I get that you can't please everyone - but a system that only exists to restrict progression providing no meaninful counterbalancing pros - is just going to be needless. If you can't balance this con with something positive you might as well scrap the entire idea (especially since this is basically SE's Block Limits - but without the effect of increasing preformance). I'm over this game until someone invents a "No Spiders" Survival Mod but I just thought you should know my 2c as a former player.
So that you can convert a dropship to a fighter by swapping out the core? It just doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't say that sort of system is any better than the current implementation of CPU, honestly. The underlying problem, as always, is that the fundamentals of the game aren't stable. Notably, mass/volume is still far from balanced (to say nothing about recipes still not conserving mass). No form of the CPU system can possibly work right if subsystem masses are in flux; even my ideal CPU system would not work without self-consistent mass and volume values for all blocks. The devs don't have a model for how all their game mechanics fit together and it shows, continually, in every update.
It being better than the current implementation is next to meaningless given how low a bar that is. Honestly, part of the reason I'm personally as upset as I am is because I already designed a perfectly functional system: Computational Units It was modular, affected only major subsystems, and included a soft-capping mechanism (diminishing returns for each additional CU device). It would have been straightforward to implement and easy to work with. *shrugs*
At the end of the day, the game does all the computations for you, same as for other subsystems whose performance depends per-block values (like thruster force and power). If you want to precisely design your ships, then you'll inevitably be doing calculations yourself; otherwise, you can add and remove devices, squint a bit at the result, and call it good (analogous to precisely calculating dV for each stage vs "moar boosters" in KSP). The non-modularity of the current system is part of why it ends up requiring more calculations on the part of the player. Whereas if the system were modular, you could at least keep piling on more extenders until the design mostly closed (or it became clear that it would never close). Again, look at the way thrusters and generators and fuel tanks work: if you find your thrust, power output, or run time are deficient, you add more of the appropriate device. Sometimes, that will trigger a cascade of additional devices to be added, and then you have to decide if you can live with the current stats or do a more significant redesign. CPU could be the same way, except at a slightly higher level: you're now looking at how to prioritize your major subsystems and deciding if you can live with reduced performance for one or more of them, or it's worth growing the size of the ship to support more extenders. As with many things, you can largely avoid doing calculations if you're ok with getting approximate solutions.
Ok, these blow. I am not going to be nice after spending 115 on several copies for a game you removed the ability of kids to play. The ships now move like crap, I have a small ship that is a combat SV that now is not worth it. I checked out several servers and watching the lethargic fish float across the sky really saddens me. Looking at the size and the amounts I thought we were in the future, not the 1940s. The old system was not perfect but the CPU idea is going to cut your throats. Our office bought 20 copies to do "team-building" and how to "Adjust to change in a hostile environment", after this update they are going to remove the game. I just hope this is not the future of the game if it is might as well hang it up all the people I know who played stopped as of a few days after the CPU thing was brought out. Now the values you have are way to little. Realistically all tiers put together should equal 1 block when placed, We have in the game the ability to move items through telepathy, these need to be really small then now because we are well past the 40s. After really building a few ships keep the need for RCS the system now makes turning in a small SV totally crappy. need to lower the consumption if not need to readjust the CPU to: HV: 10.000 (T1), 48.000 (T2), 80.000 (T3), 300.000 (T4 SV: 15.000 (T1), 50.000 (T2), 100.000 (T3), 500.000 (T4) CV: 500.000 (T1), 1,500.000 (T2), 5.500.000 (T3), 30.000.000 (T4) BA: 120000 (T1), 700.000 (T2), 2500.000 (T3), 10.300.000 (T4)
Honestly, after this whole CPU debacle, I'm starting to believe in the possibility of meddlesome aliens who are mind controlling the dev team to play with our emotions and build up our hopes only to dash them to the ground, again and again.
Yeah, I remember some time ago that the Devs said they didn't want people staying on the first planet. Yet they seem to delight it making very difficult to leave said planet. Such as these supposed drops of the parts needed to make these CPU upgrades. It's exactly like I expected it would be, you don't get any. Sure you'll get your usual level one items, with some level two parts, I have exactly one small CPU part period. So it's working just like it's supposed to. They want to artificially slow down the game with, I was going to say grind, but it's not even grind, since you can't grind these parts. It's just tedium.
If specialized cores are added, then that effectively locks the available ship types. Hybrid designs would be largely unworkable, because either you'd have to pick one of the specialized cores to use, or go with a general core that lacks the bonuses of either specialization. I'd also argue that having ship function dictated by its core goes against Empyrion's general building principle that a structure derives its function from its design. Having some properties determined by the core and some determined by the design is a mess (just look at HVs and SVs); it just doesn't work well when one has the ability to build a ship literally any shape and configuration they want, and it will be a nightmare to balance as a result (especially if any of the specialized cores modify ship physics). The reason this sort of concept works in games like Elite or War Thunder is that all the vehicles in those games have fixed hulls with limited customization; there are a small number of slots that can fit a relatively restricted selection of extra gear. But, adding and subtracting gear doesn't fundamentally change the performance of one of those hulls, so most of its properties can be baked into the hull. Empyrion is very different in this regard, and can't take those shortcuts because the physics of a design can be altered at will via block placement. So, I'd argue that specialized cores are fundamentally incompatible with the way ships are built in Empyrion. I have no idea. All I know is what I observe: that each new feature is rolled out with little regard for the existing ones, and then frantic rounds of bugfixing and balancing ensue in an attempt to force the new feature to mesh better. To me, it feels like each feature was designed in isolation, which is why I say that it feels like there isn't a coherent model for how ships are supposed to work. I don't know for sure, but I can't see how any of this could be the product of a coherent plan.
I admit, I will be tempted. Major subsystems tend to interact -- sometimes well, sometimes poorly -- but typically with purpose. CPU is becoming a major subsystem. This means all future development of the game will expect it and take it into account. Turning off this system will be OK for now, but there is likely going to be cascade effects on the game both through things the devs feel restricted from building because CPU limits must be expected and things the devs build because CPU restrictions are expected. I'll turn it off for now, but if I need to turn off too many systems to have fun, it means I'm not in the demographic the game is aiming for. In that case, it behooves me to find a game where I am a demographic fit and will have fun.
Fixed classes is a terrible idea. What ever happened to the mobility/defense/offense triangle? Just use sane numbers for mass, fuel and energy consumption and you get rid of 99% of problems without need for special blocks, band-aids or arbitrary mechanics.
Say what? When, and why? Perhaps if it was a desert planet but I love making a base in the forests of the temperate one.
I understand losing interest & maybe not wanting to play. The problem here is that I was looking at commentary from someone who immediately tried to invoke 20 other people, then provided a list of complaints & demands that definitely was not filtered through 20 other people. That's either a liar or the world's worst boss.
& this is part of what makes Empyrion Building fun for me... surely I can't be alone in this. I heavily resent the thought of Cores Bossing ME around in what I can & cannot do... I'M supposed to be the Builder here, not the damn Core that is supposed to answer to my Creative Whims & Inanity *Cough* I mean Genius!
Right! Special cores are way more limiting than a CPU system that you can turn off. Well to be fair: the system is to complex, to squeeze everything in such simple formula. The problem is that linear building. If you need to increase a value you just add more blocks that do that. Energy is not a limiting factor as nothing stops you to decent on a planet, cut down every tree to make biofuel and mine every deposit for fuelcells and store it in your million tanks, having energy for years to come. Also if you add a linear progression (i.e. thrusters and RCS) it will work good for bigger builds.... but way to good for smaller builds making CVs way more nimble as small SVs. The triangle method has to apply for different devices differently. In the suggestion thread i made a proposal for all hover engines to work like ground repulsor units, with the bigger ones having to kind of engines. The same could be done to Thrusters. If only force output isn't applied un a linear way. Say every size has two versions: high performance and heavy duty. High performance has the rules applied to it => high acceleration, low towing capacity (means moving mass). Heavy duty has the rules applied to it => 10 x slower acceleration as the same size High performance engine, but can move 10 x the mass. That is nothing like real physics for thrusters, but a intuitive system every body knows: if you want to go fast take a sportscar, if you want to move cargo take a rig. Nobody expects a rig to accelerate like a sportscar. And it can not. In normal engines, transmissions and other mechanics rule what a engine is capable of. For a balanced feel in a game, it needs game mechanic. You could have propusion engines of all kind and sizes ind variants: high performance, normal, heavy duty. And then apply the rules accordingly. If you want you put energy consumption to it: high, normal, eco mode. And voila, you have people picking propulsion according to the vessel they want to build. You could still place high performance engines to a mother of all cargo ships. But to move it you would need (example up there) 10 times more engines to move the same weight, but use (lets say) 20 times the energy, making more weight, space and materials necessary for addition generators and fuel storage. You could even mix and match, but if you put HP engines together with HD engines, you could as well just put normal engines on with the same penalty of acceleration and weight lifting capacity.
As long as you can plop down 15 solar panel + solar cap + 90/whatever growplots all growing fiber being processed for free by survival constructors to biofuel, energy will never truly be an issue.
One way to look at it is, that they don't play, and have never really played computer games, especially Empyrion. This would be the reason everything they put out needs to be adjusted for in game play. It also would explain why they put out an obviously unworkable update, and ask for feedback. They don't have clue how the system actually works in a game setting, and have to rely on "feedback" to find out how an update actually works. They don't know how to play their own game.
Maybe I missed this answered somewhere in the thread -- I read the first 5 pages, and the last page, but didn't really see an answer: What gameplay problem is the CPU system trying to solve? Phrased another way, "This game doesn't quite work, because ______. We can solve that problem by limiting the number of parts you can add via a build limit stat called CPU." I have the gist that "specialization" is sort of the answer? Like having ships and bases with too much stuff means you only need one big ship, instead of a fleet of different ships? And the game doesn't work as well if you just build one uber-ship of each type (HV, SV, CV, BA)? Is that the idea? If so, what is the problem with one big one of each type?
If you can get anyone from Eleon to answer that, my hat's off to you. I've been trying and failing to get a straight answer on that since the beginning.
