Its not hard to core lock ships, so if it started with a Carrier core, it can only ever have a carrier core placed on that structure, we do similar now for bases v CVs. As for the plastic or wood aircraft, there more for scouting not fighting POIs, but the added plastic range of blocks would be great for interiors and lightening ships alot just in general. It also open workshop up to specialised aircraft, like a WW2 planes, or WW1 planes, the Red Barron and stuff like that, to be much more realistic to look at.
Lol I think you got that wrong, it says "plastic and wood blocks can be used on this type core" not "only plastic and wood blocks can be used on this type core". Thanks for the clarification.
Err, no, that's not the only way; that's the heavy-handed way. The better way is to let the design of the ship dictate its purpose; this is a voxel building game after all, not something like NMS or Elite: Dangerous where you have specific hull types. Right now, various systems like thrusters and RCS aren't well-balanced, so it's easy to give almost any ship high performance; that's what should be fixed, not layering another questionable mechanic over an already imbalanced system.
It sure does. The worst thing about CPU, is its a restrictive system. The system I propose is not. Its a system of expansion. You get for example a drop ship, that has built into the starter block a x4 thrust to any thruster pointing downwards , making it the superior starter block to use for an SV that carries an HV to the ground, it can be weapons locked or specific weapons or not, devs choice, THEN, the CPU system could and should have been used as a BOOSTER system not a restrictive system. Example, the wing set could be used for atmo aircraft for extra lift, boosts in speed etc, how CPU should have been done. This gives players a whole new set of starter blocks, new toys, and new inspiration to build great stuff for the game, CPU as it is, we are seeing builders leave the game because its a restrictive system and not an expansive system as I suggested. And Geostar, the ONLY way you will ever see proper ship classes and distinct flight controls in Empyrion IS with new starter blocks, just how it was done from day one. What you seem to think are new flight controls are in fact just restrictions on the current flight control set the current starter blocks have. The CV starter block by the way is a clone of the SV starter block, hence why CVs have turned on a dime for ever.... Know how the system works, and you can improve it. I wonder how many will defend CPU in 12 months when the numbers are settled on, and I bet those numbers will never be enough, something most of you have mentioned, its just unbalanced at the moment so to speak, well I would bet its never going to be properly balanced, because its such a backwards system.
The 11 release is in my opinion the worst Empyrion update ever. There are complaints all over steam in a dozen separate threads, rededit and Eleon forums too, discord, on a couple of game sites, some of us testers tried our best to express to the devs just how poor this CPU feature is, and a few of the testers seem to love it, I wonder if they still do now the numbers are settled on, and some of us even took the time, months, into years, to think about how this should be done, some of us even suggested it months / years ago, and how to bring to Empyrion proper classes of ships, new toys and inspiration to build new things, and we still went down this artificial CPU system, and what a MESS. Its devestating to see your favourite game start to hemorrhage and I wonder about the ratings and what that does to its sales and the future of the game itself. Devs are human, they dont always make the right decision for the game in my opinion but they usually listen to feedback, its such a pitty they didnt listen enough for this feature because they had the easiest and best way to do this, already build into the game from 2013 when they started. CPU has scrambled so much, its not logical, its just annoying to be frank because it does not feel logical.
Thats just your assumption in an attempt to argue, think about the whole proposal properly. If you take butter, to a knife fight, expect to be spread out like paste ! Bring a fighter or bomber to raid a POI, now with proper classes and a bomber SV core, just how awesome could that really be, you and no one else can trick the system, there are no exploits, you bring butter to a knife fight you die, simple, but without proper classes, proper bombers and proper fighters are not possible. CPU is just a mangled mess for ship class. https://empyriononline.com/threads/proper-flight-controls-new-cores.37118/
What about adding a specialized Co-Processor to augment CPU for your specific use cases instead of adding additional cores. That way you can still have a universal core for a universal ship, but if you want to focus it specifically, a block that augments the CPU for your strategic direction would be an interesting twist. I know it adds an "additional block" so we might end up with block-bloat, but if it comes with reconfiguration of the CPU for bonus/minuses it might warrant the extra block. Just as an example: your bomber (call it missile boat) would get cpu reduction on missiles, but guns and drills would double A Cargo Co-Processor would reconfigure the CPU and thrusters to haul heavier loads before drag becomes involved.. --izz
Well, no, as has been outlined in my previous posts on the subject, that's not the only way to do things. It's a way to do things that works ok for fixed-hull ships, but not very well for the arbitrary hulls we can build in Empyrion. It's easy enough to do the math for a somewhat simplified model of an Empyrion ship. No, that's just a bad moment of inertia calculation combined with ridiculously powerful RCS and thrusters. Ship classes are simply pre-calculated physics for games that don't need or want to implement the entirety of classical mechanics. In Empyrion, we already have most of classical mechanics implemented, so the physics is being computed in real time. With the right stats for blocks and devices, you'll end up with ships that look like the classes that you want. The main reason that we don't have that yet is because block/device stats aren't balanced and some of the physics is highly questionable (the aerodynamic drag model and the acceleration-dependent max velocity, for instance).
Hey Geostar, i am not aggreeing with piddlefoot on that matter of class cores. That is way to limiting and prevents hybridsas each core says exactly what you can build and what you can not build on a vessel. So if you want a long range exploration fighter, you need a new core type.... and bang, we have like 250 different cores each type of vessel, all the same sizes, number of devices just different shapes. Oh really? What are the right stats then? You say that RCS and Thrusters are way to powerful. But i like my ships to have as less thrusters sticking out as possible while having a for me acceptable movability fitting its size. But for that the power output of thrusters and RCS needs to be higher. Higher output in the current system means that it is totally unbalanced gameplay wise, since you can just add device after device and make the vessel the most powerful no matter of size and shape. That is the problem with "correct values": there are no correct values that ensure a good gameplay balance. That is the problem with correct physics: they allow more.... too much and therefore also too much space for an unbalanced system. While physics might be balanced, gameplay mechanics are out of wack. A 50 block long CV is balanced out to fullfill a lot of roles, but it gets unbalanced when the 500 blocks long Stardestroyer passes it by in the process of accelerating and turning in a fraction of the time that 50 blocks ship needs just because it devoted most of the unused space to poweroutput (thrusters and RCS). While physically balanced, gamemechanic wise totally unbalanced. And actually, that just doesn't feel natural to most. If you use only physics, the game will always be unbalanced in a gamy way, as the answer to "whats best" is always: build more blocks/devices. Material and energy cost is the worst balancing factor. Simply because they are virtually unlimited avialable. Only a proper game mechanic ensures that a huge, world eating, shielded carry-a-planet-worth-of-materials, home base battlemothership will always be less nimble and fast as a midsize ship with less functionality. And that is needed. As much as the physics guys here cry that it is not physically correct to have speed limits and all that jazz like "no matter the size a ship can reach a high speed", it is just wrong for a game with limited playfields and free form building. It doesn't feel natural to a non physics guy that a huge ship can be as fast as a much smaller ship, or even faster. Period. Smallest common denominator always gets ignored here. And actually it is plain and simple.... well if you use pictures instead of formulars (which most people do not understand). And i don't mean graphs. I am talking about a car always being faster/quicker/more nimble/faster accelerating as a 40ton tractor trailer rig, which will always be faster/quicker/more nimble/faster accelerating (god, i had those smart a$$es that twist simple words around in the name if calculations/physics) than a container frighter or a carrier. That is natural. That a huge mass body can be faster (if i read another physics nerd trying to explain acceration and speed i am escalating) given to enough power is NOT feeling to most people.
Roughly, thruster output should be decreased by a factor of 10. CV T1 RCS torque should decrease to 2/3 of its current value, and the CV T2 RCS should be eliminated entirely (or reintroduced as a physically larger block with only slightly more output per volume than the T1). As I mentioned in the other thread, the issue is that the square-cube law isn't allowed to do its job. Sure, you can stuff your massive ship full of generators and fuel tanks, but its performance is limited by the number of unobstructed thrusters you can physically place on any given side of it. Will players then build ships with walls of thrusters for maximum performance? Maybe, until they get shot up by an enemy ship and realize that there's a tradeoff to be made between thrusters and armor. I'll also remind you that, IRL, ship performance is greatly constrained by fuel mass and capacity, which is something that Empyrion still does not model very well. Also missing entirely is the concept of heat rejection, which is very important for IRL spaceships (and this is another place where the square-cube law matters a lot), and which would discourage densely packing a ship with generators to supply massive walls of thrusters. I won't apologize for being precise and striving for unambiguous meaning. Not being precise would waste everyone's time as they tried to figure out what I meant by my use of terms that didn't have clear meanings.
Well IF they get shoot up. The linear thrust development makes it hard for a much smaller ship being able to catch up AND have enough firepower to deal enough damage to make the wall-o-thrusters builder rethink anything. That is where the CPU system steps into play to break the linear line. But both have to be properly balanced. But just having physics doesn't actually balance it. Bigger ship, more thrusters, no trade offs. You can have more thrusters, better shields AND more/better weapons if you have enough materials. And as long as a huge ship can reach the same speed, accelerate atvthe same rate and have the same weapons, there is no reason to not build to the max. Not against that. Having all i one is all good to me.... hey why not the super fast and agile mobile base battlesmothership of doom. All i'll ever need. ;-)
Shame the poll is biased and has no good option to choose "against this nonsense". If Eleon ever did anything remotely like proposed, that would be it. I would simply /uninstall and never look back.
Wrong, fixed shapes wont work dude, if CPU is so good, why didnt they make the game like that from day one to determine ship class, I will tell you, because it simply wont work. Not enough distinction between classes, CPU could never give us HV flight controls like they are now and SV controls like they are now and CV controls like they are now, without THERE OWN CORE ATTRIBUTES. As it has been from 2013 when first created. The ONLY way you will ever see proper distinct new flight controls is literally through new starter blocks. CPU can never ever full fill that role. Right now you have for example 24 modifications via CPU, with ship classes via the core, like its been from day one, ie, HV, SV, CV, you get all new cores with new attributes PLUS the 24 extra modification via CPU if its applied to things like weight and wings for lift, and things like that, it literally gives you well over 5 times more content. Its new content, its content that inspires new building, rather than trying to inspire people to go back and once again rapair every build they have ever made. People keep saying new cores limits creativity, but that a lie or a complete misunderstanding, its a huge expansion on what we have, 10 times more flexible and it would not have dropped Empyrions dedicated server numbers by, what Steam is reporting as 100% and a 10% drop in SP... CPU is a poor feature, poorly implemented. There are no real logical argument against doing it through the cores. This is how Eleon literally built the game when they started in 2013. Ship class is absolutely determined by the ships core, the starting block you layed when building it, that starter block IS what contains all of your flight control attributes, you have a whole 3 in the game for over 5 years now, 3 that are locked, and you all seem to love it, thats all Im proposing, more of that, more of what you have loved from day one, its time for proper new flight controls, proper new classes of ship and the ONLY way it can be done properly in Empyrion is how they have done it from day one, if you are at all serious about doing it right. I cant put it any blunter than that. Its very simple maths. CPU brings a couple of dozen modifications, the same for every ship ever made. New cores bring literally as many new flight models and ship classes as the devs want or that we can think up for them PLUS the two dozen odd CPU modification points, its a no brainer what system is better for the game. If you think CPU is a better way to do this, WHY hasnt CPU been used to define ALL classes, HV SV and CV from day one, and when you realise the answer to that, you will realise new cores really is the only way to do this properly. You want to seriously limit creativity, this is how you do that, from the devs, '' are going to hard code the limits to prevent players from changing them. They stated this up front before it even went to experimental that this wasn't going to change, sadly. Now if you at least had 10 new cores with distinct classes, like atmo fighter, HV orbital dropship and things like that, the devs locking down the CPU numbers would not be an issue... They are literally restricting you to death with this feature. Completely limiting future creativity.
And that's where the square-cube law comes in: the volume of a ship grows faster than the surface area of the ship as the characteristic size of the ship is increased. So, in fact, a bigger ship does have an important tradeoff: its surface area relative to its volume. The thrust available to a ship is proportional to its surface area, while the mass of a ship is proportional to its volume; thus, the acceleration of the ship is inversely proportional to its characteristic size. Suppose you have a 5x5x5 ship with a mass of 125 tons and 25 thrusters on one side. Suppose each thruster outputs 250 kN thrust; then the ship has an acceleration of 50 m/s^2. If it's 10x10x10 with the same mass/block and thrust/block, then the 100 thrusters on one side give it 25 m/s^2 acceleration. If it's 20x20x20, the 400 thrusters one one side give it just 12.5 m/s^2. As you can see, you can't simply scale a ship up to get better performance. So, you can't have a super fast and agile mobile base battlemothership of doom.
Why? Because the devs stubbornly persist in thinking that there are meaningful differences between HV, SV, and CV besides block size. If they allowed ship configuration to sort ships into classes, the artificial distinctions that they've drawn between the existing ship types would dissolve. You mean, other than letting physics handle it?
Empyrion is not SE and will never have proper physics model, are you like joking dude ? Do you realise how they built this game from day one ? Its the only way to do it right dude. Our MP numbers about a year ago were around the 6,500 to 7,000 mark, today we are hovering around the 2,000 to 2,200 mark for numbers on MP servers. Features like CPU did that.
The physics is actually quite comparable to SE, in many ways. What Empyrion mainly lacks is a proper moment of inertia calculation and collisions that propagate damage through the grid. The former we really do need, but the latter we don't. Empyrion also takes the shortcut of separating translation and rotation from off-axis thrusters, which is tolerable considering everything. But, otherwise, it has aerodynamic drag (though poorly and expensively implemented) and lift, and, until recently, the ability to reach the technical max speed with any non-zero acceleration.
I am gonna regret stepping into this thread, but this nonsense needs to die. Wrong. Absolutely 100% wrong. Every single "adjustment" you propose in your OP could be handled by any number of alternate methods that don't require a slew of extra "starter cores." Including, but not limited to: -A "tuning" chip slot in the basic core, applying the specific buffs/debuffs you suggest, or others. -An expansion block similar to the CPU brick that applies said buffs. -A T2 cockpit that allows players to adjust settings for power consumption to boost weapons, thrust, etc (at a tradeoff, of course). Just to name a few, there are plenty of other ideas. New "starter cores" with "distinct flight controls" are unnecessary clutter. CPU was designed badly from the beginning - a house of cards built on top of a half-finished game of Jenga, as I like to say. But stop using it as an excuse to push this fixed-cores notion you've been shilling for the past year and a half. It has nothing to do with CPU and trying to push it as some kind of Holy Grail solution to the problem is disingenuous at best. It's not "new content," it's an arbitrary and restrictive proposal that by your own admission would lock vessels into a specific archetype. It only works if you think of ships in the narrow vein of "This is a fighter, this is a bomber, this is a freighter," and ignores the wealth of gray areas in between. Empyrion's numbers are dropping because they insist on pushing out "new releases" to meet a sales date, without properly testing them and fixing problems, ignoring player feedback (only to walk back on their decisions later), and throwing broken or badly implemented features to the public. Ain't got a damn thing to do with a lack of 'new cores.' Nobody's arguing that. It's literally the only correct statement in your posts. False. There have been many, you simply choose to ignore them because you're too in love with this idea of yours to understand why it's a terrible suggestion that almost no one supports. And they've continued building on that foundation just fine without your specialized cores. I'm done taking this nonsense line by line, so just to put the nail in the coffin: Fixed cores absolutely would limit creativity, by restricting ships to specific archetypes and omitting the in-between / multi-class vessels. Alternately, trying to account for every "shade of gray" out there would result in a slew of cores with only minor variations in between, and lots of player confusion. It's not flexible, and does not allow a player to fine tune a vessel to suit their needs unless it falls into one of your specific categories. It's got nothing to do with CPU, and the fact that you keep pushing one arbitrary restrictive system as a solution to another is depressingly short-sighted.
I must say that, if we "must" have this CPU thing, at least it should be well done, and surely not the way they've done it. And i agree with Piddlefoot. But anyway... I am reading people talking about "IRL spaceships"... What the hell are we discussing about? I think we're talking about a videogame, a "galactic survival" videogame, with alien monsters, alien armies, alien animals and alien villages. "IRL"? What's "IRL"? This is not "IRL". This is a "shooting aliens" survival videogame. This is not Kerbal Space Program. This is not The Sims. This is Empyrion, I want to build a ship as soon as i can, because i must survive and i must go shooting aliens. What's this "IRL"? Let me put some thrusters, some RCS, some boxes and some ammo in my "quickly done" ship, and let me go exploring planets! I can't spend 10 hours of my "IRL" time and game time, finding the way to put that cpu block or choosing that S, M or L thrusters! Let me go in space! I must go finding food! I must go finding minerals! I must go EVERYWHERE but staying in my base breaking my brain to understand how my ship will fly, IF it will fly! C'mon! What are we talking about???
We're talking about how to abstract real-world physics into a form that is suitable for a game and that will lead to reasonable ship design. Empyrion already has a lot of what's required already, fortunately, but not all of it is done well. I'll note that having proper physics is not mutually exclusive with any of what you've written. If you don't want to spend time designing your ship and just want to hop into a finished hull, well, that's what the prefabs and the workshop are for. But because we have enormous freedom in building ships, there needs to be good enough physics to make sure those ships work as they should.
