So if I'm understanding you correctly, the in-game reason projectiles don't impart force on the objects they hit is because gun physics refuse to convert to the metric system?
Except that we've been telling the developers for weeks that the calculations are bugged, especially in space. They keep missing our posts on the subject though it seems. It's almost as if we've been trying to draw attention to this since nearly day one of the Exp phase...... We have SV's that can go 43.8m/s in atmosphere but can only go 52m/s in space. Bugged. Can reach 62.5% of max speed on planet but can only reach 26% of max speed in space? How does that make any sense? If it can reach 62% top speed on planet then it should be able to reach AT LEAST 62% top speed in space where there is supposed to be no drag. We've reported MANY more bugs with the speed calculations that have gone completely unanswered.
[Alpha 11] CPU Points and Tiers - How does it work? If you are Wargaming it works great. Why you ask? Because I went back to playing World of tanks
Depends on the thickness of the armor, I suppose. See the video below (athletics / gymnastics in full plate armor). edit: also, even 65 pounds of plate armor isn't really that much for someone who's in good shape and exercises frequently. I'm about 350 pounds, normal healthy body weight would be about 210-220ish. that's 130 pounds of fat i'm carrying around and I can still do some decent activity for a short period, while being completely out of shape.
I think it's because the devs don't consider acceleration-dependent max speed in space to be a bug. It's an intentional "feature" intended to solve a problem that was caused by unbalanced devices. It's the wrong solution to an easily-fixable problem.
Even still, don't you see an issue with it? The SV in that post can go 62.5% of max speed on planet (43.8m/s) and can only go 26% of max speed in space (52m/s). How is this justified in their calculations? Shouldn't it be the same or higher percentage in space? Why does space have higher drag (or whatever they call it) than on the planet? How is it being calculated if it isn't some percentage of max speed? Why is it being calculated so differently in space than on planet? Why more severe in space? This is happening with all vessels. All blueprints (that can't reach max speed on both playfields). If you can't go max speed it's always more severe in space.
I see so many issues with it. Anyway, there are two different max speed calculations happening: terminal velocity from v^2 drag in atmosphere, and acceleration-dependent (based on my data, some kind of linear function of acceleration) "drag" everywhere. A ship's max speed ends up being whichever is more restrictive (which isn't always terminal velocity on a planet with atmosphere). I would like nothing more than to have this "feature" removed, posthaste. Just as with the architecture of the CPU system, I think it's telling that no one from Eleon is attempting to publicly defend it. Because, as far as I can tell, there's no good reason for it to exist; it's just some Eleon dev's easy, lazy "solution".
naw... they have -no- acceleration, so they're immediately slowed down to 0.0001 m/s top speed good try though! --- Maybe if someone gathered some data points for SVs in atmosphere to make a graph like @geostar1024 s for CVs in space? err, and SVs in space? then could extrapolate the function and see if it's the same one, which is my guess. Yeah, there's a 'atmo drag' bit that's non-trivial, but I'll bet a quarter that the majority of the difference is that the same steep falloff curve is being applied whether it's across 200 to 0 or 70 to 0.
I don't think anyone should waste their time on that, honestly. We need the devs to actually talk to us about the situation, which they seem to be completely unwilling to do for whatever reason.
Agree Geo but just cause I already did it, as I didn't have the correct math words to describe it, here's a pic. Just used Paint to compress the vertical on the lower one (which is just a copy of the top) to grossly show what I was trying to say. SVs would have a bit more since the larger difference between atmo & space max speeds. I could be totally wrong, this is just a hunch & Mark-1 eyeball
Damaged components should lead to shortcircuits/malfunctioning. I lose the shield generator on a battle and bam! 25% more speed and efficiency!
A single "like" isn't enough for me on @StyleBBQ 's post. I think this is a superior design on the capacity side of CPU. Higher tier augmentation could... (1) Provide more CPU Capacity (2) Consume Less Power (3) Be Smaller (volume) and Lighter (weight) -- Perhaps: Tier 1=2x2x2, Tier 2=2x1x1, Tier 3=1x1x1 ... which would provide a lot of motivation to acquire higher tier computing. But it would still allow some very bulky lower-tech solutions
Why we need 4 cpu components for tier 4 and when we lose one we drop to tier 0? Yes you could say if i have installed tier 3 i will drop to that tier...but you can explain me how to move a 10.000.000 t4 CV that drops to t3 (1.500.000)? Where is the logic here? It just cannot move anymore. "3. If you have one or several additional Tiers completed and you LOOSE a device from the highest (working) Tier-level (f.ex in combat), you drop back to the NEXT lower (completed) Tier Loosing a CPU Tier will also remove the CPU Points available and thus possibly lower the Efficiency of your vessel Example: You have a working CPU T4 (70.000 for HV), but no working T2 or 3. Now one of the T4 Extenders is destroyed. As a result, you drop back to the T1 level (5000 for HV). If you would have had a 2 T3 Extenders in your vessel, the destruction would have only dropped you back to T3 ( 30.000 ). Tip: Having LOWER CPU tiers in your vessel or base will work as a FALLBACK. When a higher Tier is lost you do not drop to T1, but maybe only to the next lower tier (which means the Efficiency of your affected base or vessel is not decreased too much)" Do you see the inconsistency here? The CPU system has been badly implemented and is getting water from all sides. Just take as reference CV numbers to see that the numbers arent good. Since they are 4 you can just use this formula T4 - 4 Cpu 10.000.000 T4 - 3 Cpu 7.500.000 T4 - 2 Cpu 5.000.000 T4 - 1 Cpu 2.500.000 T4 - 0 Cpu use the tip scheme you purposed - If t3 present will go to t3, if no fallback you drop to t1 Anyway the whole actual cpu concept is just garbage. Before this cpu update i could build basically anything. Now you just limit our creativity. If you wanted SPECIALIZATION you could just add SPECIALIZED STARTER BLOCKS. - CV miner Starter bloc- Only drills and no weapons - CV combat Starter Block - Only weapons no drills...etc and so on.
I have to echo the sentiments of others here, How is a T4 HV supposed to function when it gets knocked down to T3 (or T1) once it loses a single extender? T3 HV is max 30k and T4 is max 70k. If you were at 70k and lose a single extender you can no longer move because efficiency is suddenly too low. Same exact thing with all vessel types. This is why the tiers of extenders was a terrible idea from the get go. It should have only been one tier of extender and the max CPU is determined by how many you place. Or better yet, no extenders at all and just a max CPU allowed per vessel type. We are already restricted by resources, there is no need for tiers of extenders (or extenders at all). I can't build an attack vessel with shields immediately anyways since I don't have access to the resources required to do so. The whole tiers of vessel is pointless to begin with because of the resource gating. Unless the developers intend to give us all types of resource deposits on the starter planet then the tiers of vessel is redundant in the first place. I can't build an attack vessel until I get the materials to do so.
this is just as bad even in single-player there are space drones. A miner needs to at least be able to defend itself from those.
