The system changed big time after the first Q&A. Why, because the whole system wasnt liked by the public So we made allot of changes to be more with what the players liked to see
THAT Answer alone must show ALL what a great Bunch of Devs, Mods and (Down Under) Broom-Masters You Guys are! A big Thumbs up to You!
See, this is a GOOD thing, devs reacting to feedback and changing things prior to letting us play. I think CPU will be better received because of this. This explains the emphasis changing. There have been a number of additions to the game that have changed / broken BP's since I started playing. I'm glad my old HV's are broken now (easy to fix though) the new system is in. I'm glad I have to worry about air tight blocks due to hostile environments. Plus I really like W&V now after ignoring it during the Experimental build. Hopefully CPU will be something similar, once it's matured a little and players are used to it. I hope it doesn't restrict players design freedom too much when wanting to be compliant to the CPU rules. Scoob.
Well 1+1+1+1+1 and 5 are the same in the end. With some limits we can expect seeing less 5s that behave like 1s, because all players can also decide to log in with 5s...
Watching a giant ship pull up, open doors and having a virtual faction fleet poor out is quite inspirational.
The maxlimits are a topic, yes. Depends on how the rebalancing progresses. Currently the CPU cost of any weapon, especially BA and CV turrets are MUCH to low.
What we meant was the performance of ships and bases IN the game, not the GAME or PCs performance itself. I need to say i made the same mistake when i announced the rebalancing of the Thrusters - there i noticed that "performance" for most players is not a term how a ship in the game behaves or can work, but it is mostly "my CPU is at 9999° and i just loading the game" So simply not more as a misconception on both sides. If you look on how the CPU system is described, there is really nothing what really would affect PC PERFORMANCE in a reasonable way..even more as the feature can be switched off (which has been stated quite early on, right?)
And the CPU cost of thrusters is MUCH too High. The difference? I can build a ship without weapons, but not thrusters. Frankly what I've seen so far on what CPU does is NOT filling me with confidence. What was considered a STARTER CV is now a Tier 4 MAXED CV????????????
What was mentioned in the video with xCaliber concerning "performance" on networks and lower-end PCs was not accurate ? Is it not a by-product of introducing limits on builds ?
Then you didnt had an off switch. You didnt had a tier system. It was all hardcoded. Way different setting. You cant compair the first Q&A with what you have now
I'm not talking about the possibility to turn it off, as from what I understood CPU would be turned on for the official servers (this changed too?). I'm talking about what happens when the CPU system is "on" and players start at Tier 1, for example, in multiplayer. I know perfectly well that players can do whatever they want in singleplayer, if they opt-out of mass/volume or CPU, and that their "PC performances" is their own business. They can even do whatever they want in coop or on private servers too. The point is : why was the CPU proposed in the first place : to force redesign of ships or to alleviate strain on servers and low-end PCs ? Because that is what was mentioned at first, not related to an opt-out option.
Does this mean you can have more than one core? Or, does this mean if you lose an extender (removal or damage) you will drop back?
It's more likely to be a "not any game" kind of ship. Still it would be a shame if it couldn't fly anymore. I mean i would be okay to add some core extensions to it. I have a enough space that is awaiting to be filled. (Just allow me to add a couple hundreds of this extensions and i am fine.)
As already clearly stated on the 1st post in this thread, it MIGHT have some effect on the network or game performance (and i refered to that point ONLY because a lot of people confuse this with Size Class as well), but the effect ITSELF is possibly low, depending where you look at. Of course reducing the overall count of devices will always have some effect - in theory - but your ships or bases will not consist of so low numbers of devices that this will ever play a role. Removing a dozen or more thrusters and even more overstuffing of RCS will not change a lot.
No you can only place one core , When you have another Tier running this will be your backup. So if you have Tier 2 (2 Extenders) and 3 (4 Extenders) placed and one of you T3 extenders get destroyed you get set back to Tier 2. If you have no Backup (another Tier System) you get set back to the base core level
Okay, so there's only one Core. Core Blocks themselves do not have a Tier. There can be many Core Extenders. The number of Extenders determines the Core's Current Tier. Extenders themselves do not have a Tier. So, two kinds of blocks: Cores and Extenders. Or, are there five kinds of blocks: Core Extender Tier 1 Extender Tier 2 Extender Tier 3 Extender Tier 4 And you need a Core Block, but the current number of correct tier extenders?
The core is Tier 0 Next you have Tier 1 Extender, Tier 2 Extender and Tier 3 Extender To have Tier 1 active you need to place 1 Extender To have Tier 2 active you need to place 2 Extenders To have Tier 3 active you need to place 4 Extenders You cant place more extenders then what you need to have that Tier active
Okay, so there are Core Blocks and Extender Blocks. The number of Extenders determines the current tier. Erg. No wait.
Well inPvP players are usually looking at other piles of devices attacking them, right ? So in their case, the difference might be more noticeable. Just wanted to be sure I understood well. I know you are concerned about player's perceptions, so I will stop bugging you with details.
