Well... than we have bases that are mostly concrete blocks and nothing else just to spawn a CV with 10 mio. CPU used because bases can have only have 1.3 mio. CPU? Not wanting to nit pick here but, although a smaller base is more than enough for most purposes, shoulnd be bases bigger than CVs and way more sturdy while being bigger to make up for the immobility? Just asking. Sure they don't have any of the most expensive devices like thrusters, warp drives and RCS. But a base is meant to have many rooms, doors and just be massive. But i am curious how it will turn out.
Agreed. Plus, I was under the impression that CPU was also intended to allow lifting of the hard weapon count caps; at this point, doing so would allow for 21-artillery-gun salutes from a single CV. CPU-consuming blocks and limited weapons are simply not compatible goals.
@jmcburn , not trying to start anything, simply curious. As one of the vocal supporters of the CPU mechanic can you expand on what it was, at least in your opinion, supposed to accomplish? Truly not being snarky here. I've read most of the posts since exp dropped and it seems that the majority are still pretty confused as to what the intent was. Edit: I should clarify a bit. I should have said 'the majority seem unclear what they were trying to accomplish', not "intent" since that was stated, but doesn't seem to match well with the end result. Raising the T4 numbers also seems counter to the stated intent. (sry, tired, not being very clear)
Totals are wrong too. 949906 Allocated, but 542142 (Hull total) plus 272512 (Device total) = 814654??? Am i missing something?
After testing the new numbers these numbers for the CPU I think are acceptable because it leaves room for creative freedom which is important even if some do not agree with that. Just telling creators who have played this game for the last 2 to 3 years just turn the CPU off if you don't like it isn't something people who paid their money like everyone else want to hear and they shouldn't have to. Also the new T4 numbers instantly makes a majority if not 99 % of the creations on the workshop with some ADJUSTMENTS usable in game. Which in my opinion was very important. I believe the DEVS have said that with the CPU feature the Server Admins will be able to restrict their game to certain Tiers . So if the Server admins who do not want Tier 3 or Tier 4 on their servers they can do what they've done with the class system and just restrict it. Also the T4 numbers needed to increase or the Large thrusters and XL thrusters numbers needed to come down and the HULL blocks be removed from the CPU limits completely. In my opinion if the DEVs are set on putting this in the game then this a pretty good comprise because there really is nothing that I bet a majority of builders can build that can't be adjusted to fit this new CPU limits. Builders will no l onger have to gut their whole ship just to end up with a ship that barely moves even in space. Lets' not forget that T3 and T4 have parts that are not easy to get and one part that you have to either buy or find in some POI. So if you're going to have to do all of that just get a T3 or T4 then you deserve the right to build something you will at least enjoy flying.. Now I do recall one of the Devs saying that "T4 will be almost like not having any limits at all" so maybe this is what he was talking about. I'm still not 100% a fan of this CPU feature but this is acceptable and I could use this in game without getting annoyed in the end game when I want to build something I will enjoy.
Oh well, and I have Starter Bases that have ONE adv. Constr. but the CPU Device Count insists that there are TWO. A CV had TWO and Count says THREE. 42 WARDROBES ...36 Container, 4 CC, 2 actual Wardrobes... and so on *sigh*
Those are bugs. They're expected in Experimental and nothing to be complaining about. That's what it's there for. Normally, these would all be caught at an earlier stage, but updates are going to experimental before bugs can be found and squashed.
@Vermillion Thank you for lecturing me about EXP which I am well aware off. As a Tester I am somewhat pissed as you can see from my posting #583. As a SP with 4200 gaming/testing hours I am only slightly annoyed. End of Message.
One wonders what kind of code they have on the back end such that it can mess up something as simple as a total CPU display. If it was smartly done, the same code would be used for adding it up to be calculated and for display...
Agreed. It would also speed up CPU calculations when there's less blocks that need to be calculated. Especially in combat, when blocks get destroyed and the CPU values have to be updated. The only things that should cost CPU are devices. And to reduce turret spam, give turrets/guns high CPU costs. One other thing I would suggest is to change the number of CPU blocks and the CPU bonus calculation. Right now you need all 4 active, if one gets destroyed, you loose the entire bonus. While I'm not 100% against the idea of a CPU bank, I want redundancy. So make it so you can place more than 4, but only 4 will count, and the backups will take over. But perhaps have it so 4 CPU blocks need to be close (touching, forming a cluster) for it to register as a functioning unit and you can have multiple blocks of 4. That way you can have multiple CPU rooms on your ship. Reduce the CPU one cluster gives and have each cluster give diminishing returns. Forces the player to spend more room/mass/power on CPU (especially if he wants redundancy in battle), while at the same time putting a soft cap. So one cluster might give you 1000000 CPU. Add another one and you have 19000000. Add another and you have 27000000. Another and you have 35000000, etc...
The CPU Statistics specialy the device part is abit problemmatic to get it right > Dont put much value to it atm just look at the total number on the left side
If no one "complains" about the problems/issues/ stupid things released how will the developers find out about them? We know they do not play the game, opening up the game to find bugs in someones save does not count. Wow, there is a great plan or is that an excuse?
There is a line between "complaining" about and "reporting" bugs (bad feature design is a different issue). An objective report of a bug, what it is, with steps to reproduce, is not complaining. Bitching to high heaven "this is broke! it broke my server! fix it! weh" ... is of no use to anyone. And yes, the speed from being posted internally to test, before moving to experimental is ... quick. Lots of us work during the day, so by the time we hop on to look... an update has already passed us by. Its ok to some extent, I understand they want more eyes on an issue to fix quickly, than to sit around and wait for everyone internally to chime in with results. It is after all going into "Experimental"... however some people around here seem to think experimental is the final public resting ground to play with.
Jeff seems happier and believe others will at least be ok with the CPU now if these are the numbers that end up in the finally release because they can still design ships that will be playable on most servers . Which was another complaint I was hearing...
That is not the Point @Taelyn™ . It is the inconsistency how the Devices show up. Sometimes I get Constructors but no Food Processors, next time I get Food Processors but now Constructors. Than I get Wardrobes for Containers. And always the wrong numbers. And with the wrong numbers of devices you get wrong totals.
Yes and we know and as i said were working on that. All you can pay attention to atm is the compleet total on the left side. The game pics its own name what it feels like because how things are set up. We have to change litterly every device around what cost allot of time. Patience is the key
Agreed. Only my patience running thin at the moment as Real Life took its toll recently. Sorry for sounding too impatient
