I just threw someone else out of a private conversation on this same subject because they refused to understand and kept foot-stomping to be right when they were completely wrong. To address your specific case here... you are assuming that this tuft of plant matter and pinch of stone are the sole ingredients used in the construction of these blocks. Since we're looking at carbon blocks, let's call them "Carbon Fiber" here, these are a bit more than just some jute rolled in black dust. There are rosins and bonding agents, supplied by the Constructor device that forms them into cubes. This is produced as part of the power consumption of your constructor, which (except for the portable constructor, more on that later) is supplied by the power-source for your base or ship, be it solar, biofuel, or promethium-based. For the sake of game-play we are spared the "every last detail" of the production process. Imagine how much more painful it would be if we had to account for every single chemical, every single speck of material - and provide them, for every single object we construct. The simple process of making a single block would become painfully tedious. The Portable Constructor has been an item of some heated contention between the Atomic Accountants and The People Who Play Games. The Atomic Accountants are unhappy because they can't explain how the Portable Constructor is powered, and have posted demands that it require Biofuel at a minimum to function. Of course, it requires a minimum of a powered portable constructor to produce biofuel, so there is a little bit of a problem here. On the other hand, The People Who Play Games are not phased by the inexhaustable power supply of this small, limited-capability device necessary to create the basic items required to create more complex items that do require a power source to consume all that biofuel they've produced. Personally, I believe the Portable Constructor contains some manner of nuclear battery, perhaps a high-capacity beta cell suitable for simple construction use, not suitable for the production of air and water, perhaps due to the radiation produced by the power source, or because Space Lawyers insisted these batteries are for use only in Portable Construction Units - ultimately it doesn't matter to me the why. It should suffice for the sake of this conversation, however, to assume no matter is simply being create nor destroyed, it is simply being rearranged and augmented by that other form of matter, the highly excited state of matter we call Energy, which comes from the producing device's power source.
Well, I strongly disagree with this statement. Unless the blocks are modified to weigh much less, or the requirements for carbon blocks are increased, this will never be possible. What matter is being drawn from the cosmos to make these blocks. I understand that the portable constructors are very efficient machines that require no external power. I understand they are capable of modifying the materials into various components. They are a huge advantage in this space faring age, making colonization and general survival much more achievable. But there are limits to such devices, they still must obey the law.
You can disagree, but that doesn't make you correct. Matter and Energy are, at their most fundamental level, the same things. Energy is simply particles in motion. Case in point: electricity. What is Electricity? It is the flow of Electrons though a conductive material. What are Electrons? One of the fundamental sub-atomic particles that make up atoms, which themselves comprise all matter. The electron itself is matter, though with a mass so small it is essentially negligible (equal to Planck's Constant). There are also larger, heavier (more massive) subatomic bits that comprise all atoms - Protons and Neutrons, and it is the sum of the number of protons and neutrons that give every element its atomic weight, and are responsible for the mass of all matter. Both of these can also be harnessed for energy. Consider the Neutron Bomb - a fissile weapon that relies on the release of a massive burst of neutrons to cause tremendous damage (heat and shock are actually secondary effects). Since we do not have an exact breakdown of how our Constructors actually Construct, we have to theorize here. My theory is that they work much like a 3d printer, but at the molecular level - molecules or resource materials are rearranged into finished products. Additional particles of matter, spare neutrons, extra protons, random free electrons, whatever might be needed, are provided by the power source of the constructor, since, as I've indicated, Energy is a different state of matter. Other, more exotic particles could likewise be generated by breaking down atomic particles to their sub-atomic particles, the Quarks, which are the building blocks of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. So while I do not in any way discount things like the Law of Conservation, I do not see that is being violated, even though it may have the appearance of being so, simply because we do not have all the "facts" regarding the operation of these science-fiction devices.
Ok energy and matter is the same thing..... i had agree with almost you say before....but i believe with this sentence you are go to far. Eletricity is a energy.....or better the movement of eletron create a energy can be used. So the change or state of an object the way he change is configuration made that energy out. A stone at 1m above the ground have a energy who dont have instead a ground level. The thermodinamic law state who enery move from a state of high level to one of low level. Entrophic level is correlate to level of energy. So entrophic get bigger when energy is release. So energy and matter are not quite the same thing. And you cant create matter with energy you can just move it from a state of less comolexity to one of more complexity, lowering the system total energy and so increasing is entrophic level. ( if the system is close) or the outside if the system is open.
Q.E.D. You've proved my argument by restating exactly what I just said. Electricity is the movement of electrons. Which are what again? Particles, which are what? Matter. Thus Energy is matter in motion. Potential and Kinetic energy, yes. And according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, E=mc^2, that is E (Energy) is equal to m(Mass) multiplied by c(the speed of light in a vacuum) squared. Or, the amount of energy produced when matter is converted into energy, is equal to the mass of the matter, times the speed of light in a vacuum squared. This fundamental principle is seen in the detonation of a nuclear warhead, where the fissile core of the device (usually Plutonium) undergoes an uncontrolled fissile reaction, converting the mass of the core into uncontained energy (an atomic explosion). Or, in less destructive applications, this same principle is seen in nuclear reactors, where fuel rods (made of Uranium-235) undergo a fission reaction, releasing the energy of matter (the fuel rod) to produce useful heat. Coinciding with Newton's Law, that a body at rest remains at rest, until acted upon by an outside force and its opposite, that a body in motion remains in motion, until acted upon by an outside force. In this case, that outside force is the injection of a particle stream duality. Much in the same way that the Particle-Wave Duality of Light (photons, the particles that make up light) dictates that light behaves both like a particle and a wave, which it does, because, as stated, it is both a particle (the photon) and a wave (the photonic vibration that gives light its frequency, and this its visible coloration). Also again, demonstrating the dual nature of the Matter-Energy Relationsip. They are though, and your argument only supports this, Q.E.D., by restating the same things I've stated. It's also obvious that English is not your first language, so if you were trying to disprove me, somehow, by proving me with your own arguements, it wasn't phrased correctly. But I'll wager your English is better than my whatever your first language is.
Si always an honor to talk who some one who have solid preparation on matter ( ) . Unfortunatly mt lnowledge on phisic is not so deep as your so i have sadly to give you this manche.
Did you know that the average weight of a 12 inch diameter, 8 foot long oak log is 22 kg? Or that a 10cm^3 iron ingot has a mass of about 0.075 kg? Here's the thing: the devs have moved on and have plainly stated they are not likely to come back and revisit mechanics. This is seeming to include balancing issue. So I'm doing it. I'm currently working my way through the config.ecf to balance Mass/Volume/CPU/Thrust Edit: Ok, here is the prelim on mass (weight in parentheses at 9.8m/s) for Ingots, all ingots 0.25SU. Iron - 8kg (78.4kg) Copper - 9kg (88.2kg) Silicon - 2.5kg (24.5kg) Cobalt - 9kg (88.2kg) Neodymium - 7 kg (68.6kg) Sathium - 3kg (29.4kg) Zascosium - 11kg (107.8kg) Erestrum - 5kg (49kg) Gold - 20kg (196kg) Promethium - 28kg (274.4) [modeled after superheavy elements] Pellets - 2.5kg (24.5kg) Pentaxid - 1kg (9.8kg) [Modeled after real-life deuterium/lithium fusion crystal] Refined - 0.5kg (4.9kg) Elemental - 0.1kg (0.98kg) Magnesium Powder - 1.7kg (16.66kg) Logs - 22kg (215.6kg) [approximately just under 1/4 ton] Planks - 8kg (78.4kg)
I am pretty sure I never said that. What i have said is, that we will reiterate on that as soon as we will make m/v a default setting (with the option to switch it off again) as in the mean time we have to work on other stuff..and this is not a several dozen person team. But that’s what the configs are for of course! Would be nice if you share your custom config when you are done!
I'm doing this right now, and plan on sharing it. I just hope it's done and tested before Xmas, which was when i'd planned to be finished, but it might take longer. Though i'm not going to just change the mass of the ingots, i'm going all up and down the config, starting at the bottom of progression and working my way through the entire config, applying mass and volume as close to accurately as possible. Although it's not possible for accurate volume on many of the earlygame large blocks because there's no way to store or carry vital starting equipment (you wouldn't be able to fit a small HV or BA constructor in your inventory). There's also too many limitations on what can be done in the config. (e.g. can't change crop growth time or yield, ore drop rate from ore deposits or logs per tree)
I can't help you with the growth rate on crops or the drop rate for logs, but I can help you with the drop rate from ore deposits. That is in the config file. Right at the very top of the config example you can adjust the probability of the drop per voxel mined and also the drop range per voxel mined. I don't know how this impacts SSOR deposits or if it does at all, but it does affect voxel deposits. Code: { Block Id: 53, Name: SathiumResource Material: resourcemedium Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 79, Name: CopperResource Material: resourcesoft Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 80, Name: PromethiumResource Material: resourcesoft Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } Radiation: 3 } { Block Id: 81, Name: IronResource Material: resourcesoft Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 82, Name: SiliconResource Material: resourcesoft Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 83, Name: NeodymiumResource Material: resourcemedium Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 84, Name: MagnesiumResource Material: resourcemedium Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 85, Name: CobaltResource Material: resourcemedium Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 90, Name: ErestrumResource Material: resourcehard Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } Radiation: 5 } { Block Id: 91, Name: ZascosiumResource Material: resourcehard Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 95, Name: GoldResource Material: resourcemedium Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "1,3" Prob: 0.2 } } { Block Id: 114, Name: PentaxidResource Material: resourcehard Radiation: 0.2 Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "1,2" Prob: 0.2 } }
Pretty sure those are surface rock drop rates. e.g. 2-4 ore per item dropped, 20% chance of 2 items dropping.
Nope, it's 100% for voxel deposits and not for surface rocks. Here's some screenshots after changing it to 1.0 drop probability and setting the drop count in the hundreds. As you can see in the first screenshot surface rocks are unaffected. Second screenshot is mining 1 single voxel of an actual deposit. It dropped 2771 ore from one voxel when I set probability to 1.0 and drop count set at "200,400" . You can see it next to oxygen meter in second screenshot. I changed this, Code: { Block Id: 81, Name: IronResource Material: resourcesoft Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "2,4" Prob: 0.2 } } To this, Code: { Block Id: 81, Name: IronResource Material: resourcesoft Group: resource { Child DropOnDestroy Count: "200,400" Prob: 1.0 } } You'll have to experiment with the numbers to get the right balance for your adjustments, but it's 100% possible to change drops for deposits (voxel deposits only). I just tested with promethium and SSOR deposits, they are unaffected. It only applies to voxel deposits, guaranteed.
@Hummel-o-War Of course I will be sharing! And I do understand where your team is at right now. But, there is a major opportunity right now to do a first round balancing pass on these mechanics and it would be a serious mistake to miss that opportunity. These four mechanics play together in very complicated ways. Before moving on to build upon what they are doing now and having it crumble from weak foundations and misinformed expectations, balance them for a solid building point. They can always be rebalanced as the game progresses; development time lost trying to build from a shifting point can't be gained back. @Vermillion I'm looking at everything as a whole with a focus on gameplay, not real world values. They do, however, provide a great launching point! Right now I'm trying to fix the basic components, like oscillators. At 40 something kg for a couple gram item, it's nuts what it takes! Moving oscillators from neodymium to gold, cutting the weight and su, and increasing the output. Gonna have to adjust drop rates across the board as well.
So just some general experience feedback on the mass/volume system from the community server I run. We all started playing about a month ago and by a week into the game we had a massive base, multiple high end capital ships, more epic loot than we could find boxes for and zero challenge to face. By the end of the third week we only had two people logging in once and a while and it was just to put fuel in to keep the plants from dying. So I recently restarted the server with all the challenge settings on including V/M, CPU, slower player progression, higher spawns rates, depleting auto miners, etc. and almost everyone has returned and has reported having a much more enjoyable time even though they are starting over from scratch. My point is I read a lot of I want it easy and I want it now. I want to be able to haul 20 tons of gear the size of ship engines in my backpack at level 4. I want the 2 foot by 3 foot box on my hover bike to be able to hold a 20 foot tall power generator... no make it 4 of those. I think that is a valid desire depending on the game and the person's playstyle but it is not at all representative of everyone that plays this game. Some of us are thoroughly enjoying the challenge. The title of the game is Empyrion Galactic Survival. Survival means hard, it means challenge, it means overcoming problems like how to carry all the loot you got or how to increase capacity while balancing design, CPU, etc. The show Survivor wasn't about a bunch of people with 4x4 trucks and air conditioned hotel rooms, eating steaks and hanging out on the beach enjoying hobbies. They were 'surviving'. If Empyrion does decide to finally go the route that the usual very vocal group is suggesting fine. They should just change the name to Empyrion Galactic Vacation and be done with it. Some of us are here to think, the problem solve, to be challenged and survive. If this is not that game I suppose we can go back to Space Engineers. P.S. As a side note for all those thinking that some real physics method of calculating mass and volume for items is the magic bullet to this you might want to be prepared to only be able to haul one thing out a base at a time and being required to construct a forklift HV to place/move half the stuff in your base. I think that would be awesome but I don't think it is the fix some are thinking. P.S.S. Eleon, please make us have to use forklifts, that would be awesome!
@Shadex Demarr I'm not one to ask for real world weights on everything but, working with the numbers, it's amazing what real world mass does to the game. Ore is about twice as heavy across-the-board, ingots range wildly based on density of metal, and steel plates are a pain to move around. Higher end parts like oscillators have had their weights reduced considerably while loosing a good deal of efficiency in their production. Motors are at 35kg now and require things like flux coils. What many don't really talk about is that if we want to have a balanced system we have to look at the whole system, including thrust and CPU, as well as drop rates and production templates. So far, I've gotten many of the numbers to support a few basic goals: Higher tier materials require lower tier materials instead of just ingots. Weights should be intuitive, ie: motors weigh a hell of a lot more than electronics. Inefficiency in production, not weight, should the the primary draw-back of higher tier blocks. It is far more intuitive and proper that higher technologies weigh less. CPU should be intuitive and consistent, ie: blocks don't require CPU, RCS requires tons. CVs thrust should not completely out class SVs. Highest tier SV thrust out does medium CV thruster with a way better thrust-to-weight ratio. Containers are digital but, should hold only a reasonable amount of SU. SV containers hold at about a 1:64 ratio to CV containers. Parts should be gated by proper balancing, not arbitrary numbers. Ie: to keep early - mid game play challenging, wireless connectors should be CPU gated to T3 and up (still testing this one); versus Combat Steel weighing 4 times as much as Steel. So far, this holds well as a philosophy in balancing. Everyone looses, everyone gains; that's compromise. But, it's important to remember exactly what the vision is.
@Jieirn Agree, so much agree. I think systems will continue to benefit from tweaks as part of the development process. My only hope is that the changes inspire thought, and challenge and not just a broad spectrum easy mode because some people don't want to be bothered. I played Space Engineers for years because they really seemed to have an intent on design and construction but then never did anything with the game world. Here we have Empyrion that seems to have started from more of the game world and is now coming around to the depth of design and I am loving it. I am getting my cake and eating it too so yeah, I will always be on the side of complexity and problem solving. I hope they do all the things you listed. By the way love the insight into container storage, thinking of it as broken down matter stored in a buffer rather than physical items makes much more sense. I will return in kind. Blocks requiring CPU I feel must stem from their ability to benefit from shields. If we want shields to protect every block in our base then we have to accept a certain degree of electrical and signal transmission needing to be sent through them to facilitate the shield emitters. So just think of every CPU required block as having not only concrete and steel but circuitry as well. Without this we would need to go to a radius based shield system which could be an interesting direction as well.
Only if you're focusing on one type of oscillator, since they vary in size and mass from tiny parts in circuitboards all the way up to gyrotron oscillators used in high-energy capacitors and fusion reactors. The solution I used is to both cut the mass and volume of individual oscillators and increase the yield per recipe, while increasing the demand per block. Individual oscillators become smaller, but supply and demand don't outweigh one another. Motors are used in everything and requiring flux coils in motors will completely seize progression unless you completely displaced every material in flux coils' recipe. If you did, you cut off end-game components by making everything available from the beginning.
