Guppies and Forward Bases

[ShadowDragon7015]

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.

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.

[lurkily]

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.

[Grauniad]

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.

[UpperKEES]

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.

That is the time that we agree that we disagree and move on.

Yes, please.

[Ronini]

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.

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.

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?

[lurkily]

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.

[MizInIA]

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

[UpperKEES]

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

[Chawe800]

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.

[Ronini]

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.

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.

[Grauniad]

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.

[UpperKEES]

Maybe I took your comments a bit too personal. I apologize.

I probably sounded a bit harsh, so I apologize as well. :)

[koker93]

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.

[UpperKEES]

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.

[koker93]

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.