I almost feel bad for admitting this, but no one in their right minds could possibly reason against an argument like that.
If you believe CPU is only about encouraging specialization, then steel blocks costing CPU doesn't make sense. If you are a bit more pessimistic and willing to consider that CPU is not all it is claimed to be, then evaluating CPU as a mechanic to divide vessels into general categories of PVP "toughness" then hull blocks costing CPU makes total sense. When I read that certain devices were given a CPU cost because someone threatened to use them as armor in PVP, well, that only reinforced my impression that CPU isn't at all as it has been claimed to be. Before Empyrion, my only introduction to a CPU mechanic was in another game that focused on PVP team battles, and that game used CPU for a rough balance of battles including dividing builds into tiers depending on how much CPU you used in your creation. So why would tier 1 force brittle builds? It makes complete sense if you figure the region most likely to see tier 1 builds is starting worlds. All they would have to do is allow server admins to set CPU limits for certain regions. Then you could balance conflicts in the space near starting worlds by ensuring that experienced players and new players are both using brittle vessels in those regions. While restricted to a single orbit, this doesn't make as much sense. However, expanding out into multiple star systems, then it would make far more sense. There are some other games that restrict whether you can return to the starting regions based on some mechanic that might divide new players from veterans.
I dont know why...but i want to advocate for the cpu insted of blame them... They are just funny to play with it.....direct experience.. You guys are on the wrong topic....the mother of all the problems is the fly system.....who really impact badly on the cpu.... If they fix that...all the problem are sorted...
I kinda with people would slow down on the CPU talk. You can turn it off while they fix the issues. You can NOT turn off the flight mechanics though. These need fixing first, IMO. Or to put it another way, we've beaten that horse to death already. The devs have showed they aren't listening so...... They have already buried their heads in the sand and aren't going to come out until we drop it it seems. They seem to be sticking by their first implementation and aren't budging.
It may solve a problem with the CPU system, but others will remain. The system as presented provides alterations to playstyle well outside the provided mandate of 'specialization', including but not limited to adding grind to play, hard limits of vehicle sizes, reduced operational duration, and enforced fragility of lower tiers. None of those are specific to the new flight model.
1) This thread is specific to CPU so of course people are talking about it here. The feedback about CPU has some minimal chance the devs will address at least some of the concerns, though I am realistic enough to expect nothing to come from the critiques. 2) I agree the new flight mechanics are wrong for the game (specifically the max speed limited by mass -- the atmospheric changes I am indifferent towards). However, the devs consider them to be an improvement and actually features. I don't think they are going to be reverted since they seem to feel somehow that it's appropriate. I am even less optimistic those will be reverted.
This thread also has pages upon pages that are nothing more than bickering back and forth between players. Not much actual useful discussion going on anymore. I'm just saying.
Pretty much everything's been said by the players and nothing new has been forthcoming from the devs other than "look we tweaked some CPU numbers up and down". So we get spats between defenders and critics. I am increasingly pessimistic we'll see a response to the criticisms or even an explanation of the thoughts behind the CPU implementation's effect on the game. Flight mechanics are in the same place, really. The effects have been noted and critiqued without dev comment.
When I get bored, there are two things I enjoy doing with EGS: - building CVs - modifying existing blueprints Whenever I break 2 mil CPU, every change I make to a ship causes framerate spikes & makes my computer overheat. This happens whether or not I have CPU turned on. This is not the first time I've said as much. Because of this issue, I can't modify my existing designs to fit the CPU system & I can't make new ships without fully planning them out ahead of time (which takes the fun out ot it. I like doodling in 3D). As long as this problem exists & I can't doodle my ships, I will instead spend my time trolling the forums. As long as there are glaring problems with CPU (whether or not they're related to the issue I just mentioned) I'm going to point them out whenever I'm on the forums, because fixing them might incidentally fix the personal issues I'm experiencing with the CPU system. Therefore I will be a squeaky wheel until further notice. Thanks for your input.
... if I'm quieter over the next few days, it means you're right. It also means you should treat yourself to a cookie, because shutting me up is a rare privilege exclusive to the inner circle
LOL I have no interest in shutting you up! Just making sure you know the devs think it's fixed so you know to complain louder if it's not! I, on the other hand, am likely to get quiet in a week or so if nothing new is heard. I'll wrap up my 10.5 save and toss the game aside again as a "sort of nice experiment, maybe check it out again in a year or so and see if there's improvement"
If people still experience trouble then you need to write a bug report and upload your save game. We really need this to find the cause IF there is still an issue. We found an issue with the flight controller that caused this and that is fixed if you decide NOT to do this then not much we can do
I disagree, because of this : This sheds light on an aspect that has not been debated much, because for the most part players were not told that CPU was a PvP-exclusive "mitigation measure". This here fits the picture much more than "specialization" for "role playing". Surely the developers have become a bit anxious over time with "PvP exclusives" knowing how the whole place heats up on such "divisive" topics. I did not count posts but I can guess that there is a large portion of the players who posted in this thread that don't care about PvP, seeing only their end of the CPU scope.
Very nice, simple builds. I appreciate simple, they work. Sure, they're not PvP builds, but there's a lot more to Empyrion than PvP. Been there, done that. As for my little HV with its single RCS - it improves tight handling, sharp turns and rolls especially. I've done builds with and without, and find the improved handling a bit more suited to my style. And that's really the point of custom, non-prefab vehicles - making something suited to individual play styles. Granted some of those styles are being impacted by the CPU system, but that's not a reason to scrap either a play style or a system, but rather to adapt both, which can be done, and in the end we'll all come out ahead.
Certainly @Hummel-o-War's explanation at the beginning of this thread doesn't mention anything to do with PvP. But, even if it were true, it's still not clear that the CPU system as implemented has done much to change the overall PvP meta; high-CPU-tier ships take longer to get to sure, but neither thick layers of combat steel nor max weapons consume that much CPU (5 layers of combat steel in a 30x30x30 CV are less than 1 XL thruster). Plus, CV-CV docking allows for ablative armor shells (and precharged shield modules) with no CPU penalty at all. Ultimately, the problem is that the devs don't have a good model for what the CPU system actually does, and how it impacts builds. Hence, they can't explain why it's set up the way that it is, and how that accomplishes any of the goals they've set for it. Evidently we the players are supposed to supply all of that justification by experimenting with a poorly-designed half-baked system.
Spinning me in circles one more time, hey ? Just read @dpburke2 's latest post again. If you believe CPU is only about encouraging specialization, then steel blocks costing CPU doesn't make sense. If you are a bit more pessimistic and willing to consider that CPU is not all it is claimed to be, then evaluating CPU as a mechanic to divide vessels into general categories of PVP "toughness" then hull blocks costing CPU makes total sense. That is explained by Hummel in the first posts : 3. FUTURE At some point in the future, when the feedback indicates the CPU Points have grown to a workable balance, we will switch the setup again, so from then on CPU Points will be activated by default when you start a new game, BUT you will still be able to decide to not use them as the setting for On/Off will stay in the game of course! So until that "balance" is reached, we can't simply dismiss one another's speculation. What doesn't "make sense" in @dpburke2 's explanation, apart from not being mentioned by Hummel in OP ?
The energy cost and most damningly the expectation a player craft could use multiple types of extenders as backup. Since only the smallest of ships in a tier will even move using the previous tier extender, I'd say the devs don't/didn't really understand their own mechanism on delivery.
Well without extenders, CPU would be tied to the core as the only device managing CPU, so when the core is disabled the fight is over (and it's not targettable). With extenders players can still fight or try to escape, and for attackers disabling some CPU extenders is equal to destroying many devices at a time, so it may not be as bad thinking as it appears. Am I wrong ?
It's the CPU penalty for going over the limit when a main extender is destroyed. The distance between Tier 3 and Tier 4 is so massive that no T3 backup will save a ship from suffering a 300%+ CPU penalty if a T4 is destroyed, resulting in 0% thrust output and 0% turn speed for turrets, which is functionally no different from having no backup at all. The only situation where where you might benefit from a backup is if you're just barely over the limit to begin with, in which case you're wasting 90% of your (expensive) CPU buffer on nothing.
