the key defense word im hearing from the pro cpu side is "specialization." the cpu may have been intended this way but it turns out to be a limitation instead. if u want to force the idea of making specific classes of ships, this is not the way to implement that idea. there is a feature in the game already that limits the block types and amounts. perhaps the "specialization" system could be more of a "if this then that" or "if this then not that" method. whereas specific blocks have a placement limit when other block types are used at the same time. ie weapon limits lowers when u add a construction device making the ship no longer a "fighter" class. or adding weapons reduces the amount of construction devices allowed. the HWS garage already has this type of specialization. granted each ship requires submission and review. bottom line is the cpu system is clearly NOT doing what is was claimed to do. it has however successfully started several heated arguments going in many unconstructive directions that are mainly wasting everyone's time and needlessly raising blood pressures. but what do i know, maybe that was the actual intent all along to aggravate us enough to just quit all together...
Probably not, but that's OK. The reason you never saw it is because it was never advertised. Simple edit to keep servers from listing. If a11 reaches a stable-enough state, I'll bring a couple servers back up. I shut down mid a10 due to changes that were causing me some administrative headaches and opted to just wait until the next release. I did the same mid a9 - shut down and waited for a10 for the same reasons. So no ammo container controllers? No container extensions? Not going to fare very well in PvP. Even a single minigun drone will take it down. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you're clearly mistaken about what's in that ship, and it has these as well. Probably to the tune of 10k storage capacity, or enough for a sustained hour of non-stop pew-pew. Generators, I'll guess - 12? 14? All XL sized? Max loading of 10% at full thrust with weapons firing? Fuel, guessing it takes 2-3 Pentaxid asteroids to fill, or 30 water generators and a dedicate base of 24 Advanced Constructors to top off the tanks. Probably 16 or 18 large tanks. I think what you're looking for are "Combat HV/SV/CV Starter Blocks" or "Mining HV/CV Starter Blocks", that simply prohibit the installation of non-related blocks. This is the sort of "specializing" it sounds like you're wanting, and we're not to that point yet. We still have just generic starter blocks that allow for relatively unrestricted installations. No, you can't put Hover Pads on an SV. You can't put a Furnace on a CV. You want "You can only install Weapons on this type of vehicle", and you don't get that in starter blocks. Perhaps Extensions that are role-specific would suit both of you better. "Weapon CPU Exenstions" that only provide CPU for Weapons. "Power CPU Extensions" that provide CPU only for Generators and Fuel Tanks, and the like. We're not there yet. You guys are trying to run, jump and back-flip, while Eleon and the rest of us are learning "Stand Up on Two Feet". If it helps, I hereby declare the two of you the Undisputed Winners of the Game, from this time until the end of time itself. The Eleon crew may decide to go a more Dedicated Specialization route. They may opt to keep things more general. Or they may take a more middle-ground approach, and give a bit of both. Maybe they'll establish tighter limits on blocks, and cap things like Generators and Fuel tanks for force even more thought to go into ship designs. Imagine if you were limited to 2 generators and 2 fuel tanks. The 96-turret Death Machine would become a thing of the past. They could even further restrict designs to no more than 1 layer of blocks on top of a layer of blocks, preventing armor more than 2 layers thick - they what would you do? Personally, I'm of the opinion that, if this is all it takes to get some elements out of the community, the community will benefit from it.
i feel you are way off in assuming what either of us actually want. i cannot speak for pax and prefer not to. i am not looking for specialization at all. i would like first and foremost stability more than anything. my point is i do not see how adding more to the game is going to help optimization in any way. no matter how you look at it, adding more does not make it faster or better. there are several other reasons giving this game a complete overhaul with every patch is a horrible idea. too many to list and have each one torn apart in an attempt to discredit an entire conversation. the game is hemorrhaging it's lifebood, the players. i am sorry ahead of time but constantly hiding behind the bullsht line of "the game is alpha" is in no way a valid point here anymore. we have all paid for this experience. most of us were referred by another. not too many will look at the reviews and say "wow there's a ton of negative reviews by long term players. i want to give it a go" there was a time that testers were paid to test and find bugs. the gaming industry has found a piss poor loophole by being able to charge for an incomplete product and hide behind terms and conditions. i have seen too many software developers have the mindset of take their money and run. it just seems more and more this one is not very different this game is complicated enough for new players to attempt and it seems to be getting worse under the guise of "making it more realistic." real life is realistic enough. i personally play to escape that reality. the more games remind me of the drama and nonsense of the real world, the less appealing they tend to be.
Umm... is this a bad time for me to mention that Manual Fire Weapons (Harvesters included) not pointing in the Vehicles's forward can't work right or fire...? (Would be cool if this could change someday... Homers pointed sideways intended to fire sideways then turn towards what was locked onto could be an interesting Creation Idea...)
Mass and volume had the excuse of realism. CPU is a purely gamist element. There is no emulation of realism in it. What's really weird is it's a newly introduced gamist element with no real articulated purpose. "Enforce specialisation" in a game with block limits, size classes, and interlocking mass/volume/power/thrust constraints? Umm, the specialisation tools already exist. Extenders that costs lots of power and can't be turned off? How does that power draw help enforce specialisation? It enforces being quick on missions. It enforces building larger farms of fiber for biofuel. Every building block costs CPU based on hit points in addition to a surcharge for devices? How does that enforce specialisation? It enforces being fragile. Now being forced to be quick and deal with fragility can be fun in some types of games. Typically games with fast build-up and high-turnover. Less so in long term building games.
Block limits the size/mass of a ship which helps encourage specialization because smaller ships compered to bigger ships; have their own unique natural roles given to them by nature; which in its very basic form is "smaller ships" have less armor so are weaker in defense, "bigger ships" have more armor so are stronger in defense, theres so much more i can say in the deference of strengths and weaknesses between these two but you get the idea. CPU = Central Processing Unit only measures how effective and to what degree of capacity; command A gets to point B. If command A can't get to point B because one of the tier 4 extenders is shot off the whole ship doesn't move which is flawed by its own nature. So CPU is artificial in nature has no foundation, and doesn't have a logical and solid foundation like mass/weight as its roots. CPU, simply put is a conjured up system of values made out of thin-air. Its like throwing numbers up at the sky and hoping that it can stand on its own two feet. So not only is block limits proven to work like on one of the most popular servers in all Empyrion which is HWS, but block limits are more flexible and can be changed and modified much easier for server owners then changing every single cpu block that exists on Empyrion. I have multiple great looking pvp 3k block sv's that or not limiting me not only from pvping but building nice looking ships. I have tons more pvp sv ships that are not my own but are so beautiful and can kick ass in hardcore pvp battles. Here is a link to a more in depth look at using block limits + Weight and mass to determine the class type of Light medium or heavy. https://empyriononline.com/threads/...lly-solid-foundation-of-specialization.91536/
A comparable but different effective limit would be making power plants heavy, thrusters weaker, and torque/acceleration based upon thrust / mass. Every power unit would matter and extra devices become contra-indicated. In other words, effectively use one of the realistic constraints already added to the game engine. But that wouldn't require hours/days of raiding or grinding to acquire the right to build something bigger, wouldn't enforce fragility, and wouldn't shorten players' time in the field. It would simply make the players work with more tightly constructed ships, you know, specialise.
Ok i still think who the new fly system and cpu doesn`t work very well toghter....but i have try cpu and weight system on the vanilla server and i have find both of them very funny. So i had change my vote and i leave this topic all for you guys. Peace and love
Here's why I take issue with the "basic specialization" line we've been fed for the past month: it's bullshit. Spoiler: Level 25 CV Spoiler: Level 15 CV, first run Spoiler: Level 5 HV Spoiler: Level 7 HV Spoiler: Level 12 HV Spoiler: Level 15 SV I would've uploaded more, but I got bored. For CVs, thrusters represent the majority of CPU usage. If your thrusters aren't using up more CPU than everything else you install, combined, you're making something weird. For CVs, the only specialization is mobility. The only time you need to make a choice between systems is when you're so limited in construction that you can't just take out some thrusters to compensate (i.e. level 7). Starting at any construction of level 10 or higher, CPU is a thruster limiter & nothing more. Also, I'd never build anything approaching that T4 cap. For early HVs, the only specialization is mobility vs a constructor vs an extra gun. Mobility usually wins out & devices for that represent the plurality of CPU usage, if not the majority. Moving up through higher tiers, the only time you see a real deviation from that is when you reach a point where CPU doesn't limit your build nearly as much & therefore doesn't promote specialization. I'm not saying it did that in the first place, but at higher tiers it's basically doing nothing, so it couldn't possibly be doing what it says on the tin. SVs are much like CVs - CPU limits mobility. The only time you don't have thrusters using up most of your CPU is when you've installed a shield or more guns than you'll ever use. There is no specialization, simply "how much mobility are you willing to sacrifice for that radio?" The point where mobility is no longer constrained by CPU is the point where CPU becomes meaningless. There is no space in between where you can pretend there's specialization. Which brings me to bases. I didn't link a base, but there's something special about them: they don't have mobility. This means that, once you get past the "specialization = speed" mindset of CPU, you can see what's left- what counts as specialization if you can find some way to discount everything I've said up to this point. So, what's the most CPU-intensive part of a base? Whether you build it with regular or reinforced concrete. What the walls are made of has a greater impact on your CPU than any other single choice you make. The armored layers on our base are using up all the computers' processing power! I'm going to say it here again: the mechanics of CPU cause my computer to overheat when I try to build things, especially larger things (like T4 CVs), whether or not I have it switched on. The only meaningful choice introduced to the game by the CPU system is 'mobility vs anything else'. When you remove mobility as a factor, the inert blocks on the walls have more impact than any other choice you make. There's your 'basic specialization'- speed vs gadgets. When that choice no longer matters, you are no longer being "encouraged" into "basic specialization" because the CPU tier is no longer preventing you from installing all the devices you want. At that point, CPU does nothing more than limit upper reaches of size which, last I checked, was supposed to be handled by other mechanics. CPU is a waste of resources. It is pointless & poorly executed. It doesn't know what it's trying to do, & anytime players try to ask about it, they're given the same canned response. The only redeeming quality I've heard about CPU is "it could be worse". I've heard other good things, but those largely turned out to be people complimenting other aspects of the game while thinking it was CPU. If the choice is between what's in the game right now & nothing, then CPU needs to not exist. The only thing it does well is gate off higher level constructions. This is also a quality that was never mentioned by one of the devs, so either it's an accident or the devs have been lying about CPU all along.
In addition to not having mobility as a trade off mechanism, CPU for bases also suffers from the obvious solution of breaking a larger base into smaller pieces. My last design had the exterior wall being a single base (since it had no power or devices attached, efficiency reduction was meaningless) and smaller individually solar-powered stations supporting the defensive weaponry (flat solar panels surrounded in concrete with turrets on top) and solar-powered farm and workplaces inside. All the base blocks are clustered underground near the centre of the group out of range of hacking. Everything was tier-1 and gained the benefit of more solar collection than any single base is normally allowed. The only annoying downside is having to cycle through all the ammo containers and make sure they remain supplied.
I very strongly disagree with this. If the devs did this, the game would still be in Alpha 5. I'm not joking. I'm serious. Not exaggerating at all, as every single major game update has had a lot of drama. Game development would freeze.
No, I know they don't - it's more about the look than anything else. And yes, I agree, it would be outstanding if they did. Broadside cannon volleys, Surprise! Missiles from behind when being pursued, ground-pounding belly-mounted bombards... all would be very cool indeed.
"could be worse" "how?" 'Young Frankenstein' (for @casta_03 ) If we take a couple big steps back I think there's one thing we could all agree on; it's gonna be tough to adjust something like CPU so it works well for all game types & playstyles. Assuming all the CPU parameters remain the same across the board (which they will if history is a reliable guide). And with CPU being so intertwined with Mobility as Casta just clarified, the other new bits are really wagging the dog. I'm all for the new docking, it's awesome! Once cleaned up a bit the new thrusters having turning torque could be great. The new acceleration dependent top speed bit I actively despise & is the most likely thing that would chase me away from EGS if left as is. And reading others comments on it leads me to believe that I'm not alone in this. Consider the follow on if the acceleration limited top speed bit went away. Ships could have much less thrust, meaning smaller or fewer thrusters, so percentage wise CPU 'use' could drop significantly. Leading to more 'roomy' CPU points. What will the devs do then? Is there an effect that the current CPU values are accomplishing that the devs desire? If so will they give up on that and leave CPU costs and tier allowances alone? Or will they increase CPU costs of thrusters? Or lower CPU tier allowance? It seems really clear to me that acceleration limited top speed has to go. But I don't decide that. If it does go then CPU either becomes even less 'useful'; have less impact, or some part/s of CPU have to be non-trivially changed. Possibly leading to many ships that have just been rebuilt needing another makeover. For every proposed purpose/reason for the CPU mechanic there's been at least one counter proposal proffered that has made more sense to me. Maybe they would've been better, maybe not. Could be they weren't something Eleon can code, no idea. I want EGS to thrive. I'd dearly love a deeper building system with more compromises and trade offs. Something like the classic Stones song; "You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need". In the end 10.6 was too ambitious imo. Like an ok cook taking on making Thanksgiving dinner for everyone, then deciding that, even though they've never scratch made pumpkin pie or baked a whole turkey before, they'll do both themselves, for the first time, for thanksgiving.
So the values aren't quite there yet. That doesn't invalidate the first iteration of a system. Instead of just going" it's bullshit", how about really taking a look at the numbers and going "These things are rated too high: [whatever you feel is rated too high]" or "These things are rated too low: [Whatever you feel is too low]." and actually make a positive contribution to this ALPHA. I do agree, CPU for unpowered blocks of wood, cement, or metal doesn't make sense. They're inert blocks that do nothing on their own. They require no power, thus no computational power. Makes almost a much sense as assessing a CPU value for the ground your base sits on. I'm a little curios about your level 15 build with 2 warp tanks. Thought those had a limit of 1. Little modification in there? Weapon turrets, on the other hand, a likely rated a bit too low, since they're autonomous, computer-targeted devices. These could use a bit more CPU rating to balance them a bit more. Whereas player-targeted "dumb-fire" weapons should require a little less, as less computational power needs to go into them. A decorative potted plant - 0 CPU. It's a potted plant. A display console? Maybe 5% increase, despite it not actually doing anything, simply because it has a display. A mechanical drill should require a lot less CPU than a laser drill. See, that's being constructive, not complaining for the sake of complaining. --- off topic removed as requested.
I can, at the very least, respect this, even if I disagree with most of it. I will say this is the single longest-running Early Release Alpha title I've seen. As for "take your money and run", I could list more titles than a single thread allows, and this one hasn't shown any of those signs. I see a lot of hard work being done by what appears to be a very small team, and they've done a much better job than I suspect half the noise-makers around here could, with unlimited budgets. I don't happen to have much in the line of performance issues here either. Maybe I just happen to have more than enough PC for whatever they're throwing at us, or I don't keep an eagle-eye on my frame rates, because the human eye can't actually see more than 60 fps. What I do know is that things are progressing in steps, building on what's already here. CPU has been around for a very long time. So they've started using it. Maybe this first effort is need of refining - that's normal and going to happen. It's vastly more important to provide useful, constructive feedback than "my grandmother can design better" vitriol. You want things to improve? Then show it. As for reviews - I place pretty much no value on them, and seldom look at more than 2 or 3 at most, and only if I'm uncertain if I'd actually like a particular title. I make up my own mind. I don't need or want the opinions of the internet herd.
I've been constructive. I've offered more constructive criticism on CPU than anyone on the forums. I've put out enough review & critiquing to fill an academic paper. https://empyriononline.com/threads/cpu-review.91028/ From different angles https://empyriononline.com/threads/cpu-feedback.90992/ Regarding different builds https://empyriononline.com/threads/svs-cpu-at-a-glance.91057/ I even did the exact thing you just suggested I do https://empyriononline.com/threads/cpu-overhaul-in-d-minor.91008/ Do you know how the devs responded? They increased the CPU cost of windows & cranked up the thresholds for higher CPU tiers. I've been paying attention, I've been testing this mechanic out since it was released on the experimental branch. If the changes since have had anything to do with my feedback, then it was a lazy response. The more I talk about it, the more I reach the same conclusion- it's flawed from its foundation https://empyriononline.com/threads/...rs-how-does-it-work.90876/page-49#post-377778 It can't be fixed around the edges https://empyriononline.com/threads/...rs-how-does-it-work.90876/page-41#post-376466 The problem with CPU comes from its origin- it wasn't actually designed to 'fix' anything. It's in the game because some devs wanted a CPU system. The explanation came after it was built. At this point, making the system work the way it's advertised requires scrapping it & coming up with something new. I could come up with a better system, but the dev response I've seen to the time I've put in so far has made me realize that it would be a wasted effort. Case in point: The double listing of pentaxid tanks is from a bug that was fixed about two or three weeks ago. I've been testing out, reviewing, & critiquing CPU since it was available for player testing & much longer than you've been looking at it. I'm past the 'benefit of the doubt' stage.
Wow... that sounds horrible... I have a very, very different approach: 1. Scout the POI with a fast SV equipped with homing missiles. 2. Pick off defenses on the side I want to enter. 3. Blow the door/window/wall open where I plan to enter. 4. Neutralize any ground forces in the area. 5. Send drone through breach to scout enemy positions/lure them away from breach. 6. Enter on foot. 7. Shotgun enemies to death, take out any visible spawners. 8. Sweep and clear each floot. 9. Neutralize Core. 10. Loot base. 11. Return to SV, dump loot at "home." 12. Buff scratches out of SV paint. Most of the time I don't bother demolishing buildings - I have never needed to build a vessel with, at most, 1.25 layers of armor - that's the outer hull block, and at most, thin blocks of Combat Steel over critical areas. The AI just isn't that tough. Yeah, if you run blindly into a mess of alien plasma cannons, it's going to suck for you. That's why I scout in a high-speed SV. I can soak a hit or two, and evade the rest. Now, every so often, I go a very different route... 1. Approach on foot, until first sign of resistance. 2. Drill underground. 3. Tunnel all the way to enemy base. 4. Breach base from below. 5. Sweep and clear base until core located* 6. Neutralize Core. 7. Continue sweep and clear, looting as I go. *A few enemy POI's are built with their cores on the lowest levels. A single well-placed explosive charge will shut down the whole thing while breaching. Declare in a deep voice: "Flawless Victory." and proceed with Sweep and Clear.
So here is the other problem with CPU in its core “it was done in the opposite way” because when it comes to upgrading CPU tiers you don’t need these kinds of extensions for a tiny CPU chip thats supposed to fit inside your computer. What you need is an upgrade or a new computer. I mean look at the ridicules size of these extensions; their not supposed to be the size of a computer let alone twice its size. Remember that the CPU itself is a core component of what makes a computer, but it isn’t the computer itself — it’s just the brains of the operation. So the core is the computer in Empyrion and obviously the little CPU chip "the brains should logically be much much smaller then the body. https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/what-is-a-cpu/ So the Developers did it backwards “they made the brains bigger then the whole body” which logically makes no sense. Its like making the leafs of a tree much heaver and bigger then the roots of the tree, and something built in such a backward way would destroy itself from such a backward and weak foundation. Sense the core is the computer all you need to do is upgrade the computer itself and not add a more useless and unnecessary clutter of blocks because the tiny cpu chip is already inside. So just upgrade to a stronger and more advanced computer which naturally has a more powerful cpu. Thats the size of a cpu chip guys and thats the brains of a computer and what goes inside.
CPU Allocated Points need a rework ... The current values are HV: 5.000 (T1), 12.000 (T2), 30.000 (T3), 70.000 (T4) SV: 6.000 (T1), 15.000 (T2), 40.000 (T3), 100.000 (T4) CV: 200.000 (T1), 500.000 (T2), 1.500.000 (T3), 10.000.000 (T4) BA: 80,000 (T1), 200.000 (T2), 500.000 (T3), 1.300.000 (T4) My suggested reworked values are HV: 7,500 (T1), 15.000 (T2), 30.000 (T3), 75.000 (T4) SV: 9.000 (T1), 22.500 (T2), 75.000 (T3), 150.000 (T4) CV: 200.000 (T1), 500.000 (T2), 1.500.000 (T3), 10.000.000 (T4) BA: 250.000 (T1), 600.000 (T2), 2.400.000 (T3), 18.000.000 (T4) I have thought of a rework of allocation of the parts, but this makes it easier to just raise the limits without reworking part by part. Bases just seem to not get any love ... Under the current system, one might as well just build a CV as a base instead!
The problem is... they understand it or not? Probably tooked a lot of time of implementing this crap so they dont want trow it away. But sometimes you need to just dump away the trash and start again from zero. With this foundations you cannot do anything better. Dont say to me turn it off. Because the whole game doesnt work with cpu off. The flight system is a cpu tied mechanich and ships are uncontrollable now and so will be until cpu exist how is designed now.
