Oolite Bulletins

I voted to leave the Anaconda alone, to leave it as is. I can't seem to find any documentation about the myth of the coffee stain altering the cargo spec of the Anaconda. Maybe it is out there somewhere, but I can't find it. Further, there are so many OXP ships that more than adequately fill the freighter class role. The Anaconda is so slow and difficult to maneuver that its large cargo capacity is not really that much of an advantage. I don't think to worry about one ship that is a legacy from classic Elite is worth this much effort.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Switeck wrote:

None of the message threads on this forum that I've seen even dare to claim the Anaconda's 750 TC cargo capacity makes it a "worthwhile" ship.

I dunno about that.. Ranthe seems quite happy to keep tootling along the spaceways in his "Atomic Annie"..

I'd actually quite like to see his take on this discussion..

Thanks Diziet

Just as some background, I've traded my way up (or as some might say, "along") to an Anaconda by way of the Python (where having only two missiles really makes you improve your gunnery skills) and the Boa 2, the latter of which I thought at the time was the "ultimate" trader ship with a large cargo bay, good speed, and a reasonable missile capability. I initially bought an Anaconda just as an experiment to see what it was like - and after a while developed a sneaking respect for a ship that, while big, fat, and slow, nevertheless was fairly tough, was able to make a good amount of money and had (in my opinion) a far more attractive and aesthetic profile than the rather blocky Boa 2. What started as an interesting deviation soon became my main player ship after I realised I'd clocked up more kills in Atomic Annie than in the Boa 2 Roj Blake...

Switeck wrote:

The current contract system is broken (in the sense of game balance) in multiple ways. The whole point of having a large cargo carrier (read: Anaconda) to do them is rendered unnecessary after about 10 runs. The price of each contract was greatly increased from v1.76. Each contract is often to the other side of the galaxy chart, effectively forcing you to visit probably multiple dangerous systems and even a possible unscheduled misjump. Neither destination is likely to be "fun" in an Anaconda!

But to me, that's the challenge. The very limitations of the "slow pointy asteroid with a voracious appetite" in taking it across the galaxy mean that when you do manage to fight your way through what seems an eternity of raiders into the station aegis of an Anarchy system (or an eternity of Thought Police Patrol Craft and Workers Commuters mass-locking you every few minutes in a Commie system), there's (to me anyway) a greater sense of satisfaction to have pulled it off in a giant trash-hauler than a swift sleek battlewagon. Especially when despite the larger missile rack the most-useful system in an Anaconda engaged in combat is the witchspace fuel injectors - or in my case, a judiciously-deployed Quirium Cascade Mine

Switeck wrote:

Despite all the talk about overlarge cargo capacity, there's almost no way to even use it short of dubious "oversized" cargo contracts which will likely send the Anaconda to dangerous systems or misjumps where it is at a FAR higher risk than the Boa 2.

That's not exactly correct. It's only true if you only pick up ONE cargo contract at any one time, which is basically operating an Anaconda in the same way as a Python or Boa. But the Anaconda's massive capacity allows you to pick up multiple contracts at one go (or one after the other), which then introduces the challenge of managing multiple contract deliveries, choosing contracts that align with a common route, and even (as one person described in the "Anaconda Blues" thread) fitting out multiple passenger berths and running the Anaconda as an interstellar bus service with multiple passenger contracts.

Even without pursuing contracts, I've utilised the humongous cargo bay of Atomic Annie as more or less a mobile ConStore, buying up (for example) as many computers and luxuries in multiple Industrial systems to then dump at an eye-watering profit on some unsuspecting Poor Agricultural system, then loading up on food and booze cargo in a similar fashion until I can pull the same trick at a Seedy Space Bar. Hey, you've still got to make enough money to pay the fuel bills at Fuel Stations that you've topped up at prior to a run into the system, not to mention purchasing replacement hard-head missiles and Q-bombs

To sum up, I don't think the 750TC cargo bay on the Anaconda is in anyway useless compared to the other large core ships, it's simply a matter of this capability being used in a different manner if one chooses to do so.

If the size discrepancy between the similar sizes but wildly different cargo capacity of the Boa 2 vs Anaconda is a real issue, I would personally prefer to grow the hull dimensions of the Anaconda to match the cargo capacity instead of shrinking the cargo bay. That way you avoid the issue of having to reprice the Anaconda and adjust available contracts while restoring realistic scaling between the Anaconda and the Boa 2. If the 'Conda has to be shrunk, I wouldn't want to see cargo capacity drop below 450TC.

Ranthe wrote:

Switeck wrote:

Despite all the talk about overlarge cargo capacity, there's almost no way to even use it short of dubious "oversized" cargo contracts

That's not exactly correct. It's only true if you only pick up ONE cargo contract at any one time, which is basically operating an Anaconda in the same way as a Python or Boa. But the Anaconda's massive capacity allows you to pick up multiple contracts at one go (or one after the other), which then introduces the challenge of managing multiple contract deliveries, choosing contracts that align with a common route, and even (as one person described in the "Anaconda Blues" thread) fitting out multiple passenger berths and running the Anaconda as an interstellar bus service with multiple passenger contracts.

Well, "oversized" cargo contracts was plural. Stacking multiple contracts together is nothing new to me -- I've had at least 15 cargo contracts going at once with at least 3 bound for 1 system and 5 bound for another system on a Boa 2. These were almost entirely of the Gold/Plat/Gem variety, so total cargo space used for them was probably <50 TC. I could even take more cargo contracts than total capacity by temporarily offloading my goods at a station so I had room to get more. This could prove problematic because I'd need to re-buy similar goods later before reaching the destinations. I find when I start chaining lots of cargo contracts together it's hard to find a high-tech place and spare time to stop and do maintenance!

Ranthe wrote:

Even without pursuing contracts, I've utilised the humongous cargo bay of Atomic Annie as more or less a mobile ConStore, buying up (for example) as many computers and luxuries in multiple Industrial systems to then dump at an eye-watering profit on some unsuspecting Poor Agricultural system, then loading up on food and booze cargo in a similar fashion until I can pull the same trick at a Seedy Space Bar.

I have also done this to lesser extent on the Boa 2. Without adding extra 3rd party stations, (even Rock Hermits) you have to visit quite a few main stations before you'd fill up. At that point, your opportunity costs are probably as great or greater than any additional profits you gain from it.

I think Ranthe's thoughts should carry some weight here - since he's an Anaconda flyer and he's fitted it into his personal mythos of the game.

We can't use the 750TC is too big because the ship is too small argument because scaling in Oolite sucks we all know it, so lets not use that as the one argument to beat up on the Anaconda - we have 1km wide space stations and 30km wide planets...

As I've said elsewhere in this thread lets take the meaning of 750TC and tweak its meaning, lets not just arbitrarily decide it needs fixing because a few players want to take Oolite way beyond its original remit, into the area of capital ships and decide that the Anaconda must be fixed because it no longers fits into their desired perception of the Ooniverse.

If you're going to introduce an OXP that introduces playable bulk haulers and capital ships then inside that OXP (or OXPs) should be an addition that "fixes" the Anaconda in a way you want it to be in YOUR Ooniverse at the same time.

I have accepted that somehow amazingly the Anaconda can somehow take 750TCs (since we also don't know what a TC actually is) of *something*, not necessarily 750 of those cannisters that tumble out of it when it's cracked open, but somehow it's infeasibly (but not impossibly) cavernous inside. That's my Ooniverse, because that's how Holdstock/Bell/Braben told me it was.

I've been pondering this, and was inclined towards leaving the Anaconda as it is. Ranthe's post was the clincher - keep it as is.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

I think Ranthe's thoughts should carry some weight here - since he's an Anaconda flyer and he's fitted it into his personal mythos of the game.

We can't use the 750TC is too big because the ship is too small argument because scaling in Oolite sucks we all know it, so lets not use that as the one argument to beat up on the Anaconda - we have 1km wide space stations and 30km wide planets...

As I've said elsewhere in this thread lets take the meaning of 750TC and tweak its meaning, lets not just arbitrarily decide it needs fixing because a few players want to take Oolite way beyond its original remit, into the area of capital ships and decide that the Anaconda must be fixed because it no longers fits into their desired perception of the Ooniverse.

If you're going to introduce an OXP that introduces playable bulk haulers and capital ships then inside that OXP (or OXPs) should be an addition that "fixes" the Anaconda in a way you want it to be in YOUR Ooniverse at the same time.

Hear hear! Well said.

El Viejo wrote:

I've been pondering this, and was inclined towards leaving the Anaconda as it is. Ranthe's post was the clincher - keep it as is.

Agreed. Leave the Annie alone, and if anything, create a few special ginormous cargoes just for her, as suggested by DH. Since I can't change my vote above, consider it changed from 'Other' to 'Leave it alone'.

We could just decide that the Anaconda was built by the time lords...after all the TARDIS is bigger on the inside than on the outside!

I think DH's solution is the most elegant:

DaddyHoggy wrote:

So how about this - bulk carriers (possibly including the Anaconda) can take a certain number of physical TC cannisters BUT can take very large, bulky items, intact. So, you could limit the Anaconda to, for example, 250TCs for actual trading in TC cannisters - but its equivalent ACTUAL capacity is 750TCs, so contracts could also include genuinely bulky items that only Anacondas (core ship) and Bulk haulers (OXP ships) can carry. This way BULK Hauler would mean something. You would buy an Anaconda (core game) because you wanted to haul actual large items - with the ability to carry large but not silly amounts of TC cannisters for normal trading when no bulk items are available.

It has the added advantage of meaning that flying a truly bulk hauler is a genuinely different experience from the standard game. Consider my opinion changed!

Switeck wrote:

I could even take more cargo contracts than total capacity by temporarily offloading my goods at a station so I had room to get more. This could prove problematic because I'd need to re-buy similar goods later before reaching the destinations.

This has always struck me as a something of a flaw in the cargo business. If someone wants to pay me over the odds to shift some cargo from one end of the chart to the other, you'd think they'd be the tiniest bit particular that the recipient received the same goods at the other end. It should probably penalize you if the contents of your hold drop below the contracted amount.

Disembodied wrote:

I think DH's solution is the most elegant:

<snip>

It has the added advantage of meaning that flying a truly bulk hauler is a genuinely different experience from the standard game. Consider my opinion changed!

Thank-you Big D, I officially declare this my "Big Idea" - I have only one per annum, so expect just tosh for the remaining 11 months of 2013...

Diziet Sma wrote:

Well, we can't just have Annie's moving thousands of Combine Harvesters all over the Ooniverse, so we'll need some other Big Machines as well. So I'd like to propose the following massive machines for Griff-ication and adding to Oolite.

The Bucyrus RH400 Hydraulic Shovel:


The Krupp Bagger 288:

May I add that we already have something like the first one, but at the size of the second one, in the Ooniverse:

Very true.. cool.

Now they just need Griff-ifying, so they look purty floating in space when someone guts an Annie.

<wonders if it should somehow be possible for another Annie to then scoop 'em up>

Are carrying the hulls of other ships (as well as my earlier example of delivery shiny new small ships)

The Oolite equivalent of this (747 Dreamlifter carrying the main fuselage of a 787):

That must have been a bugger to wrap...

Diziet Sma wrote:

Agreed. Leave the Annie alone, and if anything, create a few special ginormous cargoes just for her, as suggested by DH. Since I can't change my vote above, consider it changed from 'Other' to 'Leave it alone'.

I concur.