INFO & FEEDBACK [Alpha 11] CPU Points and Tiers - How does it work?

Since the question was if you understood what was presented in the thread maybe you should start and end there and see how you do.

 

When your current system consigns a Size class 2.7 ship to be the Maximum you can create it seems pretty ill designed.

Can't wait for it to drop so I can judge the damage for myself.

 

Honestly, I think the idea of a CPU system, and extensions, is a good one. I just fundamentally disagree with Eleon's insistence on restricting everything to a fixed 'tier' level. This "collect all the Infinity Extenders" garbage in order to render the system functional really grates, because it's adding additional mass, material, and power requirements without the one major benefit of an "extension" system: Granularity. Instead of saying "Add two / three / four extenders and THEN it'll work!" we should be getting a fixed benefit from each extension, up to the max per tier. So if, for example, you have a CV that's needing, say 500,000 CPU, you wouldn't need a pair of T3 extensions and an extra 300,000 CPU you're not using in order to run it. You're exceeding T2 capabilities then, so for the sake of preserving their desire for progression / advancement, we'll say you still need a T3 extender.
(Some quick math: If base is 200,000 CPU, T2Ex = 200k, for T2 total 400k. So T3 cap 800k - base 200k = 600k / 2 extensions, 300k CPU apiece).
^By that logic, one T3 + base CPU = 500,000 on the dot.
T4 extensions would add 350k each, up to a max of 4 for the 1,600,000 CPU cap.

This gives builders more flexibility, without needing to waste materials and space on what would otherwise be unnecessary components.

 

This also worries me here sometimes. Seeing the influence of some Rear Admirals. Worries me even more when i recognize these Admirals are mostly playing SP, so it's really just a scrap of the game they experience and outside of this forum they really only see their own demand.

But that can be handled as long as Eleon is aware of this. A bigger problem is that a lot of players don't take time to take part of the discussions here. I am in contact with ~10 MPs, playing with half of them regulary and it seems i am the only one of us who is active here.

And as far as i know Eleon has a volunteers team of pre EXP testers but yes i agree. I wouldn't have a problem when Eleon makes one month free to play the game by themselves.

 

We don't believe you anymore. You have lost all credibility. We demand walking on moving ships for next week as punishment.

 

I have a lot of misgivings about the CPU system as well. While I know the numbers will change with 10.6, the fact that my mining HV in 10.5 is over 247,000 CPU without weapons or shield lends me to believe that it is going to die a quick and ugly death. That said, I am interested to see how it goes. This is the experimental version. I am sure that if it is a flop, that we are all able to notify taelon and Hummel of the snafu.

But really, any developer understands the issues that taelon , Hummel, and the team are facing. Even what looks to us as a small insignificant change, can mean rewriting a large portion of the code to make it happen. I am going through this myself at work, and I really wish I could get people to understand what it takes to do their "One little change".

SO...….. When did you say it was being released to experimental?

Oh look a squirrel!

 

Based on what values? The false values of 10.5? Those values are completely random and not representative of the system.

Unfortunately, this somehow manages to slip the attention of some people here who keep trying to compare their current builds with pre-test values and react antagonistically against CPU based on that.

 

I am not as confident as you. During the testing of A9 many issues were brought up by the people playing EXP almost none of them were addressed. A9 was released to the public without the recommended fixes. By the time A9 was working reasonably well most of the changes purposed by the EXP testers had been implemented. Why did they ignore the EXP testers originally to ultimately implement most of the offered fixes? Only the developers can tell us.

 

I'm with you there are quite a few that still haven't been addressed. And now there adding a whole bunch more.

 

I'm asking this again because it appears to be suffering from a bad case of 'not being addressed'.

I'm also going to add something- CPU is boring at best. You're either going to have a system where the playerbase will math their way into a new gamebreaking meta or you're dedicating thousands of man-hours, which would be better spent elsewhere, into something that everyone will turn off because it's useless. I understand the mechanics of CPU, but I don't understand the point of CPU. (Maybe if someone gave me, say, a list of specializations for CVs, I'd get the point, but alas...) Having a resource where everything operates at a lower efficiency if you don't have enough sounds like power, not CPU. That means it sounds like something generators are supposed to do, & last I checked, generators don't actually do anything (& for some reason man-hours haven't been dedicated to changing this fact).

Anyway, back to boring. Implementing this as intended right now is going to lead to a recurring pattern: people take their obviously superior ship into combat, a lucky shot (that is also a bug) takes out a CPU block, & then they lose the fight because they're suddenly piloting a lag spike. I'm sure it'll look great when the reviews are filled with people all complaining about the exact same problems (at worst) or saying the game can't be played as intended (at best). Great, so now it's boring AND rage-inducing, AND a thinly-veiled attempt to balance combat under the guise of "specialization" that it seems no one can adequately explain.

So here's a better idea- take notes from sci-fi. When the ship's performance is beyond what the computers can handle, stuff malfunctions, key parts get damaged, fires break out. So let's go with a different approach- systems failure. If your ship is above CPU values, there's a chance for something to break. Pulling numbers out of my ass, let's say the game checks every 30 minutes & rolls against the numbers you're currently using for efficiency. If the check fails, the game rolls on a damage table between 1 & 60 minutes later. The randomized time is important because it makes the whole thing unpredictable, meaning you can't schedule combat around it. This also addresses a number of issues:

1. I can click three times & read a post where people are saying, "this is a survival game, not a flight sim," to justify changes. If you make the changes affect survival rather than shooty-fly-y speeds, you're reinforcing that.
2. If you randomize the timing of the consequences, then it reduces the chances of a lag shot ending combat.
3. It influences single-player difficulty without being tedious.
4. It doesn't make half the workshop non-viable. Some of the higher end ships simply become less reliable. Instead of "this ship operates at 50% efficiency," it's, "operate at own risk".
5. (& I think this is most important) at least a few of the 250 Millennium Falcon replicas in the workshop will be accurate because crap is breaking all the time.

edit: 6. It's pretty obvious you're trying to limit thrusters & guns. By making stuff break, you can sell these limitations as "system stress" from high-G maneuvers or the constant resonance of firing weapons.

Sample malfunctoins:
- All ventilators take 5 points of damage. Also, reprogram ventilators so they stop functioning while damaged.
- Grow lights take 1 point of damage. Also, reprogram grow lights so they produce more heat while damaged.
- Oxygen/fuel/pentaxid tank starts leaking
- a cargo box just broke

Malfunctions that only occur while the cockpit is occupied:
- turrets stop functioning for 10-15 seconds
- shield stops regenerating for a minute
- all forward-facing thrusters fire constantly for 10-15 seconds

Any single one of these is more interesting than the proposed, "ship moves through molasses at all times." They also make for good stories.

 

Those malfunctions do sound more interesting than just decreased performance. Especially if their chance of happening increases the further over the CPU limit you are. Any problems with damaged parts incurred would also be repairable with a repair bay, which adds material maintenance costs. More costs means more incentive to find more materials, so more raiding, trading and mining.
Though those checks and measures all the time may cause performance issues. Which is the only real problem I can see.

 

I did not miss the up coming changes to the CPU values. I was simply remarking that while I already have a utilitarian view towards my builds, that I will still have to change them. I doubt that my new miner will have a carrying capacity anywhere near my current miner, and even if I could match it in 10.6, it would not be something I could do at 10th level. Like Spanj, I have a couple of ships that will simply never work on a server using CPU values. They are monsters which serve as mobile bases, but it will be very interesting to see what its CPU value is in 10.6.

My post was an acknowledgement that my current builds will have to be altered or scrapped entirely, to meet the new limits. From watching Spanj on Sunday, I just don't think my miner can keep the 83 cargo extensions it currently has. But who knows, maybe I can keep it for a tier 4 build. We will see.

Actually, I am looking forward to giving the CPU a try.If nothing else, it will force me to make new builds. I expect some of my ideas will bomb, but that is all a part of it.

I was and still am a fan of w/v. It is a bit buggy, but it does prevent me from carrying half the solar system in my pocket.

​

 

Even mass/ volume needs adjustments, and to be honest I don't see a problem with players carrying whole solar systems in their pocket, or a complete fleet. In fact the recipes drive the need for materials, so if all recipes are tuned down then players don't need a whole solar system, although some still suffer from the squirrel syndrome and gather all they can just in case they need to rebuild the universe. Same for mass/ volume and stacks.

This is all evidently related to server performance, and if not then it is a consequence of not having enough things to do in game: keep players busy gathering materials and running back and forth between cargo and POIs/ deposits, make building a chore, etc. This stretches time spent in game doing mundane stuff, while the real "game" is practically non-existent.

It's like Minecraft Engineer without an Ender Dragon as it is now.

 

I don't think they did ignore you, and the sheer number of bugs they fixed sort of proves that. However, if you remember everyone in the forums was screaming to the devs to give us 9.

I don't think it was a case of them ignoring you, but instead a case of them caving to the masses. Was it early? Yes, but was there grumbling about not getting it out for Christmas? YES.

Many people don't understand that to fix a bug can require hundreds if not thousands of lines of code, many of which will break something else, and create a whole new bug. It takes time. Keep in mind that Empyrion has a small dev team, and I think most people would turn pale if they were to personally realize the amount of time and effort it takes to write, maintain, and update a program.

I've been playing Empyrion for a long time, and it keeps getting better and better. it is my favorite as my 3700+ hours shows. Maybe CPU bombs, and it goes away, or maybe it is embraced, and sticks around. We will see. I am glad to see that they are including the ability to turn it off though. I will want to dust off some of my larger builds every once in a while

 

I recommended something like this a long time ago. In my case you could push your ship beyond normal limits (in your case CPU). CPU was not even a talking point back then. If you pushed your ship, your ship would suffer damage, and be prone to breaking. I even suggested something like a warp drive failure that landed you between spaces (hyperspace if you will) where you would need to effort repairs in order to escape. Both suggestions add an element of surprise, and risk taking, that may or may not payoff. It would be my luck to be the first to visit hyperspace too

Perhaps in a future release we can get some random events like these. I do have a concern though that a lucky shot cripples or disables my ship in 10.6 though.

 

Totally agree that a power/mass/volume/armor/weapon rebalance would accomplish what the new CPU system is trying to do in a much more logical way. I don't have a problem with putting some reasonable restrictions on craft, but the whole CPU system as it's being described by the devs does feel unnecessarily complicated and limiting, and with the current numbers pretty much unworkable. Also agree that thrusters and guns are the big target of these limits.

However, I don't agree with random failures when exceeding the limit being a good solution to this issue. Those could easily be far more rage inducing than a simple, predictable degradation in performance with a lack of power/CPU.

Like others have said, maybe make the extenders additive instead of the strict tier requirements for more graceful performance falloff if your craft takes damage.

Also, instead of just functionally duplicating power (rebalance the power system instead so if you don't have enough power your ship slows down), maybe the extenders could control the size of the ship. For example, the core lets you control blocks a fixed distance from the core, and extenders extend it out in an area around the extender so you kind of organically place extenders as needed based on the size of your ship. If an extender is destroyed, all functional blocks that are no longer covered by an extender will stop functioning, but will resume function once the extender is replaced. You would be able to overlap extenders to increase durability, but each extender utilizes a decent amount of power.

Yes, this will still break stuff on the workshop, but at the same time it seems easier to add a few extenders to existing craft than to rip them completely apart and rebuild with CPU count considerations. The same overall block count/distance from core limits could still apply (and maybe a max extender density to combat extender spam), and higher tier extenders could cover a larger area to save volume on more advanced craft. Servers could limit the number of extenders a craft could use to limit excessively large craft and encourage more space/block efficient builds.

Just some random thoughts on the topic.

 

I believe I asked the developers to enforce THEIR view of what they think this game should be. They didn't want to put the on/off switch for the weights and volumes in the first place, and since they capitulated to naysayers, they have split their own community, which is bad for the life of a game. Making the same mistake twice is only going to make it worse.
Please do not twist my words to suit your purpose. Thanks.

 

This.
This is how it needs to be done. Not on/off switches. Build a system that is a fusion of what the devs envision and what the public can work with. This is how effective systems come about. This is how balance happens. Not by allowing "my way or the highway" players dictate what you are allowed to do with YOUR game.

At least 1 person is this thread thinks that for some reason, I'm trying to dictate, when in fact, i'm just tired of watching the community split and split because they don't like adapting to change.
I play games in Alpha because I enjoying watching their evolution, and because I enjoying adopting and adapting to change (imagine that).
Games that provoke thought and adaptive behavior tend to have a longer life, and more hardcore fans.
I appreciate Eleon's innovation, but I have seen others that refuse to even TRY weights and volumes.

I have also seen others that finally did try it, and after week or two, refused to go back to not using it.
These player adapted, and by doing so, now enjoy an even deeper game. Yes, the system still needs to be refined. I would never dispute that.
CPU will be no different.
You have to start somewhere, and refinement takes time.

 

Mankind and especially Gamers are "Creatures of Habit". I noticed that a while ago..