the problem with CPU is that it was built backwards. It started at a name, then a set of mechanics, then a design concept, which is kind of the opposite of how you're supposed to go about things. To put it another way, CPU is in the game because someone on the dev team wanted a CPU system. That's why most of the answers to questions sound more like PR talking points than anything else. It's also why none of us are confident in describing what CPU actually does. The fundamental flaw with top-down systems isn't any of that, though. It's that people (especially people in charge) look at a broken system & try to fix it around the edges. It's akin to looking at a crumbling support column & fixing it up with some super glue. CPU needs a rework that starts with a planning meeting & someone getting over the sunk-cost fallacy real quick, followed by a concept that can be explained to players without using a mandate.
Which is part of the reason I keep being suspicious of the existence of a "Celestial Void Soup"... That Vid looks persuasive... gets me wondering about those 'oafs' that can't get up in Full Plate... gets one wondering... are they 'turtle backed' cause the Armor was made crappy... or cause the 'Oafs' have been caught in the act of bein lazy wusses...? Seconded & agreed... it's more Ham Fisted then the Pokémon, Emboar... equipped with the Iron Fist ability... Not to mention proof of F- in Science... though to be fair, i'm no Bill Nye or Michio Cochran... No matter how hard i've tried, i've found it completely impossible to tactically justify NOT hugging the Extenders right up against the Core & protecting them all with the same Armor Layer & if any of them is lost might as well consider it all lost... the extra weight & power draw from 'backup T2 & T3 Extenders' is unjustifiable compared to having the Core & T4 Extenders hugging each other for dear life trying to pretend to be a pseudo-single Device... & i've found it tactically impossible to justify having the Extenders farther away from the 'Core Central Protection' where it'll be less work to find & defeat them & have the Creation for all intents close enough to as defeated as if the Core had been downed... i've firmly labeled in my head now having the Extenders away from the Core Protection easier to defeat as Team Rocket level stupid*... Spoiler: *Team Rocket level stupid Kinda reminds me of that episode of Star Trek: Deep Space 9 where Chief O'Brien gets into an argument with that Cardassian Engineer over the part of the Station's Systems where Starfleet Strategy opts for 4 smaller weaker thingies for heavy redundancy but it's never as powerful... whereas the Station originally used its Cardassian Tech of a single stronger thingie that had NO Backup... except this is worse. The current CPU Implementation has the less power of the Starfleet Redundancy with the Redundancy part of the Redundancy not even working right at being Redundant Security... *Facepalm* & highlights why it's a bad idea to let Civilians design Military things... Or a desperate measure along the lines of "A Wizard did it!"...
Excellent point @casta_03 "Necessity is the mother of Invention" Define the Need. Define the Limits. Clarify the Goal. Perform Sanity Check. Assess Assets. Then Begin.
Thanks @zztong it finally clicked that, rationally, CPU should/could mimic things like Beowulf Cluster or the ZFS filesystem where the framework is simply a high tech expression of a, 'can't we all just get along?' system. And changing the device/block level implementation of CPU to something along these lines solves a number of serious issues, as well as opens up more flexibility for both beginner & veteran builders and players. Plus it would be in line with the new Any-to-Any Docking that has apparently been broadly & enthusiastically embraced. Freedom.
Ok, so I watched and... CPU is bad because your max of every weapon ship doesn't work perfectly with decreased CPU capacity, as intended? Hmmm... Now, I'll admit, I've built my own CV "Citidel Class" craft, which are right about the size of Long Island, exceed the size limitations of pretty much everything except the most lenient custom servers, and blow CPU beyond any capacity. They take more resources to build than 5 players can carry to a factory at one time, and take days to complete. I built them because I could. Because I'd done everything there was to do, except build a city-sized CV you can't walk from one end of to the other without carrying rations. There's really NO need for these, and I've never released them into the wild. I'm perfectly OK with CPU as a "limiting" factor, because it doesn't stifle my creativity, it challenges it. It makes me think more, design more, and find ways to make things work. I'm having fun with it. I get where it might feel too restrictive for builders who have to have 4 of everything, plus as many of each kind of weapon they can strap to a ship, but really, if you adapt, you'll find you're making much better builds and having more fun than you were, and like me, you'll look back and go "Yeah, I remember doing that, it was silly, this is so much better."
My ship does have only weapons, is a pvp ship. No drills, no medic stations, no cargo, no constructor even no shield. So its a specialized ship within the 10.000.000 cpu limits. Probably only who plays pvp will understand what i am trying to say. In pve you wont lose an extender. In the guide in the first page they say that having t3 extenders has the purpose to have a fallback. But what kind of fallback doesnt make your ship move?
ive voted for the do not see why we need cpu. as a player looking into playing a little more in multiplayer pvp this cpu system sucks i had high hopes for it and was testing new builds and things for having fun (irrespective of the loot drop frequency or cost) watching paxxos video proves that it hasnt been thaught out very well for multiplayer at all. lose one cpu block and the ship is rendered useless. no degradation or limited movement or even a reduced fire rate.... it just stops dead rendering the ship completely useless. i can see the fun of it in single player but theres no balance from sp to mp... i can see god knows how many servers turning this "feature" off because it simply does not work properly. its a game breaker for me and its a shame to see it going in this direction. hopefully u guys see that it needs a lot more work and balancing
He's pointing of a flaw in the system and you rant about...well i'm not quite sure but you're not all there. Show me one build anywhere supports your, let's call it a theory. Much better builds my arse.
I'm not a huge fan of cpu. That said if it stays I think we should get rid of the extenders, and instead upgrade the core itself. Like the shield generators. Then there could be more levels also for better customization. I really think more core types would simplify and improve the game a lot. And give server owners a few cores that they can fully customize. Like for special garage ships. Ability to specify weapon limits and such also would be amazing! We should be able to craft Tyne cores also so you can have an extra if yours is destroyed.
"The primary goal of adding CPU points is to add a way to allow some basic specialization and an additional way to balance vessels in regards of Thrust, RCS, weaponry and other performance parameters." i am just not seeing how this differs from giving the server admins control over the configuration file with custom limits/restrictions for specific block types and size classes. this game already has too many variables to keep up with. i would very much like to enjoy it again but it's get harder to bring myself to play each time
Purpose-built, specific, focused, does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it quite well, for less than 7k CPU. Two mining drills, lawn-mower, constructor, first aid unit, and a tool turret, container controllers and extensions plus a fridge to keep beer cold. Purpose: Gather resources, conduct base repairs or disassemble structures. But hey, I'm not the one who came in here to talk about me. I'm just supporting the CPU system. I didn't say it was flawless. Do a search, you'll find I've made some recommendations on how it could be improved considerably. Now do try to keep it civil here.
not sure how this proves your point, 2 of those tasks are done by a single turret you could throw on any hv, and it most likely isnt very at harvesting or mining due to only having 1 harvester and 2 drills so its a tiny mediocre ship that cant even defend itself and its already t2
Let's not forget this gem: CPU is not mandatory for Solo players or Server Operators. If it bothers you, turn it off.
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. The engine has a lot of things to calculate. I don't see how adding more variables to the equation helps to improve performance. Wouldn't checking values against a static configuration file be faster than dynamic values of an unknown element?
Why would it need to defend itself when it has me as a pilot? It's also not built to be a combat vehicle. Been there, done that. Built the HV's bigger than the building in the background with 6 harvesters across the front, 8 drills, 2 artillery turrets, 4 plasma turrets, 4 pulse laser turrets, shields, 3 layers of armor... and it got really boring, really fast. Sure, I could simply run over the heaviest Zirax encampments, shoot down patrol ships and disassemble them while refining 99 stacks of 999 pentaxid right into the pentaxid tank. I don't consider zero challenge any fun. Might as well challenge a quadrapleigic to a foot race.
By removing the variables for things like having 99 turrets tracking one target, or multiple targets at the same time, just as an example. Which do you think is more process-intensive?
I think adding more values for the game engine to check against is more process-intensive. Regardless of what that metric may be. The game requires a lot of power and keeps wanting more with each new feature added.
