How does a T5 have all the issues around CPU remaining if Tear 5 is the thing that is optional? It would actually allow for Eleon to lower the CPU points in Tears 1-4 so it actually does what they built it for, force specialized designs AND would allow them to make it so CPU T1-4 cannot be turned off...the T5, would be for those that dont want to be stuck with CPU restrictions. This makes CPU a thing that is not wasted as it is right now because those that hate it will have it off, that makes it a design not being used by a decent portion of the playerbase. So what are the reasons why so many people hate the CPU addition? 1. It doesnt do what Eleon created it for. Making people use specialized ships. 2. It limits building. Almost all complaints fall under the two above categories. The Tear 5 idea allows for to fixes both all while providing a way for them to get everyone to actually play with CPU turned on. And no, T5 does not need to be 8 extenders, it doesnt even need to be 1 extender. It can be anything Eleon wants it to be. It can be nothing more than a turbo button created via 1 bar of silicon...hell now that I think about it, it doesnt even NEED TO BE a CPU Tear 5...it can be just what I typed, a CPU Turbo button that can be built and added to a vehicle that is optional in game settings allowing those of us that dont want that final T4 building limitation a way to play with CPU turned on for early game challenges and a way to play the end game that we want...building and use monstrosities. Fully optional. See, this is what happens when you try to think of new was to fix things instead of just saying "no". Ways to make CPU a full feature instead of an optional one while also giving those that hate the limit, a way to still use it and expand the game.
I suppose the issue here is terminology then. "Tier 5" suggests it comes after / above T3/T4, and thus would follow the same progression pattern. Since T3/T4 are gated by Optronics and extenders, it would then stand to reason a T5 would be the same way. It sounds to me like what you're actually suggesting is some kind of "Tier 0" core that just ignores CPU, rather than some kind of high-end Infinity Points progression. I do have to point out though that your notion of "fully optional" applies to CPU in its current state already, since it can be switched off. Unfortunately, I don't find any value in that argument since anything I build still has to be CPU-compliant in order to be used as a prefab. I realize not everyone is under those restrictions and that's fine, but it's where a large source of my personal aggravation comes from - I don't get that option.
The actual issue here is you are not looking at the context of the solution. Tear 5 was just a way of saying "add an addition" onto CPU, make that addition the optional part of CPU, and because it would be the optional part, remove the CPU limits from THAT. This would allow Eleon to then make the current CPU system what they actually wanted it to be ( lower CPU points to force specializations) while giving everyone else a way to bypass it when they want. My last post made it pretty clear that this "option" would come after T1-4 so the CPU system can be used by those that want to eventually bypass the restrictions to enhance the challenge of the early game. Suddenly CPU is now a system in game that isnt wasted. Everyone has the base system turned on, its being used by 100% of players...T5 is the optional part of the game. So, for a more in depth description of what I mean... Eleon makes T1-4 a thing that cannot be turned off. Everyone must use it. You start your game. You are limited to T1 designs until you can find the items to make a T2 and so on. Games challenge is increased for everyone! you play your game finding what you need to make your T3....T4...game is harder. People are using "specialized vehicles" crowd cheers...but if you have "Tear 5" turned on in your game options....you can build a simple item that will allow you to turn a T4 into a T5 with unlimited CPU points. Hell, it could even be made so its just another item that can be built to "bypass" CPU altogether...but that "item" would be a thing that would have to be turned "on" in game options. The point is to create a way so that this system that is already built a thing that most of those that hate it, will like it while giving Eleon a way to actually have the current system always on so everyone uses it in some shape or form.
Again, I'm just gonna say that a solution that bypasses the problem is not a solution, and does not fix the underlying issues. In this case, what you're suggesting is actively worse than simply "CPU can be turned off" because you are in fact enforcing the CPU restrictions up to the point of this T5 "addition" (extender, module, whatever the heck you'd like to call it). And since you've just confirmed that your T5 suggestion does rely on progressing through T3 / T4, then I will reiterate that it carries with it all the flaws of T3 / T4 progression. Essentially what you're suggesting is to move the "CPU-off" game option toggle to something device-based, gated behind an already bad system, and then give that device a toggle instead. A process that sounds both unnecessarily convoluted and by your own admission continues to force players through a bad system up until they reach that point in their game. I'm sorry, but I can't wrap my head around how you could think that is somehow "better," or something that everyone can get behind. But I'll give you this much credit - it's actually such a terrible suggestion, I'm surprised Eleon didn't come up with it themselves.
Stop ignoring what I am actually saying so you can "So what you're saying is". Address the actual suggestion, not what you think it is. You are just hell bent on dismissing ideas, you cant even read what is being posted. You clearly have no intention of coming up with ways to improve what we ARE going to be stuck with, CPU.
Sorry, but this is in NO WAY a solution to fixing CPU. This makes it even worse because I can't turn it off then. Let me make sure I have you 100% clear here..... You want them to keep the broken T1-T4 in-game. You want them to add in a new tier, T5, and this tier is CPU off. So now CPU, which is broken at the very core, is forced on everyone and they have to progress through T1-T4 before they can turn CPU off. Oh, and I have to find T4 stuff to turn that into T5 just so I can play with "CPU off". That's a big fat hell no from me bud........ That's the worst idea to "fix" CPU ever. Really, it is.
I'm ignoring nothing. This is what you wrote: You are, therefor, taking the "CPU off" toggle from the game mode, and moving it to the device of your own suggestion. You are then saying to add "Device on" as an option. This is effectively the same thing, but under a layer of obfuscation that: ...forces players to use the CPU system... ...until they can turn it off with your "Tear 5" Device. (Language tip, it's "T-I-E-R". Tear, T-E-A-R, is what you're making my brain cry right now in trying to spell out to you the gaps in your own logic.) -We've gone from having an option to turn CPU off, straight up, to "you can only turn CPU off once you've built the Liang Tear 5 Device," and only "if you have enabled said device in the options." This is a step backwards, and for the last time, having the option to turn CPU off is not the same as fixing it. Why do I say this? Your 5 Tears of Sadness Device does not actually address any of the actual problems that are part of the CPU system as-it-is, like using Optronics to gate T3/T4 progression, basing CPU costs around block/device HP, the ridiculous (lack of) balance between CPU costs for Weapons, Utilities (cargo modules/constructors), and core funtionality (thrusters /RCS), or anything else. And I maintain, it's actually a worse suggestion than simply "CPU off" by default since your plan requires players to endure an always-on system up to the point where they can build your hypothetical device. And just for bonus points, I'm gonna add that this is a god-awful suggestion for Multiplayer since your "Tear5" device creates a discrepancy between CPU-abiding vessels and "Tear5" CPU-ignoring vessels on the same server. At least with CPU-off this isn't an issue because it's all-or-nothing for everyone and keeps things fair. EDIT: Buddy, I've been feeding the devs improvement suggestions since they first introduced it. I was one of the first people on board with the idea of "Extenders," until they turned it into some all-or-nothing Fixed Tier (T-i-e-r) system. I've argued loud and long through three different phases of testing to help them improve what they've given us, to no avail. If you think I'm being negative to you just out of spite, then I humbly recommend you submit yourself to the nearest hospital emergency room and request a CAT-scan for potential brain damage.
Is eleon really ready for thise AAA studio attidude of ignoring their fanbase and community feedback? Especially this situation how the CPU thing is handled brings back memories from 2018... Hummel Howard (Todd-Of-War?) to his audience: ... so we added a CPU system to Empyrion 76 that allows 16x the details. And every time they add something new there has to be some stupid bs item you need to find in fking loot to actually craft and use that new crap. This loot only thing is the laziest approach to making something rare and valuable. There sure are better ways - for example that stupid optronix bridge should ofc cost a ton of zascosium and erestrum and on top of that the crafting time could be horrendous even more so for the matrix. that way t3 and t4 would still be hard to come by but wouldnt require pure luck to get - just to add something constructive
You deliberately cut the part you replied to leave out the FIX. along with ignoring... CPU that is forced, lowered to do what they actually created it to do + a way for us to bypass it if we want while still using it to enhance early/mid game. In the mean time. What have YOU brought forward as a FIX?
You are removing total context to set up strawmen by trying to break things down into different things not correlated dismiss it. Right NOW. CPU is either on or off, a player will either use all of it or NONE of it. My fix provides a way for EVERYONE to use it and also a way t bypass it at SOME POINT during their gameplay if they choose to. Not a 100% OFF situation where its a system that was created for only a few. It can actually add depth of gameplay even for those that will in the end, want to make anything they want at END GAME. You know, the game that comes after the start and middle? Depth. Progression...it actually adds a new layer to CPU that was not there before while dealing with the hate players have for its limits. The option goes from DONT USE IT EVER. To use it to enhance the game and still be able to remove its limits. The thing most that hate the system WANTS while also allowing Eleon to bring CPU back to what they intended it to be for multi-player...a way to force smaller more specialized vehicles. You in the mean time are just here dismissing things while providing no fixes or even improvements to ideas.
Wow this is great work Kassonmade!!! Thanks for testing implementation. I am definitely going to play around with this on the weekend.
Nope nope nope nope. Your idea would be worse than useless to me. I was struggling to reach tier-2 before I gave up in disgust. There is absolutely no way I'd ever reach tier-3 let alone clear tier-4 just so I could go to tier-5 and turn the system off. Nope. Wouldn't happen. Game goes in the garbage first. Forcing those who won't tolerate the system to crawl through it lengthwise to escape it is either sadistic or dumb. Sadistic if the players feel they need to, dumb if you expect them to and they have other things they could do instead like stare at paint drying. *edited to add* The problem for me isn't I can't build big. My biggest ship ever is probably less than a million CPU (maybe, I think, I never loaded one of my old games with my CV base, but as mobile bases go, it wasn't huge or fast). It's I can't build to escape fragility. What *I* need is a way I can build my typical small dedicated craft with the extra layers of defence necessary to compensate for the fact I'm a crap player. Because I am; I know it, everyone who has grouped with me in MMOs knows it. I *am* the weakest link for those who remember the show. So far as I am concerned, the CPU system, especially the lower tiers, does nothing to enforce specialisation so much as it strips defences and enforces fragility. And that's a showstopper for me.
I think when I've expressed opposition to specialization, that I have not really explained what I mean. I am against forced specialization that runs counter to creativity. I am in favor of creating systems that encourage specialization by making it advantageous. The "real world" isn't the answer for everything since it can make games overly complicated and boring, but for the sake of discussion, let's talk about vehicles today. We have cars, and boats, and hovercraft, and planes, and helicopters, and submarines, and rockets, etc.. It is possible to make vehicles you can live in, and vehicles you can fight in. You can make an amphibious vehicle, or a submarine that can float on the surface, or potentially a jet that can enter into space. However, it is not possible to make a car, which can fly, and float, and go 10,000 leagues under the sea, and can go into space, and has a drill to obtain petroleum, with refining equipment to turn crude oil into more fuel, and of course it has artillery mounted on top, and has a fully functioning hydroponic garden in the back. Why not? The reason it is not possible to do these things is not because an automobile engine has some artificial limit that says it cannot have a garden attached to it. The reason is because the more something does, the bigger it has to be, which requires massive fuel/energy to do something like go into space. Not to mention requirements imposed like special plating/shielding to survive atmospheric reentry, the radiation of space, the depth of the oceans, etc. Power, weight, and materials pose natural limits on what it is possible to build. Specialized vehicles are advantageous because they're more efficient. In Empyrion, energy is so cheap it is practically free. The energy required to hover above the ground or lift off into orbit is unrealistically low. The fuel required to put something the size of a battleship in space is so much, the ship itself couldn't carry it. Look at the space shuttle, and how the boosters and main fuel tank are so much bigger than the ship and are discarded. If they would try to balance energy requirements and mass and the other systems that were already there, that would encourage specialization by itself. You wouldn't make so many CV's that can do everything because they'd be expensive to fly around and enter orbit if you landed one. You'd naturally make small special-purpose SV's and HV's if energy was more expense, SV's were 10X the operating cost of HV's, and ships were super-expensive to get into orbit. Instead, they impose limits like: CV's, SV's, and HV's can't have solar panels Limits on how many weapons you can attach No mining lasers on SV's Some weapons work only in space Only bases can have furnaces and deconstructors New limits on CPU points And so on. But all of this is just working around the fact that energy is super-cheap and existing systems like energy usage and mass are not balanced correctly. We don't need all these limitations, and new systems to balance. Start with getting energy and mass right. It should be super expensive to fly an SV compared to an HV. People would use HV's more if this was accurate. Sure, you could add turrets to an SV and mining lasers and all that, why not? But using HV's would still be far more efficient.
I understood your proposal before this clarifying post. As I believe did everyone else that commented. I have essentially stopped playing EGS. I may try to figure out if I still have fun playing with the new flight mode and CPU off. If your terrible suggestion were ever adopted there would be no way back for me. I did lots of crates more than on 2 starter planets and moons combined and did not get enough optronics to build 1 tier4. The exact numbers are in their own thread. I do not like being told I must be friendly with Polaris so I can trade. If I wanted to play a trading game it would not be this one. Incessant grinding is not a substitute for game content. Your proposal is simply forced grinding of one form or another and I will not play that. If this is adopted I hope you have many hours of grinding fun I will not be joining you
Exactly my thinking. Nice post man. I'v found your post very enlightening and similar to some of my own thoughts on the matter of specializing ships naturally. Thanks.
I think the discussion here about @Liang 's "tier 5" proposal is a bit more heated than it needs to be. Ultimately, no one here likes the current functionality. Some people advocate getting rid of it completely. @Liang has suggested that, if Eleon is going to stick with what they've done, it would be nice if we could at least progress past it with another tier. But I don't see this as advocacy of the T1-T4 systems being great, more as trying to deal with things. Making a system that works for everyone and killing the CPU on/off option would avoid fragmenting the workshop. But I think everyone's on the same side at the end of the day, disagreeing about where to go from here, doesn't mean that anyone really supports the status quo. The problem is that Eleon has pushed a system that is disliked by most players as far as I can tell, including many long-time fans of the game, and they've done so without a very clearly defined goal (and haven't achieved what the stated reason was). This is problematic because, with as little marketing as they do, they have to understand their current player base is also responsible for helping spread the word about the game. I've introduced it to people that never heard of it, many of you probably have as well. So alienating long-term core players is not good. You can't please everyone all the time, and sometimes they are going to add things that 20% of the players don't like. But if 90% of people don't like it, that's a problem and maybe they need a course correction on their approach. I'd like to see them go back to more player feedback surveys, like they used to do, and collect feedback about priorities. They also need to be open to dumping something that doesn't work, and beware of the "sunk cost fallacy" - if a feature is completed, but didn't turn out well and people hate it, they should not keep it just because they spent time on it. Sometimes you try something and it doesn't work, that's how any creative endeavor is, but if you want to make the game as good as it can be, you have to be willing to go back to the drawing board sometimes. In this case they seem to have a feature that few people like, some people really hate, and isn't really achieving their stated goal for implementing it, so why keep it?
That is why Eleon gave them the on/off switch. That part was well explained by all those who answered to Liang : there's an easy way out of CPU with a switch, and adding a tier 5 for those who don't like the system makes no sense, because it forces them through the system anyway up until they reach tier 5. I doubt any system can "work for everyone" in Empyrion, as in any other game to be honest. We know the usual outcome of trying to please everyone. Eleon knows it also, and there are actually 3 "gaming" options : - use the system as it is, knowing they don't intend to change it apart adjusting some values (this is the crack in their defense), - turning the system off completely and complain about 2nd worse feature of the game for a change, or - use the system and tweak it ourselves with the config file like we can do for mass/ volume and energy, weapons damage and range, recipes, templates, critters hitpoints, etc. Adding the tier 5 as proposed by Liang could only work if all lower tiers could be made acceptable "by everyone" and you see right here the huge problem.
Agreed, but for this particular feature the fact that there is an ON/OFF switch leads to fragmentation of the workshop because it affects what designs are OK or not. It would be better to find a way to not need the switch (whatever that way is). Well, they have in the past managed to find good balances between things. They have created a game that can appeal to builders, and people that like survival. You can play PVP, or not. You can raid POI, or not. They gave you options. They might not be able to please everyone, but with some things their approach isn't well thought out, this is an example. I'd like to explain how I might have approached the issue. This is not a suggestion/proposal, but just an illustration that it is not impossible to plan out a feature like this without offending people. So, the goal is to specialize. First, figure out "specialize into what?" You have to visualize what it means. Maybe a few things like this: Cargo hauler Attack vessel Mining vessel Get rid of CPU. Instead, add a device (a core extension) that allows enhancing your vehicle for a specific purpose, for example: Freight dispatching unit - increases storage capacity by 50% Enhanced targeting unit - adds 50% to damage Ore extraction unit - adds 50% to mined ore You can add ONE of these units to a vessel (choose one). Like existing core extensions you can only find ingredients in POI, or buy them. Voilà! I have now: Encourage the design and use of multiple specialized vehicles Added new content to the game, above and beyond what was already there Made loot more interesting / added to progression Not invalidated/ruined anyone's existing designs If the stated goal was really "to encourage specialization" this would do it in a clearer way. The reason this would be closer to "pleasing most people" is because it is additive, not subtractive. People don't want new restrictions, they want more content. I think whenever possible they should be adding, not removing/replacing. I've felt the same way about artwork, and also creatures. Like they removed some of the old creatures (plant monster) and added new ones. But why not just add new ones? There's hardly enough as it is.
A bit of a side note, but I'll answer that. Same reason the RCS models, thrusters, constructors, cargo containers, and everything else are slowly being replaced / upgraded by new (and not always better) designs. They started this game using cheap art from the Unity Asset Store, and are progressively swapping out placeholder stuff for higher-detail, mostly original content. I agree the selection of creatures is sorely lacking - for a game aiming to be "galactic" survival, a paltry handful of alien wildlife options just won't cut it (hell, NMS has practically unlimited procedural critters running about and it still gets stale in a hurry). But I wouldn't expect them to keep old placeholder stuff in once its replacement is available.
I agree that's a great starting point. As long as you're including energy generation as well as storage I'm mostly on board with your thoughts about using more natural limits wherever practical. Prior to CPU arriving in 11, I proposed that most ship parts should require more energy/generators produce far less. That way, like most real vehicles, you would need large amount of space devoted to energy generation, like a spaceship 'engine' or 'reactor'. That would scale nicely with size, and would be able to replace artificial caps that prevent specialisation with a design currency (power) that you could spend on the functions that suited the ships role. At the time it was mentioned that CPU was promising to solve those problems. This seemed good because at least if CPU was switched off you didn't need to change power and invalidate workshop builds. Unfortunately it looks like CPU not only broke workshop builds but also didn't achieve specialisation, and likely won't because Eleon doesn't want to tweak it much. I don't know of anyone who specifically supports my proposed solutions enough to assist, but such as my skills are I'll probably attempt to start playing around with config files and see if there's anything I can throw together that might convince others to get on board.
