do - based on the known behaviour of metal in the game - and what it actually does in its current form, is very bad design. And therefore it should be removed from the game entirely. It is the expected behaviour and that is not fulfilled.

Nobody has yet actually tried to deny or even address this at all, which is what iron420 just said last page, instead falling back on trying to attack the gameplay that such a behaviour would bring about.
When I point out that this gameplay is just a different way to play the game, it is asserted that it is broken, when I prove using reasoning and examples from other games that have done similar things that is not so, it is simply reasserted that it is broken. Thereby the original issue is danced around which pisses me off endlessly.
And it gives off the impression that those making those assertions don't have a memory span that extends past the last few posts, and more importantly, does not extend back to the original point.
It gives off the impression that emotional responses are made in order to shoot down gameplay that the individual does not personally like, rather than addressing the point I was making.

Maybe you don't like or prefer or want metal planets to be in the game, I never made a statement about that one way or the other. But as you yourself just so nicely pointed out, some do, and some don't. The solution is therefore simple and self evident.

We don't have all the tools available at our disposal yet. Like the unit cannon, egg, megabot etc. It will be easier to balance once all of those are in place. In the mean time, balance is really a futile exercise. Maybe wait until those things are added until we implement because it will only serve to further highlight the missing points of the game, but once those are in I see no reason it can't be balanced.

The solution is neither simple, nor self-evident. "Just don't play on it" isn't an option that everyone is comfortable with.

I want to play on systems that include metal planets for the Death Star abilities... not money-maps and the sentiment is mirrored in quite a few posters in this thread, not to mention 50% of the pollees. With such a divisive topic it is absurd that you believe that your own single personal opinion is the correct solution. I'd like to call to witness whatever it is you believe gives you the seeming "right" to make such a call. What qualification could you hold that makes you more "correct" than anyone else posting here?

A vested interest you may have bmb, but that's not a special quality on these forums; I can name half a dozen posters with just as much investment into this topic, if not more.

And for the record; just because you can't conceptually separate a Metal planet from the nebulous resource codified as "metal", does not give you the right to impose your blinkered viewpoint onto everyone else. Unless you can prove that the metal used in the panels of a metal planet is the exact same metal used to create the units in the game then your argument lacks proof.

It is a solution that satisfies the need for the planet to be in accordance with its expected behaviour, it is a solution that satisfies some players non-desire for that type of gameplay, and it satisfies some players desire for that gameplay.

It is simple because no special actions are required to implement it, and it is self evident enough that I didn't even have to tell it to you and you understood it.

You have one tiny personal thing and you use this to justify a solution that denies that gameplay to everybody forever? That is not a solution at all. And you blame me of forcing my opinion on people.

This "expected behaviour" is your own opinion, nothing more. Do not try to force such words into my mouth and the mouths of others. Unlike you I have no problem in reasoning that the "metal" used to create a moon-sized super weapon is not of a kind with the "metal" used in Bots a fraction of the size.

Unless you prove to me that the entire superstructure of a Metal planet is exactly the same as that used in a Dox, then your argument is nothing more than an opinion; one that I find is easy to oppose.

It can be easily shown how the behaviour can be expected universally, and is not just my own opinion. The resource in the game is metal, you can extrapolate from that that all kinds of metal are valid unless otherwise specified. The known properties of metal are that metal in the ground is extracted, and metal on the surface is reclaimed. The ground is made of metal, therefore it can be extracted. QED.

If for whatever reason it cannot be, you must explicitly designate why. You cannot do this implicitly. Therefore it is not on me, the player, to provide this information, but on the game to do so.

And it is simply not awesome, and it denies a certain class of gameplay that some people prefer. End.

And if "Metal" is in fact a shorthand for this universe's unobtainium?
Your argument has too many presumptions. If you're allowed to do it, then so am I. The "Metal" in PA is actually the rarest element needed to complete the complex circuitry in each unit. The metal for the chassis is largely unimportant, large units need more wire and circuits to function, accounting for the extra metal used in large units.

Awesome is also completely subjective. I do not find game-breaking money-maps to be "awesome".

I think you will find that it is your hypothesis that does not have any backing here.