INFO & FEEDBACK [Alpha 11] CPU Points and Tiers - How does it work?

I kind of agree with you here, but will go further in saying that sense an extender is a device in pvp this attracts damage which is why you don't put a core anywhere near any devices and just cover it with plain armor blocks or window shutters like we do in HWS Server. And sense having devices close or attached to the core attracts damage it also increases your chances of getting lagshot.

 

Then picture this when deciding where to place the core and the extenders : would it be safer to place the core in a more vulnerable position than extenders, or the contrary ?

Let me suggest that it makes much more sense to place the core "behind" extenders, or in any comparable configuration. Put inert blocks in between if you want, but the relative positions remain "extenders first, core last" seen from any exterior weapon line-of-sight.

If extenders are crucial devices, they should benefit the same kind of protection as the core, I think. This is granular design topic, so I am not willing to evaluate the zillion possible configurations, it's just to clarify the point you mentioned.

Players use the multi-tool to repair or remove blocks, and can't place blocks or devices on a structure without a core they own, but they can always work/ repair/ replace stuff if only extenders are gone.

But this is very secondary to the topic I think.

 

Neither is safer in a combat environment: both destroy your ability to do pretty much anything. I suppose the core is worse because you lose your lighting and gravity too. I am much more likely to have a core or 10 on hand (I always carry cores) than extenders so plopping one down to make repairs/salvaging if the situation would allow for it is simple.

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
A11 has been live in the public branch for several weeks now with constructive feedback by many (Me included, see page page 46 11-25-19).

So the Big question is "When will the CPU Tiers and the item costs (Blocks, devices, Thrusters, etc.) be re-balanced?"

The next Question would be is "What will those changes will look like?"

I for one have held off Publishing any new BP (I have several pending) and have updated some of my existing ones using different names (And not re-published them), until a re-balancing happens and to see what those changes will be. Some of my BPs are CPU compliant with no issues, some are compliant, but too high of a Tier and some are NOT compliant and can not be made so (as of the current Tiers/costs). I would really like to move forward with a more final version of the CPU system regardless of whether or I not that I decide to use it based on what re-balancing changes are made.

Even if there is not a specific date yet, a ball-park idea of the time frame would be helpful.

@eleon PLEASE reply, so that we can all move forward.

 

If you suppose "the core is worse" then you can't affirm "neither is safer in a combat environment" and by the way this is not how I formulated it : "safer" referred to a spatial setup in combat, and it is not true that putting a core behind a block behind an extender is "not safer" than putting the core as the first device in the line of fire.

It's not very useful to make lots of replacement cores and not one set of extra extenders, because if the loss of extenders causes the ship to be useless (your initial proposal) then waiting for the issue of the battle (the core gets destroyed) to act (put another core) will only make the useless ship get battered some more without defenses. That is quite different than being able to put down some extenders on the fly and get back into active defense.

 

Thank you for the prompt reply!

I now know what I am dealing with for the CPU system. I will Not be using it anytime in the near future and will build accordingly. I was hoping that some re-balancing was coming. Oh well.

On a different note, could you please reply to my questions that I posted in the Thruster re-balance Thread? I would still like to get my Carry weight vs gravity vs thruster Excel sheet updated to reflect the actual calculations that you are using.

Thanks again

 

That is, unfortunately, deeply concerning for me, since:

A, we still do not know HOW is the system supposed to achieve specialization.

Taxing the builds by CPU could do it, but not with the current set up and CPU cost distribution. Sure, on T1 it does enforce some sort of specialisation, since the CPU budget is extremely tight, but as soon as you upgrade in tiers, you can stuff pretty much everything into the ship anyway. The only thing it really does is squashing exremely large constructions.

B, the system as currently set up is railroading players to a specific playstyle.

Previously, you had several ways to aquire everything necessary for a construction - mining, trading, raiding POIs. Everyone found their prefered way. Right now, with how the extender aquisition is set up, you pretty much need to raid POIs to get stuff, then sell the stuff and by the extenders. Which is fine for me, since I raided POIs anyway, but not everyone likes it.

Before, it didn't matter if you don't like a certain part of the game, you could always get the stuff through a different route, which is IMHO important for a game that is basically a survival sandbox, but that is gone now. When the game is played as intended by you, developers, ( CPU on ) player has currently only one way how to build a bigger ships (which perform adequately) you can't choose a playstile you like (f.e. only minig, or only salvaging, or only raiding etc...) you HAVE to raid and sell. I am well aware most of player's playstiles are a combination of more approaches, but still design choice that is limiting player playstiles to a single one in a SANDBOX is not a good design choice.

If EGS is NOT supposed to be a sandbox game, then I appologise for misunderstanding the goal of the game, but right now the game pretty much IS sanbox.

 

In other words, everything that we've been discussing across all the CPU-related threads is completely irrelevant because the devs feel that there's nothing at all wrong with the current implementation besides a few values tweaks.

 

The main thing about CPU is that exceeding the limit must be harsher for it to have a significant impact on gameplay and CPU out for T4 is too much except for perhaps HV.

 

Nah. I'll stay on 10 until I get bored and/or the game develops in a positive direction.

 

Then let's ask the hard question. Have the developers actually taken any of the big critiques of the system into account?
People have been pointing out serious flaws in the way CPU is set up from Day 1, and no matter what your stated goal is ("specialization," or anything else), it should be fairly obvious at this point that CPU is not accomplishing that. I won't reiterate those flaws here, again, since I know you've read them multiple times already - I just want to know, are the devs actually listening, or did they just shrug and write it off as pointless whining?

 

My stance on CPU; Since it can be turned off eventually in the future, that makes it largely acceptable. Most people ranting/complaining probably have not taken the time to simply read that it will be a feature you can turn off and on... and it even defaults to off. (Side note: I see many complaints of how people can't even reach orbit or spend weeks on a motorbike having to collect bridges/matrix. This is a design failure using the new CPU systems. What you CAN NOT do is start the game and instantly produce the BEST ships. You have to accept that you need to specialize. My early game Tier 1 ship was capable of simply Flight, Warp, and Fridge for food. Which allowed me to travel and gather resources to continue to grow to Tier 2. In a Tier 1 ship, you simply can not engage in combat effectively without talented skill. You need at least Tier 2, and even then you will take heavy damage.)

Moving onto my feedback, I personally like the concept behind the CPU... but it definitely needs balancing. So far, I have been able to successfully design Bases, Small Vessels, and Capital Vessels (I don't mess with Hover much) that are within the CPU limits and work effectively.

Of course, lower CPU Tiers can't be some epic armed weapon of absolute destruction. That's kind of the point. I think of it like this...

Tier 1: Civilian; Low armor, little defense. Primarily serves purpose of transportation and industry.
Tier 2: Modified Civilian, Light Military; Able to account for some extra weaponry and defenses. Also can support better industry such as mining drills, etc.
Tier 3: Military; At Tier 3 you can start to design ships that can hold up fairly well in combat. They aren't the best, but they can definitely provide effective results
Tier 4: Elite Military; This tier allows you to design powerful military ships that can easily handle entire POI elimination on their own (with proper repair between) and even engage in fleet combat as a sort of flagship


When it comes to the actual CPU limits, I can see a level of progression. Elite ships are not able to be mass produced, while you can easily accomplish early game tasks with civilian based ships. Being civilian based, clearly it's not equipped to survive engagements. However, my greatest complaint is the rate of acquiring the T3 and T4 CPU bridge/matrix for both Small and Large. In a survival game, you may as well forget about T3/T4 as it takes way too much effort to acquire. In Creative, there is no issue because you just simply give yourself the items you need. I've designed T3/T4 things in creative that work as I expect... but building them in Survival is nearly impossible.

My immediate suggestion: Increase availability in Survival games for Small/Large Bridge/Matrix items. At least provide a simple way to modify these rates for Server Admins. The current rates are absolutely too low. There should be at a minimum a 200% increase in drop rates, and a price reduction of 50% in all Trader stores, as even with Honored the cost is far too high. The loss of a T3/T4 design in combat is terrifying, and honestly makes me not even want to build them out of fear of how long it will take to simply rebuild it.

Current Conclusion: The CPU system has potential for a different playstyle. It seems to work in design concepts, but Survival drop rates/prices are impossible to realistically maintain. Especially in PvP, where loss is highly possible. (Not to mention, more probable as they may want to salvage your ship to get those ultra rare materials for their own T3/T4)

 

Well, they aren't making any substantive changes to CPU in A11 or A12, so obviously no.

 

I guess it's pretty difficult to satisfy everyone and still follow your own vision

 

Most people ? Really ?

I think it's just a little bit more complex than that. You're right that it can be disabled, but the problem is that players gave lots of feedback, positive negative and in between, made lots of suggestions, and the developers remained silent for the most part of this. Having them coming out today to say the system will stay as it is was evidently received as a slap in the face for certain, and as nothing new to others, and everything in-between.

But certainly not "complaining because they didn't read it can be turned off".

 

I think most people making sweeping generalizations about anyone critical of the CPU system have not taken the time to simply read this thread to see whether someone else made their original statement first. I think we're now up to eight people coming into this topic & saying CPU can be turned off like it's a novel solution to everyone's problems. Can we just dry & press the thread & hang it in the Dunning-Kruger museum? Maybe with a George Santayana quote under it?