1. RCS cost is too high. Granted, they are no longer mandatory on many designs, but it is contributing to making early game multi-role (mini base like) HV miners that people used to build at level 10 somewhat impractical if they want an HV that can actually be pitched easily to dig down/up. 2. Inert purely structural blocks MUST be zero cost with a caveat. The only excuse I can think of for them having a CPU cost is one you have shields where you could argue that it takes more CPU to manage the shield with more inert blocks. Fine - without a shield they should still be zero. 3. As cargo extensions are typically part of your shell, they also need to be able to be zero cost if they have no associate controller. This is to allow a large empty shell to be built, where you add the functional block later, so when you later add a controller to those disconnected extenders, it is at that time they could consumer CPU. 4. Powered off devices should consume zero or minimal CPU. I could accept the argument that they would still require some trace amount for their power on/off control. 5. Locking tier 3/4 behind non craftables is just a major frustration. There is nothing good or fun coming out of this. While I don't and will never pay PvP (I hate it - its always griefer central on any game these days, despite your best effort to prevent that), I can easily imagine this (like gold) will just end up being a game killer for other than the lucky few who get there first and lock everything down. The current way a lot of the CPU costs are done seems to just double account with the existing size classing system, so costing inert objects really seem superfluous. I find you need to look carefully at what people are trying to build when they hit level 10 (when a bunch of stuff opens up) and see what of those things are suddenly now in tier 3 and look long and hard at these to decide whether they should be in tier 3 or whether some cost adjustments are required to bring them back into tier 2. I think my suggestions above will solve this problem. I find building decent looking structures in this is for various reasons a lot more fiddly and far less attractive that building similar complexity in SE (Space Engineers) for various reasons to do with UI design and overall coloring and texturing complexity (Its great that we have this here, but it does tend to make us rely a lot more on blueprints because a decent looking build is just too fiddly to do in game for all but try-hards). There is no projection + automated build system in this (Think SE projectors with Nanite build and repair mod), so no mechanic for building part of a base (for eg) and then extending with additional blueprints later. The fiddly UI, some current lacking features etc are all combing to push me into want to build a large empty shell base from a blueprint as early as possible because I just don't want to do the main build in game and instead rely upon a blue print for at least the shell. The CPU tiering system with the cost of insert structural blocks and the cost of CPU extenders pretty much pushes all of my starter bases that I would start to collect resource for at level 10 when I get a miner HV into tier 3 before I even worry too much about adding functional blocks into them. The above suggested changes would mitigate this. Some other mitigations that are not directly related to CPU tiering, but contribute to the frustration of it: 1. Support a more progressive blueprint/upgrading system (where one blue print extends and upgrades an existing structure rather than only able to add a new stand alone structure). In the SE this would be projector + nanite build and repair. 2. Improve the build UI - I personally really dislike the current block rotate button assignment and find it really slow and fiddly to work with compared to the equivalent in SE where each axis has its own +/- rotate - having to select the axis first is just really fiddly and annoying. 3. There needs to be some kind of eye dropper tool for both texture and color - its another friction that tends to push us into relaying upon blueprints more than building in game. 4. When placing a block, there needs to be a simple single key press to pick up the texture and color of the block you are aiming at rather than opening a dialog, clicking controls etc. in SE its just SHIFT+P to get the texture and color. Apologies for bringing SE into this discussion. This isn't SE and I don't want it to be (that is a lag fest), but both games do share some very similar mechanics and some things are just far more streamlined and usable in SE. This isn't a simple game demanding just a simple UI, and in reality is part 3D design application and therefore the usability of related in game features needs to be considered far more deeply then is typical with many games. Us humans will generally take a path of least friction - its an essential consideration of UI design. Make something too fidlly and people wont engage or will find another way even if that raises a bunch of different and apparently unrelated issues so I dont think we can just look at CPU tiers in isolation. I havn't been playing this for ages like many of you. Maybe this makes me unqualified to comment in your view. OTOH maybe this makes me very qualified to comment because I have not got used to what I see as inferior ways of doing some things and so those issues stick out like a sore thumb to me.
I suspect a big part of the high cost for RCS to be two-fold. 1. To cut down on the (mis)use of RCS as turret decoys. 2. To reduce reliance on RCS in favor of the new flight mechanics. I don't entirely disagree the cost, especially for the T2 RCS are quite high. I completely agree. Structural blocks should not have CPU costs. If you do that, the container controllers do not register the extensions, and have only the capacity of the controller, unless you remove and replace one of the extensions contacting the controller. I'm not so sure about zero cost though. I suspect those extensions are more than just empty space. I suspect they're full of mechanical parts to ensure the items you want most get moved to the point furthest from the controller. Agreed. This is a Collect and Construct survival game. Without the need to Collect (resources) and Construct (blocks and devices), there isn't a whole lot of game left. I don't mind crafting my Matricies and Bridges. I do mind the <hyperbole>1.25 hours it takes to construct them though </hyperbole> Some of them might help - especially when it comes to either CPU-managing by turning off devices, and eliminating CPU costs for things that have no reason to have CPU costs. To date, I've only 33 minutes in SE. It's just not fun. It's kind of an over-complicated building simulator with no real game involved. Maybe in a few more years it will get to be fun, but so far, it's not. Not sure what this means. Never got that far in SE. It took me my entire 33 minutes to throw down a couple blocks, build a battery and connect it to something before I went "this is boring", and parked it indefinitely. I find it quite simple to use. But I am accustomed to using 3d Studio Max for 3d modeling, so "fiddly UI" is second nature to me. I don't see that need. It's not that hard to change colors and textures. I get this strange feeling you enjoy SE more than this. Have you considered playing SE? If you REALLY want something complicated, give Planet Explorers a try. It has its own build-in 3d modeling interface where you can craft your own in-game objects, from a simple hand-held device to a full suit of armor, laser-rifle or whatever happens to amuse you. It's vastly more complicated than anything and does produce some very neat things. You're fully qualified to have an opinion. That doesn't automatically qualify it as right or wrong, just yours. Mine is a bit different. Some points I agree with, some points I don't, and some I don't get or want. I think we all want Empyrion to be the best Empyrion it can be, and we all think we have the best idea how to get it there... which can be a bit of a problem as well.
I'm still trying to figure out the correct kinda Thruster Placement to max Thruster Torque Gain for that Thruster Cost...
There this widget you can turn on from the build panel that shows Center of Gravity. It's helpful. When in doubt, move them out.
Think simple lever and pivot mechanics - the closer to the pivot, the more force you have to apply, so get them as far from the pivot (center of gravity) as you can. I guess for balance, probably equidistant on each dimension as well.
Another thing - tier 2 cpu extenders need a flux coil. That pretty much kills off most of the early game multi-role ships trhat would otehriwse only need basic stuff (wood, iron, silicon, copper) that you will find near your starting location. Never mind that I have to work hard to squeeze the design into tier 2 in the first place even for a tiny size 1 multi-role miner HV. What are the chances of you having a flux coil (or equivalent materials) by the time you hit level 10? By the time you have done over a load of enough POIs and got really lucky, you are probably level 20+. Are people playing with this switched on, or are they just switching this feature off and hence not bothered by it, or you all just playing PvP where there is no probably no place for these kind of start vehicles?
CPU is meant to make players specialize. If you're multi-roling an HV miner you're gonna hit the CPU limit at Tier 1. Don't stick any guns on it and you'll be fine. Use the ones in your inventory; a T1 Sniper rifle can kill any enemy with 1 shot including drones (excludes troop transport). Flux coils are dropped by all drones and are semi-common loot from any cargo container on a POI.
Yup. I like a challenge though. My server is set to hard.af. I have had a blast adapting and learning the new game mechanics. It had brought new life to a game that I have already got over 7000+ hours out of. I do agree with a few of your points, such as blocks and powered off devices with CPU points needing to be zero'd. Just a friendly suggestion: Spoiler: Suggestion Find a server without CPU on, or start your own/play SP, as it is optional, and not mandatory. There are plenty of PVE servers with CPU/Mass turned off, who would be happy to have another player join theirs.
No known use for Thruster Torque check last I knew... I use that doodad mostly for HV Balancing... Ok... this helps more... so maybe optimum placement would be on the diagonals sitting between all 3 Axis? I haven't played Survival in forever... i'm rather useless at aiding in Survival Balance, as I have no clue how to tell Survival Imbalance from a hole in the groundmy own Super Dying Skills...
If I am interpreting you correctly, the that sounds about right. Satellite often have 8 groups of thruster nozzles (one on each virtual cube vertex) with 3 outward facing thrusters in each group, 1 for each axis. Of course unless you are Borg, then our ships are probably not very cube like, but we should take advantage of what spacing we can. IRC Kerbal space program has a tutorial on this kind of stuff, except there you have to worry about the center of mass changing due to fuel consumption (or shoving people out of airlocks...)
There is no way a hunk of concrete should take CPU. On ships generic blocks might contribute to CPU use in a SMALL way but in a building?! I hope that this constraint goes away before being over the CPU limit in a base has any affect. If base size needs to be limited for game play reasons than perhaps a different constraint needs to be tweaked or added.
I don't see any reason to limit the physical size of a BA construct beyond Distance from Core (which if I recall is something like 83 or 84 blocks in either direction, or 166-168 blocks for a total area of 27,556 (or 28,244) square blocks. That is a small city (unless it's a PvP build, then it's a small building covered in layers of armor, but that's a different matter). At the end of the day, I do agree. CPU costs for structural blocks doesn't make sense.
Or keep CPU for building blocks for a BA, but increase the limits. Assume balancing of the values for blocks and devices are far from finished. Probably later on they can be modified for servers as other function properties. Bases can be in space or hover, CPU then have a use to avoid certain builds. Ideally they should have needed thrusters or some device to keep an orbit or change position (slowly).
124 blocks in each direction from the core, unevenly, so it comes out at 250 blocks or 500 meters. This is applied to HV/SV at the same amount as well iirc at 125 meters end to end for HV/SV. I have a 490m ship and a 500m shipyard to fit it in.
I like CPU for HV/SV. It fills the intended purpose well enough. However I'd say for CV/BA there there is a more elegant solution that's being missed. NPCs. If you required an NPC, who needed food and facilities for each turret and grow light you could make bases and capital ships feel alive with botonists, miners and gunners wandering around. Likewise autominers and water generators could be changed to crewed platforms. Crews could be killed, chased off or run out of food and abandon their posts. You could create a tiered system where the player is able to operate 1 turret and 1 grow light. Beyond that they need crew. A crew of 4-6 might be satisfied with bunk beds and energy bars, but with large crews you'd need to start hiring overseers and specialists who require private rooms, better food, more pay and entertainment. This would be a more organic way to encourage specialized ships and could form the basis of an economy. The crew wouldn't even need to move around they could just sit at their post all day poking at a control panel and the game would feel infinitely more alive.
Sure. To have more "live" in the game, especially in SP, would make the bases and Capital Vessels a more happy place. But isn't SP always meant to be done alone? Of course, something like "Enemy mine" or a Companion as in "The last Starfighter" would be great, also having your own "stupid, little AstroDroid" would be great. But to bring your BA/CV to a more social place you can always go to the Polaris Trader, buy some crew and fill up your place for a couple of thousand credits.
