Well I suggest you think again, because just saying it isn't proof. Have any numbers just for fun ? And this is the lamest excuse to support something bad. Frankly, what use are testers if they are all yes-men ? Do you think objections are evil by nature ? The way you present this, it looks like the game could break and we should still applause and dance all night, else we are not testers... I think the problem is... that people assume a lot and don't stop to think. Instead of basing a whole argument on an assumption that has already been debunked many times you could have at least tried to bring something fresh to the table.
There's someone else's video above with numbers. That's a good start. As useful as responses to part of a post that clearly didn't read the rest of it, or previous posts on the subject for that matter. I've not once said the system is perfect, as it, launch it. It needs refining. It needs adjusting. It needs a little overhauling starting at the basic level - but for your benefit, I'll reiterate once more: 1. The Extenders themselves are backwards. We should be building them as (Limit) 4 Tier 2's, (Limit) 2 Tier 3's and (Limit) 1 Tier 4. 2. Extenders should be cumulative in the valuation. A single Tier 2 should add 1/4 the Tier 2 maximum CPU. A single Tier 3 should add 1/2 the Tier 3 maximum, and the single Tier 4 should put us to the CPU cap. 3. Inert, unpowered blocks should not have CPU values. They require no power, they shouldn't require any computational power either. This would be Armor, or floors, or potted plants - whatever decorative items that do nothing except make things look nicer. 4. Existing values should be recalculated as should Maximum values. 5. Bases should have near unlimited CPU potential, as that's sort of their niche, aside from being the only places we can put Furnaces, Deconstructors and ATM machines (is there any other Base Only device I missed?). Pretty sure those are what you would call "Objections", and no, they're not evil by nature. I am. I am also tired of arguing about this, especially with people who refuse to get it, simply because I will not wave their particular banner and jump on the "this sucks, scrap it" bandwagon, because that doesn't benefit anyone either, except perhaps those with whom I really want little to do with anyways.
Basically this. The only things CPU does well is gating off higher end vehicles. The fact that this was never mentioned in its FAQ is a sign of one of two possibilities: 1. the devs are lying 2. it's terrible programming Even if I go with the best possible scenario & blame dishonesty, I'm still stuck with a steaming pile of incompetence because it impacts the game in the most hamfisted way. Even when CPU is not constraining my design, it's still stifling. Yes, except none of that. Others have pointed out the flaws in your reasoning, so I'm going to try to not repeat their points. Every criticism I've made of CPU comes from a position unrelated to anything you just said. The highest size class CV I've built was size 10, & that's only because it was made of glass. Even then, its CPU was so low that it could actually benefit from having backup T3 extenders. My physically largest ship (size 9) could easily fit under the 10 mil cap if I could prevent my computer from blowing up long enough to give me time to modify it. The biggest SV I've ever made was built using CPU, fit into T3, & "specialized" in turning left just to show how that concept line was so much BS. I'd even like to test out some of those builds in survival, if I could ever farm out the CPU extender parts before losing interest. But when it comes to building, the only times my designs feel constrained at all is when I'm trying to build small & CPU insists I can build smaller. Then I stare at it for a bit before it realizes it broke character, gets that manufactured glassy-eyed look back on its face, & says, "have you tried specializing?" Here's where I'm going to agree with you- there are a large number of people talking about how CPU is too constraining & needs to have its limits expanded. There are people saying that T4 CVs need to go up to 20 mil CPU, or T4 bases need to go up to 30 mil CPU, or T4 SVs need to go up to 500k CPU. Those people are idiots. They're also lazy. Problem solving takes more energy than ranting on forums. I don't even bother responding to them because they're never coming back. ...I swear I was going somewhere profound with this, but I've entirely lost interest in what I've been saying. So I'm just going to get to the end. Why are your lift, thrust, chassis size, cargo, armor, & manually-controlled weapons limited by an arbitrary numeric function labelled "CPU"? Why are you okay with this setup as long as it's "balanced properly"? Why do you sound like someone who believes in horseshoe theory? Maybe not that last part, but I stand by the rest.
I raid very little. I am terrible at it. I prefer to scavenge where things aren't trying to kill me (and succeeding) and build.
You watched it ? Then you have the numbers ? You want to share them with us ? Just so you don't lose track : how many is "too many people have been playing for too long and only know how to build city-sized vehicles, with 18 layers of armor and 8 of every device - and that just doesn't work any more with CPU enabled, and they just don't want to learn a new way" ? We all know the "how it works & what it needs" but no need to tell you that because you read all these posts. Well... I assume you did. But what about all these posts that ask a simple question regarding CPU : "Why"? Can you answer that for us in a manner that's not going to make us laugh once more ? I can spare you some typing here: avoid themes like "specialization", "balance" and "roleplaying".
Duly noted, underlined, & subsequently crossed out. My point was that just because people are noisy & repetitive doesn't mean their position holds any logical weight. I insulted a strawman & would do it again because it's not a real person.
1. people have been saying something along these lines since the beginning. It's been ignored 2. people have been asking for modular design since before 10.6 EXP was released. It was never addressed. 3. this was the first complaint after 10.6 EXP was released. The closest thing to a "response" was increasing caps on higher tiers. 4. vague, but okay. 5. Most people agree with this sentiment. I believe base values have been reduced since initial release. Here's the fun bit: those were all opinions I held when I first started testing out CPU. That thing you said earlier about the cost of thrusters? That was my second key issue after ranting about hull blocks having a CPU cost. You're going with a position I held a month ago. I imagine other people here had similar opinions as well. The reason people seem to be talking past you is because your points started getting aired over a month ago. They were stale before you first typed them. Let's take what's being said here & hold it up against the basic explanation of how CPU works: People are suspect of that "specialization" bit. RCS isn't needed. Weapons are only limited at lower tiers on smaller vehicles. This basically leaves "thrust" as the key factor being checked by CPU. I've already pointed out that that should be controlled by a power system, with CPU as something of a backup limiting factor. This only comes into play within the confines of a single tier & is a moot point across multiple tiers. You (& others) have already stated an issue with how this is set up. Both the device counts & concrete values are flawed in their design. As has already been explained, losing an extender makes a vehicle inoperable. For the rest, see the previous point. Points 3 & 4 in your post address this- some blocks (like hull blocks) should not have costs associated with them. Most other equipment needs to be rebalanced (personally, I think the point system needs to be taken out entirely). Two major points of contention here. First off, the method of gathering parts for higher tiers is nothing more than a terrible system of gating content. Second, devices that aren't running shouldn't cost CPU. Nothing about that design choice makes sense. Now, when we look at all of that, what's left of the CPU system? We can turn it off. When we take into consideration all reasonable criticism of CPU into account, there's nothing of value remaining. I'm not saying that a CPU system shouldn't exist. I'm saying that the present one should be scrapped & rebuilt from scratch, starting with deciding what it's intended to do & building from there. Why not a system where everything has its efficiency lowered across the board & then boosters are equipped to the core to raise the efficacy of certain parts? How about something where each device has a CPU tier associated with it & then you select which CPU extenders control which devices? I'm fine with being limited in some way, but the current system is broken & accomplishes nothing except adding pointless complexity to the game with no apparent aim or goal, only a PR line about "specialization" with nothing to show for it.
I am glad that when I saw the announcement I took their advice to read this thread before playing.... Now I won't have to waste any time on this game that I used to love. Actually, I didn't take the time to read all 57 pages. Just that it's 57 pages alone should tell you something. I play games to have fun. I'm an engineer and have to work all day irl, when I get time for some gaming at home, I'm not interested in a complicated mess like this. Logistics ruined this game once but since they can be disabled, it's no big deal. I've read enough here to see that just switching off this cpu madness has other consequences and is not really an option. That's all I needed to know. Back to Red Dead or 7 days, later.
I mostly agree with what casta_03 typed. I have a couple of quibbles -- less than disagreements and more clarifications. There are two main systems that end up constrained in my view especially at lower tiers: thrusters and armour. Neither is particularly attached to a specialty line of vehicle. Neither affect bases (armour looks like it would until you realize you can build exterior walls as a separate "base" without power or devices efficiency can harm and that bases can be further balkanized to maintain low tier levels with minimal pain). Both these systems ARE strongly tied to survivability. Something untouched on is that tiers have a hard limit -- they are just penalized prior to reaching it. Currently, the hard limit is at 3 * maximum CPU points. The devs propose shifting that to 2.25 * maximum CPU limit. If you sit back and look at what the CPU system actually does pushing aside claims made as to its purpose: It acts as a gating mechanism for larger / more complex constructions. It adds a lot of effort (i.e. grind through raiding or vending) to acquire each construction of the largest tier. It enforces fragility of lower tier constructions. It gates specific devices (vehicle constructors, shield) seemingly arbitrarily. It substantially increases energy drain and thus reduces operational time. The only one of those that actually promotes specialisation is the first and that promotion isn't particularly strong in correlation. A smaller less complex build may be more specialised, or simply unarmoured and slower.
No, you can go find them yourself. I won't do it for you, not even for money. I'm pretty much done with this. More than a few and less then a lot. Just depends on how long it takes for me to get sick of listening to them rant about what is largely personal problems. Us? Who's this Us? Because I'm not laughing, and I don't actually care what makes you laugh. But can I answer "Why?" to What, exactly? Why did they call it CPU? Why did they implement CPU? Why can you not convince me of anything you have to say on the subject, because you've actually said nothing, just made 4th rate 3rd grade attacks on my words that mean less to me than you do, and that's damned hard to do. But "Why" have CPU? Plenty of reasons. How about, for starters, not making servers choke on ridiculously over-loaded builds that are extremely process-intensive just to have in a play field? How about, to make people actually think about what they're trying to build? How about to introduce a mechanism into the game that is at least based on something? How about to rid the community of toxic elements by making them rage-quit and making the neighborhood better for everyone who stays? Any of these work for you? If not, I don't give the business end of a rat. How's that? I'm not here to make you happy. That's on you.
So i think i found the answer to all our problems with CPU, and that is to use Weight limits in combination with block limits on different core types. This i think would create specialization naturally in a 100% way. Because if you want to build large ships you will have to chose whether you want to be a half as good multi purpose ship or a much better specialized ship. A specialized ship will most likely beat a half specialized ship because of better weapons and armor and quicker speed depend on the size type of the ship light, medium, or heavy. Lighter ships are faster then medium ships and so on. So this will really put another level of in depth and immersive building and specialization to the game. For further in depth detail you can go here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/...undation-of-specialization.91536/#post-378553
yeah, I'm going with a hard 'no' on that one. Just compare it to points made in this thread & the CPU feedback thread for 10.6 EXP. - block count should not be a variable in determining specialization for the same reasons hull blocks shouldn't cost cpu: 1. it creates a compound effect where both the block & the factors to compensate for it need to be accounted for, turning ship design into a headache, & 2. when you use those kinds of limits, the first thing to go out the window is aesthetic design. - the thrusters on a CV account for most of the weight. If you place limits based on weight, all you're limiting are the number of thrusters. Your idea is worse in this regard because it also inhibits fuel capacity (which generally accounts for the 2nd heaviest part of a CV) - basing ship concept off of specialized cores makes the game harder for new players. Even veteran players will find it annoying because it makes modular design somewhere between difficult & impossible - arbitrary limits do nothing for specialization. One of the original complaints about CPU is that it seemed to be trying to do the same thing as block count limits. All your model does is lift the veil on any pretense that that's not the case. The numbers you present are nothing more than arbitrary boundaries on design - this still doesn't lead to specialization. All it does is place all ships on an enforced continuum with speed at one extreme & armor at the other. It does nothing to show ship roles. This is also an analysis of the CPU system from the week 10.6 EXP was released.
Where'd you come up with this explanation? This has nothing to do with why CPU was introduced. source: I'm fine with thinking. Not so much doing algebra as a way of trying to relax. What's it based on? The size of a car doesn't impact the performance of its onboard computers or GPS system. Smart homes don't require more powerful computers based on whether they're made of wood or brick. More advanced computers take up less space than older technology. The fuel system is based on something. Oxygen is based on something. W/V is based on something. Even flight mechanics are based on something if you squint a little. The CPU system simply doesn't look like anything with a real-world analogue. sounds bad for business. Also, you're still here saying stuff like this so...
Oh ! Found an interesting bit here. But later on this***. Was this a problem to start with ? That's as good as "Because it's Alpha", just of another kind. Really? Let's ask Hummel if that's what CPU was for and why he didn't mention it. Try. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Casta already gave detailed answers on this and all your other points. And I did express that "performance" issue was central to CPU many times since the very start, in fact it was stated clearly in the 1st Q&A and for some reason this was "changed" in the 2nd Q&A despites making much more sense. So the "least important impact of CPU" according to the opening posts is, indeed, the main reason, and the other "primary reasons" like specialization / balance are incidental. But just look how many pages of Kool-Aid-drinking we have around now claiming the contrary. So you jumped into the thread without reading it, obviously. I'm not going to repeat myself again just for you, I made detailed posts about this. And you can't show me the number of players that build huge 18 layers of armor flying cities because this number is nowhere to be found. Try me on this one too if you want and show me how much you like to waste your time once again. CPU is a "gating system" aimed at alleviating performance problems in multiplayer by restricting builds and abuse of propulsion devices, because size of ships + acceleration values and top speed + number of script-running devices (mostly combat-related) are the real problem, and NOT a "lack of design thought by players" or "lack of specialization". And forget about balancing PvP with magical thoughts that players will paint themselves in a corner by riding slow carriers just for the fun of grinding for the benefit of others.
Glad you had fun, it's a game after all and we should be having fun, right? Having just caught up with this thread, but having read it all, I'm aware there's some back n forth going on. So the following could be easily misconstrued. However, it's not intended as anything other than, possibly, useful info. Nothing else. I noticed the use of RCSs on your HV. Now I've no idea what it was built for, so could well be there's really no other option for what it needs to do. On the off chance though.. here's a couple links to HVs I've built that don't use RCS. This first one would be just within T1 CPU with two of it's four turrets removed. 'Specialized' in that it doesn't have a constructor or med bay. Hauling 60 tons of cargo it'll top out at 32 m/s & Yaw is still 21 deg/s. https://empyriononline.com/threads/...new-stock-blueprints.91371/page-5#post-377627 There's info on heavier & lighter loads a couple posts below, #88 This ones from Ex10.6 Build 2697, so CPU may have moved a bit. Useful as I showed layer pics, or a 'tear-down' so possible to see how thrusters were laid out. It is/was just 161 points over 5,000 with 2 drills & 2 turrets. Loaded with 64 tons it had 9 m/s^2 so roughly 25? m/s top speed. They were still working on Stats page so no Yaw numbers. 'Feel' wise it was ok-ish when loaded, so at least mid-teens deg/s I'd guess. https://empyriononline.com/threads/...n-you-build-with-each-tier.91167/#post-374385 Btw there may be other builds more suited to you in this thread, if you haven't already seen it. Anyway, I don't post on the workshop, so this isn't self advertising nor do I think these are anything special. They just show a possible thruster layout that might be useful; which itself isn't anything magical, just shove em out to the corners basically. But maybe some part of the above is useful to someone.
And no thats not a logical comparison. One is block count which together with weight limits to determine your class size is a really solid foundation for measuring the size and weight of your ship. Which has a natural order logical harmonizing path to it. While CPU which is a tiny chip inside a little computer called the core is measuring processing power. If it doesn't have enough processing power to do the task on this or that ship it just won't work. So how can something that can't even measure the size and weight of a ship but just limits based on random numbers be anything but an artificial mess? CPU should just really be removed. Really, it should just be called computer which we already have in Empyrion like the cores. This CPU abomination does not encourage specialization because its not based on a logical standard like weight and block limits. You can try and sugar coat this cpu nonsense, but in the end, it will still be in its nature a none solid foundation.
calling the current system bad isn't a defense of your own. In that same vein, I don't have to like the current system to critique yours; they can both be bad. To that point, everything I said about your system was specifically limited to legitimate problems with CPU. That said, I made five points & you responded to maybe half of one. Should I assume that means you agree with everything else I said & will adjust the system you've come up with accordingly?
I already explained why its bad multiple times and you chose to see past the logical critic of CPU to just write more nonsense. Just because you right alot of nonsense doesn't make you right. It creates specialization naturally which i have mentioned now many times. Its pretty simplistic its just that you may not agree with it. Why would fuel tanks be treated any different? Again specialization. Fuel tanks like everything else has a natural value of weight which the builder will naturally need to keep in mind when deciding what kind of ship he wants to build. You may need to have less weapons in order to put more tanks if thats what you want. Its up to you and its all about freedom within the solid foundation and logical system of weight + block limits. I won't bother answering to the rest sense i have already answered too you and others many times to similar questions. If you have any actual logical arguments to make let me know. Instead i keep seeing arguments based on no logic and just hot-air complaints. Maybe you'll have better luck next time.
