As I read the comments to the last blog ("Aether") it became evident that some people are dissatisfied with how the Guppies have turned out. Since discussions on the blog comments are hard to follow, here's the floor to battle it out.
I, for one, think that energy should only travel along land-lines, and collectors and reactors that have no "hard" connection to a CN therefore do not produce any energy at all.
Now, there are currently two modes of operation for guppies. Either packet transport or ore transport. No AC transport. This seems nonsensical for the following reasons:
1) There are two types of packets. Ammo and Build. The Guppy seems to carry raw energy, since the type of a given packet the Guppy carries is only decided when the packet is distributed. There is huge potential for contradictions here.
Quote from: Me, just a few lines aboveenergy should only travel along land-lines
2) Ore and AC would usually travel in opposite directions. Ore goes from a forward base to a CN to be processed to AC. AC goes from a CN to a forward base to be delivered to sprayers and bomber landing pads.
3) Why should a Guppy make an empty return flight when there are resources to be transported in both directions? That's highly inefficient.
I know, these things do not
need to make sense and I'd rate a "easy to learn, hard to master" game-play above flawless logic. But the more these two go together in a game, the more satisfying the game is overall.
Discuss.
But the guppy carrying the energy allows for a base that could be on a far cliff which could be very helpful if there are important things on that cliff or if it would be helpful to attack the creeper from both sides. But even better is cutting off some digitalis from far away to make the rest of it that is coming close to the CN to just stop moving and die. so the guppies with energy are very helpful and a good idea. Also the guppy with energy allows you to build a forward base across a void in areas that would normally be unreachable.
I can see something in this making sense. For one thing, I am starting to think guppies ought to carry AC as well as ore and packets. THere does not seem to be any reason that the guppy should only be able to reinforce energized weapons and not AC-deploying weapons. Otherwise, there goes the concept of distant sprayers or even distant bomber pads.
To me the choices currently made seem very logical:
1. Energy is generated closed to the CN's anyway; no need to transport it.
2. Energy packets are very likely to be needed at distant locations.
3. Ore can be available at distant locations, but not close to the CN's that need to refine it into AC.
4. Probably most of your AC will be dropped by bombers, that can reach distant location themselves. Sprayers can use their collection field to use the same AC over and over. Without a network connection, they wouldn't be able to dispatch excess packets back to the CN's, so it makes less sense to use them disconnected.
5. It does make sense to have dedicated guppies for dedicated flights, just like in real life. You don't put milk in an oil tanker. Yet in no time a guppy can be transformed from an energy packet transporter into an ore transporter. Besides that it's very unlikely that you will have an ore mine at the exact distant location where you need your energy packets.
6. For simplicities sake (one of the main reasons CW1 was such a success), having 4 transport modes would be overkill. I'm glad the 2 redundant modes have been eliminated.
Quote from: Ronini on February 21, 2013, 03:02:47 PM
1) There are two types of packets. Ammo and Build. The Guppy seems to carry raw energy, since the type of a given packet the Guppy carries is only decided when the packet is distributed. There is huge potential for contradictions here. Quote from: Me, just a few lines aboveenergy should only travel along land-lines
Ok, let's clear this up to start with.
The CN receives all energy, and converts it all into packets. These packets are converted into either build packets or ammo packets on release. This is because the packets essentially contain the same matter, just structured (and/or 'programmed') in a different way. A guppy would simply convert between build packets and ammo packets,
but cannot use energy in any way.
Therefore the guppy does not carry energy when set to packet-carrying mode, but rather carries mass.
The video 'mule' gives us a possible scenario for wanting to be able to transport energy and AC via guppies. It's true that most of the AC will be used in bombers, but you might want to transport them to sprayers too.
Personally, my tactic would be to drown areas in AC, and then launch unfilled sprayers to absorb and 'redirect' any AC that's not exactly where I want it. This will never require AC guppies, unless there is no room for bombers - but then I'd probably move the CN anyway.
I think we should stick with it being able to transport:
Ore -
very likely to be in hard-to-reach areas, and will always require constant transport back to the CN(s).Packets -
this is the backbone of guppy uses, allowing you to build and supply weapons and units remotely (see all vids using guppies)Energy -
this may be the most unused use of guppies, but it will come in very useful if you don't want to conversely move the CN and use many more packet guppies to achieve the same effect(Sorry for the long response; I've been doing essays most of this week and I've gotten into it... :P)
Removing Energy makes sense to me; why not just build more reactors at the CN? Removing AC does not. What this prevents me from doing is supplying a forward base that uses Sprayers with ammunition unless I also have bombers dropping AC on my forces. Doesn't make a lot of sense to allow the ammunition for one weapon type to be ferried forward, but not the ammunition for the other weapon type.
I believe there should be a different unit for getting energy in remote parts of the map.
Something like a rectenna (recieving antenna for those who didn't know). The creeper could influence how much power is recieved, along with other factors.
It's actually kinda funny....
Remember playing CW1? When paratrooping on a hard map with heavy emitters you had to drop a dozen blasters and a couple of mortars into the Creeper, support them with drones and fly them all the way back if you weren't able to cap that emitter with the first run. Sometimes a little bridging with Odin City could make them last a few seconds longer, but that's it.
Now we will have the guppy. As many as you want (space permitting). Drop a pulse cannon, a shield and a mortar; a nifty little assault team supplied by 2 guppies and you will be able to build your nullifier right away. Assist with bombers as desired. Don't you see the power of that?
In addition to this you can get your ore from any place on the map. For the price of 2.5 relays.
Do you really think this unit should become more powerful?
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 21, 2013, 05:57:47 PM
Removing Energy makes sense to me; why not just build more reactors at the CN? Removing AC does not. What this prevents me from doing is supplying a forward base that uses Sprayers with ammunition unless I also have bombers dropping AC on my forces. Doesn't make a lot of sense to allow the ammunition for one weapon type to be ferried forward, but not the ammunition for the other weapon type.
You miss something. AC already has a remote delivery system in bombers. Packets do not.
Quote from: Kingo on February 21, 2013, 06:21:45 PM
I believe there should be a different unit for getting energy in remote parts of the map.
You mean like one of your 3 CNs?
I can understand losing energy. It's different enough from every other usage of the guppy to be confusing, and adds an aspect to the game that isn't really important enough to offset the inevitable confusion.
I understand the arguments against carrying AC. You can deliver it with a bomber. You can even fuel a sprayer (In a kind of gimpy, crippled way) with bomber deliveries instead of guppy deliveries, provided you want to run your sprayer with the collection field on. (Which I personally don't, not on a beachhead. Leads to fewer edges exposed to creeper.)
It just seems like a missing option. When you look at the list of things that can be transported, it's clear and obvious that something is missing without AC in the list. Energy is different enough from packets that it can be left out without being quite so missed.
I think AC is different enough (in my opinion) not to be confused with ore or packets, but it's similar enough in its use that the additional option (again, in my opinion) also shouldn't be too confusing.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 21, 2013, 06:50:04 PM
You miss something. AC already has a remote delivery system in bombers. Packets do not.
Packet-based damage at a distance already has a remote delivery system in Strafers. It feels very strange to me that we're allowing the transport of Ore but not AC (effectively refined Ore). What this will do is encourage the dropping of CNs at forward bases and the construction of Guppies at those bases, which then fly to wherever you were getting the ore from in the first place, or using Terps at a forward base to build a giant bowl into which you then drop a CN, a few sprayers set on "collect," and designate as the target for your bomber runs.
Or, another way of looking at it: Energy isn't a visible commodity. We produce a given value of it and can change that number by establishing more generation or losing existing generation, but it doesn't have a visible marker on our network that a user can point at and say "that's where THAT point of energy is right now." Packets, Ore, and AC are all visible commodities that we transit along our networks. While we seem to be able to load the red dots and the brown dots into Guppies, they've apparently got something against the blue dots? Doesn't make much intuitive sense, and I think it detracts, rather than adds, from gameplay, especially when you start getting into situations where you are trying to figure out workarounds like bombing your own buildings just to let them soak up AC.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 21, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: Kingo on February 21, 2013, 06:21:45 PM
I believe there should be a different unit for getting energy in remote parts of the map.
You mean like one of your 3 CNs?
Sure, I guess that's something that is going to pop up in CW3, but what I mean is that what if you have only 1 CN (like virgil did in the mule video) to use and you have to use guppies if you want to gather region.
And not every remote region might have room for a CN. Or it might not be economically feasible to put the CN down and lose much of your building space.
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 21, 2013, 11:35:18 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on February 21, 2013, 06:50:04 PM
You miss something. AC already has a remote delivery system in bombers. Packets do not.
Packet-based damage at a distance already has a remote delivery system in Strafers.
No, strafers deliver damage. You can't deliver packets to a pulse cannon. You can deliver AC to a sprayer, provided you want to run it with the collection field on.
On a beachhead, that's the last mode I want it in, and I doubt one sprayer will send AC to a different sprayer on the network, but the kind of half-gimped possibility exists.
The rest of your post I generally agree with.
Quote from: Kingo on February 22, 2013, 12:01:26 AMQuote from: Grauniad on February 21, 2013, 06:54:15 PM
Quote from: Kingo on February 21, 2013, 06:21:45 PMI believe there should be a different unit for getting energy in remote parts of the map.
You mean like one of your 3 CNs?
Sure, I guess that's something that is going to pop up in CW3, but what I mean is that what if you have only 1 CN (like virgil did in the mule video) to use and you have to use guppies if you want to gather region.
And not every remote region might have room for a CN. Or it might not be economically feasible to put the CN down and lose much of your building space.
Fight for a hardline.
AC/packets is consistent in usage, at least - delivering ammunition - in a way that packets/ore aren't. If the three options really cause that much confusion, that we had to lose ore or AC, I'd rather see ore dropped, to encourage the player to fight for the map, even though ore transport does add rather than detract from the game, in my opinion.
Quote from: lurkily on February 22, 2013, 07:37:59 AM
You can deliver AC to a sprayer, provided you want to run it with the collection field on.
On a beachhead, that's the last mode I want it in
Depends entirely on the situation. If you only want to take out an emitter and move on afterwards, it's exactly the mode you want it in, because you only want short term protection for your little assault team (and the collection field provides that).
Besides that a beachhead is a beachhead: it's small. You will already be happy to fit your guppies, pulse cannon, mortar, shield and maybe sniper in there. How often do you think there will be room for an AC-guppy plus sprayer? This is typically the kind of unit that you bring in at the moment you connect your beachhead to the network.
Quote from: lurkily on February 22, 2013, 07:37:59 AM
I doubt one sprayer will send AC to a different sprayer on the network, but the kind of half-gimped possibility exists.
I don't see why not. Often one area of the map that has been conquered still has a lot of excess AC on it. Using just one sprayer to suck it back up and send it (through the CN) to another sprayer will gain you more AC than you will get from 3 ore mines. Try it!
Quote from: lurkily on February 22, 2013, 07:37:59 AM
I'd rather see ore dropped, to encourage the player to fight for the map,
1. You don't know what you're saying. Where will the AC come from that you
do want to transport?
2. If a player should fight for the ore, why not let him fight for everything and forget about the guppy at all?
Please take a moment to think about idea's popping in your head before posting them.
Well I love the Guppy concept and will welcome it in whatever form it ends up having. :)
And now for something completely different. thinking of the situation from a physical perspective I guess I have a little different view of the consumables and deliverables. I see the Ore and AC as a volume or tank style commodity and the Energy and Packets as capacitor commodity. Because of that I would think it would be difficult to build a unit that could switch from tank storage to capacitor storage with the click of a button.
Also if your Guppy is carrying consumables shouldn't it have to be built at the remote location and a landing zone then set with a connection to the CN? After all when you are building the Guppy you are also building a storage pad? And that shouldn't be anymore or less movable than the storage pad for Bombers or Strafers. If the Pad is at the CN then I think the Guppy should have to sit and wait to load as ore is produced just like it has to sit and wait for packets to be consumed.
Now from a game play perspective I think Ore and Packets makes sense. I am good with only being able to transport them. I get the argument for also having AC. But the connections for making collectors and Reactors active seem to be different enough that Energy should be excluded from Guppy transport.
Quote from: MizInIA on February 22, 2013, 12:12:30 PM
And now for something completely different. thinking of the situation from a physical perspective I guess I have a little different view of the consumables and deliverables. I see the Ore and AC as a volume or tank style commodity and the Energy and Packets as capacitor commodity. Because of that I would think it would be difficult to build a unit that could switch from tank storage to capacitor storage with the click of a button.
I always figured the 'button click' resembled switching the contents of the cargo bay. Batteries (or whatever capacitor is used to store packets) also take space....
Or maybe it uses an
integrated cargo carrier (http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.nl/2011/01/parts-of-atv-edoardo-amaldi-coming.html).
Here is one issue with dual-purposing a Guppy. Suppose you set up an air bridge from point A to point B. The requirement is to carry energy from A to B and Ore back from B to A.
When the Guppy arrives at B, it is full of energy. Even assuming it can store a load of ore in its pad, when does it start the return journey to A? When it is empty of energy or when it is fully loaded with ore? These kinds of issues obfuscate the usefulness of the unit and hence it makes for a less fun experience in game-play.
Edit. Clearly not everyone sees the issue. Assuming you need the Guppy to transport energy. If you now delay it with the ore load, it is less efficient in transferring energy, necessitating maybe a second guppy. Now you might as well have one dedicated to each purpose.
It would normally load up once its previous load is gone or emptied.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 22, 2013, 12:24:56 PM
I always figured the 'button click' resembled switching the contents of the cargo bay. Batteries (or whatever capacitor is used to store packets) also take space....
I agree with that from a game perspective I was just thinking of it from a physical real world perspective where making that switch would require a reconfiguration that would cost build packets.
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 22, 2013, 12:30:37 PM
It would normally load up once its previous load is gone or emptied.
How could it load up with Ore if the pad is full and there is still Packets left in the Guppy? the mines only use Packets when they are producing.
Quote from: MizInIA on February 22, 2013, 12:36:16 PM
How could it load up with Ore if the pad is full and there is still Packets left in the Guppy? the mines only use Packets when they are producing.
Nice catch... :)
Quote from: Grauniad on February 22, 2013, 12:38:44 PM
Quote from: MizInIA on February 22, 2013, 12:36:16 PM
How could it load up with Ore if the pad is full and there is still Packets left in the Guppy? the mines only use Packets when they are producing.
Nice catch... :)
Plus, how can there be space for ore when the (empty) batteries still need to be unloaded?
By the way, the mines don't use energy once built. They operate on solar energy, just like siphons. :)
>:(The guppy would have taken the load with it so the pad would be empty. and only once it was empty could you switch what kind of load the guppy had.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 22, 2013, 12:45:18 PM
By the way, the mines don't use energy once built. They operate on solar energy, just like siphons. :)
I hadn't noticed that watching the videos. I guess I have been paying attention to everything else and just assumed they functioned just like the mines in CW2. And you know what the say about assuming. :)
I also still argue that a remote storage pad cannot just magically appear. it would need to be built. a landing zone can appear. (I know that is not the way it is currently working in the game)
This is what makes them easy to operate while disconnected from the network; you only need 1 guppy. :)
So can we all agree that the guppies should have the ability to carry energy and ore?
You might still reasonably assume that there are some defensive units with maybe erratic energy requirements, such as a Beam to protect against spores. I might even have a screenshot of such a setup...
Quote from: MizInIA on February 22, 2013, 12:48:41 PM
I also still argue that a remote storage pad cannot just magically appear. it would need to be built. a landing zone can appear. (I know that is not the way it is currently working in the game)
If I understand you correctly, then you are quite right. The remote Guppy and pad are built using energy from the Guppy transferring energy to that location.
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 22, 2013, 12:54:12 PM
So can we all agree that the guppies should have the ability to carry energy and ore?
Well.... They can, just not at the same time. Beyond that there is no "we all agree" here.
That map looks fun. But why the 3 shields and not just the front two?
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 21, 2013, 03:20:03 PM
Sprayers can use their collection field to use the same AC over and over. Without a network connection, they wouldn't be able to dispatch excess packets back to the CN's, so it makes less sense to use them disconnected.
With the sprayer ability change AC into ore an ore guppy could be used to recover the AC not used?
Quote from: Grauniad on February 22, 2013, 12:56:38 PM
If I understand you correctly, then you are quite right. The remote Guppy and pad are built using energy from the Guppy transferring energy to that location.
yes i agree that is how I see the pad being built.
it could be argued that the storage pad should be a separate construction item from the Aerial units and then Guppies, Bombers or Strafers are built on top of the storage pad. but I think that is an argument saved for CW4
Grauniad That map is HUGE!! it is going to take a long time to beat down all that creeper. :)
Thats what Grauniad does with his free time.
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 22, 2013, 02:06:15 PM
Thats what Grauniad does with his free time.
This is what you all will be doing with your free time.... :P
I don't see what being unable to transport AC adds to the game. It prevents you from using sprayers and bombers on forward networks. All it succeeds in accomplishing is reducing your tactical options. Why is this considered a good thing?
1. Clearness and simplicity. Mr. Einstein apparently knew about Mr. Wall: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction."
2. Are you saying you would create a forward base and build landing pads for bombers without having a CN at that forward base? Once you have played the game, you will know that this isn't a 'strategy' that you will ever use. In the case that the map maker didn't supply a remote landing spot for the CN (or only offers the use of 1 CN), he will have his reasons for doing so; thus forcing the player to think about other strategies. That's a good thing.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 22, 2013, 02:20:42 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 22, 2013, 02:06:15 PM
Thats what Grauniad does with his free time.
This is what you all will be doing with your free time.... :P
that is what I already do with my free time. I am just doing it in CW & CW2
Virigl actually actually a screenshot of him playing that map on the blog. It was the September 16, 2012 update.
The Aether forge and totems on the map is new though.
If you have questions you could use PM Grauniad. You don't need to make 7 blog posts about it. :L
and as for that guppy thing I think we've beaten it to death :P
Not sure what else to talk about in the Guppy thread...
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 22, 2013, 04:45:51 PM
Virigl actually actually a screenshot of him playing that map on the blog. It was the September 16, 2012 update.
The Aether forge and totems on the map is new though.
If you have questions you could use PM Grauniad. You don't need to make 7 blog posts about it. :L
and as for that guppy thing I think we've beaten it to death :P
I for one don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Perhaps better to not say it in that case?
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 22, 2013, 07:47:49 PM
Not sure what else to talk about in the Guppy thread...
Then perhaps don't post just to say you have nothing to say?
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 22, 2013, 04:45:51 PM
and as for that guppy thing I think we've beaten it to death :P
36 posts in little over 24 hours (counting from your post) suggest otherwise.
What about giving the guppy the ability to carry a maximum of packets, independent of their type (packets, ore, AC). You could set what packets the pad charges using sliders. E.g. giving the guppy a maximum charge of 300, you could tell the pad to request 300 packets, 300 ore or 300 AC. Or you could tell it to request 100 each at the same time. Or any other combination that you see fit.
Now, loaded with different packages the guppy will only return to the pad when all are empty. If you should need the guppy to return earlier, you could send it back to base immediately, pressing the "Return to Base"-button. However, if you do that, you will forfeit any cargo the guppy might still have at this point.
This way, there would only be one mode of operation for one kind of guppy and the player had to manage them properly to get the best out of them. This would combine maximum utility with a minimum of complexity.
What problem exactly are you trying to solve?
A minimum of complexity in my mind involves using one guppy for packets, and another guppy for AC. Fiddling with sliders strikes me as more complicated, not less.
The guppy is losing modes due to complexity. I don't think "Packets/ore + AC" is nearly as much of an increase in complexity as "Packets + ore". The only really troubling aspect I saw was energy.
I would mourn the loss of ore as a transport mode more or less as much as I do the loss of AC. Neither solution makes sense to me. I can see a player learning to carry ore back with a guppy, then learning to deliver packets to a battlefront, then getting sprayers. At this point, I can't see the player feeling anything except "why the heck is AC missing?" I don't think complaints on this score will ever stop just because you can dump AC in the wilderness to hoover it back up.
As for the the counterarguments to my post in particular,
Spoiler
I think me and Upperkees use beachheads fundamentally differently . . . beachheads to me are not something I typically abandon, but fight to connect via hardline - they often become my new front line, if they're successful. Maybe I'm just over-investing in these outposts?
If I were to take a 'stop, drop, and roll' approach with bomber delievery, sprayers would be useful in cleanup only. The whole point of sprayers is more controlled output, and better maximum output
If there's a CN on the outpost, you can just swap CN's to move AC storage to the network that needs it, or deliver ore to the remote network. No need to expose your AC to evaporation or loss during transport.
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 23, 2013, 05:44:16 AM
A minimum of complexity in my mind involves using one guppy for packets, and another guppy for AC. Fiddling with sliders strikes me as more complicated, not less.
Agreed, here. Checkboxes are easier to process and utilize than sliders, and hybrid transport modes, and having to manually manage guppy behavior. I've considered pretty much the same solution, but the ultimate deal-breaker was the introduction of manual management to a process that used to be automated.
On a marginally related note . . . I still think they need the option to launch without collecting a full load.
Quote from: lurkily on February 23, 2013, 07:31:46 AM
The guppy is losing modes due to complexity. I don't think "Packets/ore + AC" is nearly as much of an increase in complexity as "Packets + ore". The only really troubling aspect I saw was energy.
I am unable to comprehend this paragraph. This makes it hard for me to feel I can adequately respond, except to observe that you have (are) repeatedly pushing for an option that Virgil has rejected many months ago - an option that does not necessarily limit gameplay, since the current model allows for delivery of all types of ammo to remote locations and allows for operation of land-based units remotely.
Adding AC carrying capability adds limited additional function, enables one single alternate variant of weapons deployment at the cost of increased complexity of the user interface.
There really, really should be a time when we should not have to reiterate the same counter-arguments to the same person. That is the time that we agree that we disagree and move on.
I never understood that V was committed to this change because of his statements, in more than one venue, that he keeps going back and forth on the subject. I took that to mean that it was still open to debate.
Given recent communication here and elsewhere, it looks like I was mistaken on that count, and don't intend to say anything more.
I really don't see how you think it adds too much complexity to the user interface. I'm thinking of the fact that there were three different options on the maker in CW2, 4 different options for the blasters, the repulsors had 3 options. So having 3 options or boxes that you can check on different units isn't that difficult for the user interface it just seems more useful. Also not having the ability to carry Anti-Creeper just limits the options that the player has for playing. A different idea could be that the map maker can choose how many different functions the guppy could have or make it possible to find or (using the Forge) purchase the additional functions.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 23, 2013, 10:26:50 AM
Adding AC carrying capability adds limited additional function, enables one single alternate variant of weapons deployment at the cost of increased complexity of the user interface.
Not having AC can restrict some of the ways people fight the creeper also causing people to have to play through some maps longer than they would have before which can be a real pain with maps of large sizes.
I think using previous games as an example of what's acceptable is probably not a good way to move forward. A designer and a developer always grows, and what was acceptable in design at one stage in a designer's growth may not be in another.
Also, across different offerings, goals and design philosophy often varies - one sees this particularly in how CW3 strives to keep the game playable from information that's on the map - the info bar and the various data accessible in info panels are there, if you need them, but the core tools to play the game are all right on the map, and more than sufficient.
Here's where we depart. Complexity is not the only factor. In CW2, for instance, we went back and forth on topsy-turvey building a number of times before it finally made the cut.
The factors that mitigate complexity is what it adds to game-play and what problems it solves. The 4 modes for blasters are a perfect example - and was introduced as an upgrade after initial release. Disconnecting units was also introduced after release.
What I (and probably Virgil as well, though I don't claim to speak for him on this subject) fail to understand, is what specific problem is big enough in the game that allowing Guppies to carry energy back to a base, or AC to a forward sprayer/bomber base is sufficient to support the coding workload and the explanation burden that goes with that.
Bear in mind (with reference to 4-mode blasters in CW2) that people can deploy blasters and in default mode they work well. You can't deploy a guppy and in default mode expect it to work well in all circumstances. I hope you can see the difference. Guppies has to be set up.
Now packets/energy are complex and might be confused because they might be fungible. The benefit of a guppy carrying energy has to be counted against the cost/efficiency of setting up a remote energy base and having it constantly being supported. It may well be simpler and cheaper to build a Terp, fly it out there and level off a base for one of your CNs.
AC, the same issue, IMHO. A load of AC carried by a Guppy might not go far enough to supply many weapons effectively. The same, or more AC can be delivered by bombers, far more effectively. And again, you can level off a base for a CN and supply it with ore packets to create AC.
So why should we complicate the game to add those modes to the Guppy unit? How much additional mileage and stuff will we get? is it really, when we consider all the other features that the game need, the best allocation of resource in providing it?
Yes, there was something there, but it was a prototype. It didn't work well, had bugs and a lot of things that got hooked up afterwards did not include considerations for the Guppy modes, so it will take effort and resource to reactivate those modes.
Sometimes "good enough" is sufficient.
Edited to clarify blaster reference.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 23, 2013, 11:18:05 PM
what specific problem is big enough in the game that allowing Guppies to carry energy back to a base, or AC to a forward sprayer/bomber base is sufficient to support the coding workload and the explanation burden that goes with that.
There is none. The guppy works great as it is, but apparently some people just love to make issues out of nothing (without ever having been able to evaluate the game play), even though every option has been investigated thoroughly. Choices have been made, accept it. They're good choices. It's not even a matter of 'good enough'; it's the best choice when taking all aspects of the game into account.
It's much more important that development will be focussed on the issues that really matter, so try to prioritize.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 23, 2013, 10:26:50 AM
That is the time that we agree that we disagree and move on.
Yes, please.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 23, 2013, 04:53:08 AM
What problem exactly are you trying to solve?
I am not trying to solve any problem. I doubt I'm in the position to do so if there one. All I did was to explain how I feel the guppy would work out best. I arrived at that conclusion for myself only
after the preceding discussion in this thread.
I honestly feel discouraged to post any further ideas or suggestions.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 23, 2013, 11:41:43 PM
The guppy works great as it is, but apparently some people just love to make issues out of nothing (without ever having been able to evaluate the game play), even though every option has been investigated thoroughly. Choices have been made, accept it. They're good choices. It's not even a matter of 'good enough'; it's the best choice when taking all aspects of the game into account.
What is the point of having a
public Upcoming Release Chatter Board, then? Most people posting here base their posts on the information they deduce and assume from the blog posts, which sometimes might not have any resemblance to the game as it is now, especially the older ones. It's only natural for us to come up with comments and issues that are dated and contradictory. I resent the suggestion that we "make issues out of nothing". I know you said "some people", but who is supposed to know if he belongs to that group or not?
Given the nature of this board and the knowledge most contributors (can) have, very little said here will eventually be considered in the game. It's a discussion of wild ideas and over-the-board fantasies, with probably the occasional gem buried beneath it, that will feature in some coming release. If I should be mistaken and this form of contribution is no longer desired, please do say so.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 23, 2013, 11:41:43 PM
It's much more important that development will be focussed on the issues that really matter, so try to prioritize.
The discussions here only affect development's focus if the developer chooses them to. How is anyone here able to prioritize if they do not know what "issues that really matter" are?
I think we can take from this that there is commitment in development towards the guppy's current model.
This is something that should probably not be taken as being 'shot down'. I understand the frustration of being asked to act against my commitments. Understanding that there is commitment to the current model, it's probably better to consider it an effort to redirect effort that's effectively being wasted on something that probably won't change.
Ok here is why the guppy can't transport AC. it just can't be compressed to the extent that would be necessary to fit in the Guppy tank without it turning to creeper. We learned in CW2 that compressed AC would invert and that is what happens when it is pushed into the tank. It just doesn't work. the pipeline provides a stable uncompressed environment fort he AC to be transported safely out to the dispersion units. Now I hear the argument that the Bombers can carry compressed AC in the bombs. You are Wrong. The bombs carry military grade refined Ore that when detonated convert to AC (kind of like a Nuke).
So see it isn't a matter of weather Virgil Wants the Guppy to carry AC or not. The technology just isn't there to allow the Guppy to carry the AC. :P
Quote from: Ronini on February 24, 2013, 06:43:21 AM
I honestly feel discouraged to post any further ideas or suggestions. [...]What is the point of having a public Upcoming Release Chatter Board, then? Most people posting here base their posts on the information they deduce and assume from the blog posts, which sometimes might not have any resemblance to the game as it is now, especially the older ones. It's only natural for us to come up with comments and issues that are dated and contradictory.
Please don't feel discouraged. There is a big difference in making suggestions and going on about the same thing, especially when these options have been implemented, evaluated and turned out to be less useful.
Quote from: Ronini on February 24, 2013, 06:43:21 AM
I resent the suggestion that we "make issues out of nothing".
A new feature is supposed to fulfil a certain need. More is not always better. I like to be able to pick from a wide range of strategies, but in this case AC-transportation wouldn't make you play any different. Hence Grauniad's question what 'problem' needs to be solved. What is the real need? Just sustained paratrooping with sprayers? I can imagine that people devoted to the game 'feel' the need for many options/new units and that's why it is so important to make choices during game design.
Quote from: Ronini on February 24, 2013, 06:43:21 AM
Given the nature of this board and the knowledge most contributors (can) have, very little said here will eventually be considered in the game. It's a discussion of wild ideas and over-the-board fantasies, with probably the occasional gem buried beneath it, that will feature in some coming release.
I believe I can say that Virgil considers almost everything. You are right however that not every idea will make it into the game, but that shouldn't keep you from making suggestions. Consider the fact that CW3 will offer 20 very versatile units (counting the CN's). That's twice the amount of CW1, which was a very successful game. While some people are very enthusiastic and like to see many idea's implemented, others are concerned that the game will become too complex and lose one of its main strengths: simplicity with great depth. Just like chess. Easy to learn, hard to master.
Quote from: Ronini on February 24, 2013, 06:43:21 AM
The discussions here only affect development's focus if the developer chooses them to. How is anyone here able to prioritize if they do not know what "issues that really matter" are?
If you read back this topic, I think you will notice many indications that the focus has already shifted to other area's. I hope you do see that going over the same arguments doesn't help anyone. There is no right and no wrong. It's a choice and I truly believe that you will look back at this discussion with a smile once you play the game. :)
I would like to Vouch for a lock on the topic. All that needs to be said here has been said.
I'm also pretty sure Grauniad is about to lock this topic to end fruitless argument.
Like Graun said Virgil isn't going to spend 5 hours coding something that doesn't really give a major application or effect. That is why I tend to vote down ideas that would be removed from most custom maps for gameplay reasons.
Maybe I took your comments a bit too personal. I apologize.
I know its hard to imagine not knowing something (if it's at all possible). With many people being unaware of the evaluation process taking place, it will happen again and again that suggestions return that have been tried, tested and dismissed already. I'm not complaining about being unaware while others are not. That simply comes with this kind of developing process.
But along with that comes me enjoying ultimately fruitless discussions.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 24, 2013, 10:46:22 AM
you will look back at this discussion with a smile once you play the game. :)
Why lock this thread? Maybe there still is the need for others to further discuss this. No one is forcing you to reply, is there? It'll fade away left on its own soon enough.
OK, not going to lock this topic. I think we lost sight of some boundaries on these boards. What was exhibited here was a months-old argument spilling over from the beta forums. It is sometimes hard to keep track what is in beta or in open forums, especially if the beta members participate and reiterate their viewpoints.
The reason we have these forums is to allow members to air their opinions, and also for suggestions. Sometimes we are interested to see how much overlap there is between suggestions here and actual ideas in the game. At least that shows us that the game is on the right track.
When it gets confusing is when we debate features that already were debated and (at least so I thought :)) decided against. Hopefully all beta members will be more mindful of how we participate in the open member forums.
Quote from: Ronini on February 24, 2013, 01:26:35 PM
Maybe I took your comments a bit too personal. I apologize.
I probably sounded a bit harsh, so I apologize as well. :)
I have a somewhat related question about guppies. Lets say you have one CN and nowhere to drop a second. Your supply lines are getting long starving your weapons. If you build a few guppies and set them down next to the front line will they supply packets even though there is a relay connection back to the CN? Or will they only supply "disconnected" weapons? I would hope/expect the guppy would supply the packets so as I overbuild, which I love to do, I can get more efficient packet delivery to the front.
Yes, the shortest path is used, so your guppies can indeed act like a buffer.
Your second (actually first) option is of course to buy one or more packet speed upgrades. This is more reliable, as your guppies transfer energy in batches.
I can see maps where supply lines are purposefully long and speed upgrades are unavailable. Forcing the player to manage weapon ammunition with guppies. Actually sounds like a fun problem to try and manage. Like a few boards in cw2 without portals or speed upgrades.
I'm curious about ore pathing on a network that has both a CN and a guppy requesting ore on it. Let's put together this hypothetical:
I use air power, guppies, and landed guns to force a beachhead. Once I've cleared enough ground, I drop a CN on that beachhead in order to support AC weapon use at the site. I intend to supply the ore via Guppy, as there are no ore sites near the beachhead to mine, and so I set up Ore Guppies on my primary network headed towards the beachhead. What is the logic used to decide where ore is sent on that primary network, given the choices of a couple of Ore Guppies and my first CN? Is it basically the same as packets (distributed evenly between requesting structures in most cases) or does it do something odd?
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 28, 2013, 01:05:42 PM
I'm curious about ore pathing on a network that has both a CN and a guppy requesting ore on it. Let's put together this hypothetical:
I use air power, guppies, and landed guns to force a beachhead. Once I've cleared enough ground, I drop a CN on that beachhead in order to support AC weapon use at the site. I intend to supply the ore via Guppy, as there are no ore sites near the beachhead to mine, and so I set up Ore Guppies on my primary network headed towards the beachhead. What is the logic used to decide where ore is sent on that primary network, given the choices of a couple of Ore Guppies and my first CN? Is it basically the same as packets (distributed evenly between requesting structures in most cases) or does it do something odd?
It will change between what it is now and what it will be in final ship.
I assume it goes in every other direction as we speak. One ore packet goes to the CN and the next to the ore guppy, the next to the CN, the next to the ore guppy, etc.
On another note, is it possible to tell a CN to stop taking in ore packets so that ore guppies can be supplied in said scenario? I remember that Odin City had features like that with the ability to tell it to stop making packets of a certain type, but that ability did not stick around for the Liberation ship, so it is within the bounds of questioning whether or not the CN retains it.
By the way, since guppies seem to be about forward base movement, why don't they carry AC when chosen, but not raw energy that needs to be turned into packets? Unless you make a custom map that has so many isolated islands that are so far apart that they cannot all be connected and harvested for energy? In that case, it would take energy guppies (not packet guppies) to make use of it all since there are only 3 CN's. Or maybe it could be addressed by an ability that could be newly created to be used by the Mothership.
Well that is partially along the lines of bad level design. (All though that could be executed to make a good map.)
Why not build a second guppy to transfer the Packets back to the island. It may seem slightly counter-productive but that's what happens in war.
Also that's partially why I felt storage would be able to store energy and packets. Why not make the storage a crappy Command Node. It would provide more use to the unit and if balanced right (make the storage need like 3 times as much energy to make a packet) I think this would be a unique nice touch
Quote from: 4xC on February 28, 2013, 04:57:17 PM
I assume it goes in every other direction as we speak. One ore packet goes to the CN and the next to the ore guppy, the next to the CN, the next to the ore guppy, etc.
That makes no sense. The purpose of an ore guppy is to carry ore to the CN, if the guppy is connected to a CN via hard lines, it should not request any ore.
What if I have a mine connected to a CN, but I want to send ore to a CN that ISN'T connected to the mine?
Quote from: lurkily on March 14, 2013, 08:54:58 PM
What if I have a mine connected to a CN, but I want to send ore to a CN that ISN'T connected to the mine?
Exactly! :)
That is why currently, the Mine would have to send the first Ore packet to the CN, and the next Ore packet to a Guppy pad that it taking Ore, and the next Ore packet to any more Guppy Pads built and cnnected that are set to take Ore, until finally, all Guppy Pads requesting Ore have full Payloads, and then the CN would receive its second Ore packet that is obviously not the second one harvested by the Mine.
Since Guppies are good for maintaining divided frontlines against creeper attacks, I still think it should be able to carry AC in case you have or want more than one frontline with a sprayer or 2 othr than the frontline directly connected to your primary CN.
I think you are mistaken. (Slightly)
Isn't it a simpler logic when the first ore packet goes to the CN, then every ore guppy pad receives one each in however their order is determined after which a new cycle begins with the next ore packet going to the CN again?
Simple example with 3 Ore Guppy Pads:
Order of distribution: CN, GP, GP, GP, CN, GP, GP, GP, CN, GP, GP, GP, ...
About the other thing: Somehow I doubt the scenario you described will occur that often. Yes, the new maps can be huge, but not that huge, really and most won't anyway. On most larger maps you will have multiple CNs to deploy. You will have bombers to deliver AC payloads on most maps, too. You will be also be able to connect most forward bases by a land line fairly quickly. Any scarce scenario where you'll miss the AC delivering capabilities will most likely be designed to that end. Then you will have to make do with what you got, in any case.
That order of distribution of yours is exactly what I meant in the first place. Miscommunication.
And while the scenario may be a rare case, it may be exploited in the custom maps by a few makers. And now that you mention it, I think it is better to have long-distance AC attacks done by bomber only and sprayers totally dependent on CN's with AC after all. It suddenly makes more sense that way.
Speaking of bombers, I still have a bit of trouble telling whether or not airial attackers can still attack in vectors considering how frequently Virgil made bombers and strafers focus on single points.
Guppies get precedence. All ore guppies are fully loaded before ore is distributed to a CN on the same network. Or so it seemed last time I looked.
Quote from: Grauniad on March 19, 2013, 11:28:01 AM
Guppies get precedence. All ore guppies are fully loaded before ore is distributed to a CN on the same network. Or so it seemed last time I looked.
If that is the case, what would happen if you had Ore Guppy Pad(s) in a network that has a CN in it, and the same network had an active Sprayer? If Guppy Pads take precedence, it sounds to me like you could not maintain an active sprayer while having Ore Guppies.
Have fewer guppies or more ore. That is what resource constraints are all about.
Or Disable/Disconnect the guppy when you want ore service to go elsewhere.
Speaking of ore, I know this was covered several times elsewhere, but I have to be sure either way: are ore despsits still infinite?
Quote from: Shrike30 on March 19, 2013, 04:19:16 PM
Or Disable/Disconnect the guppy when you want ore service to go elsewhere.
Shouldn't disabling and disconnecting a guppy accomplish the same thing? Since it's job is to move around packets...
Just rambling.
Quote from: hoodwink on March 20, 2013, 01:27:42 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on March 19, 2013, 04:19:16 PM
Or Disable/Disconnect the guppy when you want ore service to go elsewhere.
Shouldn't disabling and disconnecting a guppy accomplish the same thing? Since it's job is to move around packets...
Just rambling.
No. Id think disconnect would mean Dont do anything at all. Disable would mean fill up the guppy, but dont launch it yet.
Quote from: BGMFH on March 20, 2013, 04:02:14 PM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 20, 2013, 01:27:42 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on March 19, 2013, 04:19:16 PM
Or Disable/Disconnect the guppy when you want ore service to go elsewhere.
Shouldn't disabling and disconnecting a guppy accomplish the same thing? Since it's job is to move around packets...
Just rambling.
No. Id think disconnect would mean Dont do anything at all. Disable would mean fill up the guppy, but dont launch it yet.
Ah, good point. Good clarification, that person.
The only behavioral difference I could imagine between the two is that Disconnect might cause the Guppy platform to stop reloading, whereas Disable might cause the Guppy platform to stop reloading AND cause the Guppy to return home. Not a huge deal either way.
I assume "Disable" is actually "Disarm"? ??? I know what Disconnect, Disarm, and Deactivate means, but I have not seen "Disable" before.
If you look and try it in CW2, Disconnected units do not receive packets, but they still operate and use up the energy they got until they run out. Thus, Guppies would not take in more packets and would either do the same thing it would do if it was Deactivated, or it would fly off with the incomplete load you leave it with.
If you Deactivate a Guppy or any unit, it would neither receive packets, nor function as if it had energy in it. And one more thing for clarity, Disarming a unit means you want it to receive packets, but you do not want to use them. "Building up a force" as the CW manuals will tell you is a way of saying "prepare a group of weapons for a big fight in which reserve energy will be harder to come by otherwise.
Yeah, that's what I meant.