It's still embarrassing that the survey still only had the thumbs up option. Would like to have Eleon feedback or just confirmation of what Eleon thinks is good.
I decided to check the other FAQ threads to see how many voted on those. 14 likes (0.8%) of 1716 views for CPU 6 likes (1%) of 592 views for crafting, minerals and balancing 11 likes (2.3%) of 487 views for teleporters 13 likes (3.5%) of 375 views for detection and scanning 15 likes (1%) of 1592 views for story and missions 12 likes (5%) of 230 views for station services 8 likes (2.7%) of 301 views for token and locks 6 likes (3.4%) of 175 views for registry and proximity log 26 likes (4.5%) of 576 views for the galaxy 4 likes (2%) of 193 views for multiplayer leaderboard etc 4 likes (1.2%) of 344 views for space / base attacks 10 likes (4.7%) of 215 views for interactive dialogues So less than 1% of viewers liked the CPU; similar for crafting+minerals, story and missions, and space and base attacks. A whopping 5% liked the services, 4.5% the galaxy, and 3.5% detection and scanning. edit: posted this as its own thread for those who may be curious
The fact that 1716 people viewed this page but only 14 people liked the CPU & Flight Model, tells you that more then 99% of the player base doesn't like CPU or the Flight Model. That should send a very clear message to Eleon which i hope they get clear.
When i say CPU here i'm talking about both the CPU and Flight model which are broken and don't make sense. And as you have said it yourself the..
I'm not sure about this. In any event, the most dramatic impacts of the M/V system can be disabled, no? I know what happens when I try to build an SV or HV that exceeds its CPU capacity or to overload it with mass /volume that exceeds its capacity. With CPU capacity in the 30% ballpark, the vessel performs like a clunker: slower, less agile, less responsive. With more mass (but not "too much") there are noticeable impacts on vessel performance too (slower, less agile, less responsive). Try to fill up with more volume that it can hold: NO CAN DO! Put in more mass than it has capacity to move: immobilized. Generally this latter seems to be unachievable in survival mode as the volume limit will tend to be reached and you will not be able to add the additional mass which would immobilize the vessel. However, I know from loading one of my old SVs in Creative and finding that it was BY DESIGN, more massive than its onboard thrusters could manage, that that is how the M / V system works. So that is how it works when these feature are turned on: LIMITS to how large, complex and "advanced"/complicated a construct can be built, but with the option to: go do more prospecting/harvesting/leveling/building in order to be able to pass these thresholds and thus BE ABLE to build bigger, faster, more complex and advanced. I suppose there are some upper boundaries which even at level 25 with unlimited supplies of resources and production facilities cannot be passed, but that is inherent to the technology itself. A literal Death Star sized construct would likely cause most rigs to meltdown . . . So how is it that M / V impacts user experience when these options are turned off? I would also note that: these things are turned off BY DEFAULT in the vanilla game! The end-user has to actually turn them ON in order to determine how objectionable they are! I inadvertently played for many hours on a server that had all these features turned off. I had been running around for hours with buddy helping her get oriented with the game and acclimated to this server and I suddenly realized "I'm carrying around like 4000kg of stuff here, WTF!? Then we started building our first base and I realized that I could do the same thing with space ships and base inventories and I literally just totally lost interest in playing on the server. To me, WITHOUT logistical and operational constraints, the game is just not fun.
Yes, they are both problematic. The difference is that CPU can be completely disabled; M/V is integrated at least partially even if you turn it off
The mass of the ship still limits speed, even if the cargo no longer does I'm all for logical and consistent constraints. That's why I'm arguing for them instead of what we have now Yes, but the plan has always been to reverse that eventually. They'll be default and have to be disabled
There was always a "speed limit" and always will be, whether M / V are deprecated or not. So if that is the only consequence of the feature which you feel impacts play in general even with them turned off, then I'd say you are making a straw man argument. For a game which renders in the ways this one does, speed limits, as we've already discussed are unavoidable with 2020 technology. Speed limits are not a result of the M / V system but of the harsh realities of contemporary computer science technology. As far as the "plans" for the features, I don't know for certain what their plans are. However, I do have a couple of cautionary suggestions, but based on community reactions I suspect I'm preaching to the choir. For the foreseeable future the way in which the functionality is enabled/disabled needs to be left exactly how it is, i.e., disabled by default. In the long haul, perhaps those who are motivated to complain will slowly warm to the systems else move on to greener pastures, and be replaced by newcomers for whom the Old "Unlimited" mode of survival play is not the norm. This may take six months, a year or 5 years, or it may never actually happen Some people seem to have nothing better to do than to never forget an old affront to one of the games they liked and never forgive or move on either. I suspect there are STILL people complaining about the way Bethesda reworked the skill system and armor inventories in Oblivion and arguing that the system in Morrowind was superior! But they are probably relegated to their own special dark corner of the Interwebz where they congregate with like minded agitators to conspire how to overthrow . . . I think it would be a BAD idea to EVER take away the user option to disable these features, but instead to promote gameplay with the features turned on, and there are various ways to do this both from a community relations standpoint and from a game design standpoint. Make using M / V and CPU limits more FUN than the bland unlimited survival experience, THAT is their quest!
If you read my posts, you'll find that I've never argued differently. What I have said, repeatedly, is that whatever that game engine speed cap is, M/V should make the vessel accelerate slower to that limit, rather than capping it lower. I've never even tried to argue that space speed limits should apply to airless worlds, because the issue causing most of the limitation is the chunk load burden of the terrain. If x is the speed limit imposed by the load burden of a given environment, let that be the consistent speed cap of that environment and let the vessel accelerate to it.
I also wanted to make one note about my own experience with these new systems. I have somewhere in the ballpark of 20 to 40 each of blueprints for each of the construct types (HV, SV, BA, CV). I have probably deleted off the hard drive an additional 5%, so the grand total of blueprints I've made over the years is probably in the 70 to 100 ballpark. Right now, well over half of those are not compliant with the current M / V and CPU systems. If memory serves, when these systems were first introduced, I came back to the game briefly to play around with them and made the realization that more-or-less ALL of my blueprints were "broken." Some quite badly broken. As a result, I cleaned out ALL of the blueprints I had published to the Workshop. That was a . . . difficult thing to do, and I can empathize with those folks who have spent even MORE time than me, and accomplished far greater, grander and more extravagant things building and now find that they have a folder full of broken junk. It is not a "pleasant" experience I know. I do believe I grumbled quite a bit myself, but I also recognized in the back of my mind that: the game NEEDS systems like this in order for it to BE a true survival game. So I restrained my grumbling a bit, and after a few hours skulking on here and/or fuming in Creative I put the game down and didn't come back to play it until recently. I still have not gone in and "fixed" all my old blueprints, but I will eventually. All of them CAN BE made compliant with the current game rule set, it is just a matter of doing the work. When I'm in the right mood I will, and I'll likely re-publish many of them too, for what that is worth.
But DOES it "cap it lower?" Does it NOT cause acceleration at a slower rate? My own observations are: M / V functionality with a vessel under proportionally high load DOES cause it to accelerate slower (though I don't have much experience with the identical construct with identical mass with the functionality turned off). As far as the "speed limit," are they NOT the same whether M / V are turned on or off?
No, and that's the problem- that's why for Reforged, I tweak the thrust settings back up to vanilla levels even though I agree with the idea to reduce thrust for slower acceleration. The problem is, the reduced thrust also reduces the speed cap because they're not calculating acceleration properly My favorite SV maxes in space @130m/s in space in vanilla. In default RG, it maxes @70m/s due to increased block weight and reduced thrust with M/V off
back on CPU.. it's just not there yet. the values need tweaking. I mentioned the HVs previously, Im sure on device level some device value's need tweaking too. I don't mind the idea of CPU. It seems a fairly logic idea that computer power is needed for devices.. Though in practise it means Im just building more ships, and than put them all on a big carrier..so I might not have one sizeclass 50 jack of all trades ship.. but all my smaller ships together are getting close to it for sure.. Im not sure if CPU is doing what CPU is intended to be doing. People (especially solo players) make jack of all trade ships, because it is less of a hassle to play. Maybe if the docking system got up to par, people wouldnt mind it as much.. now docking is just too much of a hassle, hopping in and out of vessels. From builders perspective, it forces you to make choices with the lower tiers.. Tier3 needs a bit more CPU points, especially for HVs. Tier4 pretty much means no boundaries if you dont go crazy with the sizeclass, and I think that is fine. I think the mechanism is fun and I would almost say: the more (of those mechanisms) the better for a survival game. the poll doesnt matter; forums to begin with is so 2012. you will only reach people that are really infested into the game and thus a high amount of fans of the game. random players will never come here.
Well I think its just to frightening for them to see what the real numbers are, not having a dislike feature option is just sad, I have to say, its not the usual standard from Eleon, most of the time they want fair and open feedback that is not bias to one direction, but a survey that is bias in that it has no option for disliking the feature when the question is about liking the feature seems completely like defeating the purpose to me. Try this. Do you like fish on Sunday with Tomato sauce on it. Like ? Like alot ? Answer now. Stupid question isn't it. Embarrassing in fact. The store page 5 years in development thing, if you have followed the development of this game you will know that was written at a time when the game had just failed its kickstarter and was on shakey ground hit Steam with an epic vision of a game, and luckily people noticed it and its been flat out like a lizard drinking ever since. But I expect its going to be closer to 10 years to completion. But thats nothing unusual or bad, in fact its good. It means your developers are dedicated to the project, have not lost focus, are still doing updates, and plan to finish the game, I mean its great really. I love these devs, they have been really awesome for over 5 years, and they take critical posts very well, like mature adults, dont let a critical post of a single feature, from hundreds of features give you the impression I dislike any of them, thats not the case, this is 100% about the game and absolutely nothing else. Without honesty they can not possibly hope to learn what people really want. This poll should have been done on Steam as well as this forum, in the general sections and it should have a dislike option also, and when you see the results of them much fairer surveys, well isnt that interesting... You would even have the ability to compare results from platform to platform, real actual useful data, but anyhoo....like or like more dude ! But the result of this survey, boring, and completely non informative. I mean 20 odd people, sheesh, all that work, for months, and then months of balancing, for 20 odd likes, what the lol lol lol surely the devs want a better result that 20 odd likes, slap it on Steam and watch it get hits like there is no tomorrow. To me it looks like a feel good survey set up to try and vindicate the implementation of the CPU system which could have been an utterly EPIC feature had it been based on the carrot and not the stick. The other critical thing I would note about this survey, is its pretty late in the game, the CPU update was, like ages ago now, and its common knowledge to me that heaps of players that hate CPU just simply left the game, so it dupes them of the chance to even see the survey and send the devs that solid dislike message of that feature, it almost seems like Eleon dont want to hear from them at all, as if they already know what the survey result would be, because why would they visit a forum of a game they no longer play. Science is simple, science is about truth and honesty and you literally can not get an informed view or position from this survey because the questions are seriously lacking in fairness and are extremely bias towards one position leaving no room for any other view . Science literally is 'the search for the truth'' in any topic or subject. Can we get a fair survey or what ? I would be embarrassed to ask such a question with so few available answers its so obviously bias.
@Vermillion has a mod called Reforged Galaxies that posits an "alternative" take on CPU system; THAT is laudable and if the devs will check it out, arguably very constructive. Whereas this thread doesn't really seem to be resulting in a lot of substantive suggestions . . . Maybe the point of the whacky survey was not to do "science" at all?
No one is trying to sell you that are they? I'm talking about being "good community members." Vermillion is an exemplar. He obviously had some "complaints" about the changes to the game, but instead of making a big stink about it on these boards, he just sat down, rolled up his sleeves and made a mod that 'fixed it.' AND! He is continuing to support it. I for one am thankful when players make mods that take what the "pros" come up with and change things up. Not only does it allow me to savor alternative play experiences, it sometimes (often times in the case of this particular game?) may lead to "cross-ferilization" and result in devs realizing a better way. THAT is what I'm selling: making a mod and showing a different way is exemplary. Posting long diatribes and being butthurt are just a waste of time, and quite possibly falling into the trap as it was intended, trololololol . . .
