Guppies and Forward Bases

[MizInIA]

Grauniad That map is HUGE!! it is going to take a long time to beat down all that creeper.  :)

[ShadowDragon7015]

Thats what Grauniad does with his free time.

[UpperKEES]

Thats what Grauniad does with his free time.

This is what you all will be doing with your free time.... :P

[Shrike30]

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?

[UpperKEES]

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.

[MizInIA]

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

[Chawe800]

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

[Shrike30]

Not sure what else to talk about in the Guppy thread...

[Grauniad]

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?

Not sure what else to talk about in the Guppy thread...

Then perhaps don't post just to say you have nothing to say?

[Ronini]

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.

[Grauniad]

What problem exactly are you trying to solve?

[Shrike30]

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.

[lurkily]

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.

[close]

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.

[Grauniad]

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.

[lurkily]

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.