Metal Spots and Terrain Destruction?

Here is an interesting gameplay mechanic question.

How will metal Spots react to being cratered by explosions and such, and how balance wise should it act?

It could destroy the spot, but couldn't this be a really strong gimmick? Destroy with missile any out of your reach, even ones near enemies but not in their control yet, to limit expansion. God forbid watching two low level players do this to each other.

Should metal Spots themselves resist destruction? Should they remain where they are and just move inside of the crater if the land atop its destroyed? The latter would allow for asteroids to wreck them but not mediocre missile fire or the gun.

Considering the possibility of terrain deformation being limited to KEWs and maybe Nucks, I don't see why metal spots shouldn't be destroyed.

Mike

I assumed some deformation would be possible from some tactical missiles and such. If an easily available weapon can cause a little, they can use a couple of necessary to just chunk up the spots.

Just thinking in advance on this one.

A solution would be to make the metal points all the way to the center to the planet. This way, if a crater is made on the metal point, it would only change its height and be at the bottom of the crater.

I like the idea of the most devastating weapons causing the resource value of the planet to degrade. That way you get a feel for the destruction caused by the constant war being waged on the surface and in the vicinity. I have a couple of further idea though.

How about this: metal spots can be destroyed by the largest weapons, but there is the possibility for a sufficiently large crater to uncover new deposits. This might promote some interesting uses of asteroid impacts as a rough and ready mining method.

Another idea: I seem to remember talk of larger craters exposing the mantle (if the planet has one) so your crater would have a pool of lava at the bottom. How about dead planets (ones which have cooled to the point where the core and mantle have solidified) giving the opportunity to expose the metal core of the planet. As such, you might encounter a small area which behaves in a similar way to a metal map on TA. Such locations would be highly prized and hotly contested.

Based on Neutrino's Comments that won't be the case in the stock game.

Mike

One thing that Uber could do is actually pre-bury some metal points underground. They wouldn't be rendered, and wouldn't have models, but when a large piece of terrain is deformed, it might destroy some metal points... But it also might reveal them.

In addition, metal points that are "destroyed" could be sent flying out of the crater as limited resource reclaimables.

IMHO, wreaking havoc on a planet with giant asteroids and supernukes shouldn't necessarily reduce the celestial body's viability as a source of income, on the contrary, it should increase its richness in resources. However, the trade-off should be the difficulty and risk of getting at those resources. An asteroid impact might superheat the area, making it so that you have to flood it with water to cool it off, or wait until it naturally cools down. Once one of these things happens, you will be able to harvest the metal that came down with the asteroid.

Or maybe an impact from an experimental time-warping weapon transports a section of terrain to a parallel universe, but brings in an equivalent amount of mass and energy from that parallel universe. Who knows what might live there? The entire universe could be made out of antimatter-powered robotic sharktopuses that breath lasers and snort Legos as recreation. Anything is possible!

That's kinda counter-intuitave in regards to the whole reasoning behind KEWs and "supernucks".

Mike

I'm thinking more about conservation of mass than anything. I figure if you nuke your enemy clean off of a planet, you're going to want to grab all of the resources he left behind.

I'm just thinking of ways to spice up the game.

Then don't Nuck right on top of the Metal points? isn't part of the point of Nucks that it wipes all kinds of things out? Including wreckage in prior games.

If you want to take over, use units, if you want to destroy ****, bring out the KEWs and Nucks.

Mike

Give me a single situation where, in an open war, you would completely and utterly want to destroy an entire planet...

You realize you backed a game called Planetary Annihilation right?

I'm going to assume you mean a reason related to the Game, because anything else is pointless to the discussion.

Imagine you and your opponent are neck and neck, each with 3 planets, which do think is easier, destroying a planet or trying to land on it in and take it over?

Obviously total destruction isn't always going to be the optimal solution, but that's no reason to make the result inconsequential.

Mike

Eurgh, that sounds suspiciously ecowar-ey. Who is first to nuke the other guy/KEW the other guy.

I'd much rather play D-Day in space than the Cold War in space.

Well sure, if you polarize it like that.

I said it wouldn't always be the best option, destruction works great if destruction is your goal, but your goal won't always be destruction, depending on the situation you might need to march units in and take over the planet. Imagine a scenario where you have 3 planets and I have 2, I could KEW your 3rd planet to oblivion, but that doesn't get me ahead, it only gets us even. If instead I took over your 3rd planet I'd be ahead.

Mike

This is the kind of stuff we can't really postulate about, we'll have to wait and see what Uber's implementation will be. If KEWs and ubernukes do indeed destroy a planet or landmass to the degree where it becomes effectively unusable (or operationally worthless), they will have to be really cheap... Which presents an even larger array of issues.

Uber interplanetary combat plz, kthnxbai.

Metal being either both destroyed and revealed or unaffected by destruction craters would be good. Either gives you the option to smash an asteroid into a planet, utterly destroy much of it, and then construct a base in the wreckage.

I was just concerned over people using the easiest accessible terrain damaging weapon, and internationally scuffing metal spots. Even if it craters smaller than a metal point, use a few and you knock the point off.

Making the point go so deep helps. It can still be destroyed by making a real crater, just not with a scuff.

If you are theorizing under the assumption that there would be such a "easiest accessible terrain damaging weapon" which as I've already said, doesn't seem to be the case. As Neutrino has said(more or less), "The engine is capable of deformation, but it's not a mechanic that is central to the game."

Mike

Both of these please!

I really hate when people say that in this forum. We are here (and backed this game) to influence the development into something we will love to play. There should be unlimited discussion about all topics of this game until the day we all agree the game is perfect!

Hahahaha!

And when, pray-tell, will the community reach a consensus about anything... let alone Planetary Annihilation's perfection (or lack thereof)

Maybe at the heat-death of the universe.