I take e oppurtinity till i dont come back to work to make clear a point the developer have to keep on mind. 1) core system: shield, warp, cargo space, hangar space, constructor, medical staff etc. The firmst part shield and warp as fuel tank go inside first i normally build a shell and i put all the vital system in there. After start working at the chassis. Space for cargo or other staff. Make a plan where to put this and the other....putting fthem inside or close to the edge if not important....when thw back bone are read. You have an idea. How much cpu you have already used and how much you have left.... 2) you start to put engine in eccess. Before closing the bones with the ship skins....and your cpu count start to roket....so the clads size of the ship. Aftef that you check your cpu count...you have the ships putside to finish.....some garnish to put on place ( im a chef ) and the weapon to put. You load as much wrapon you can anc keep some of the rest cpu for extra engine and for some other skin part or adjustment like extra fuel tank ( you need to consider also the fuel usage ). And ofc o2 system ( tank and ven). So mister......of course i will use all my cpu....they are a finished quantity to do an infinite and elaborate series of staff....is not question to adjustment....if you have a plan you have a plan....is just silly to work like that...understood?
sorry for the bad writing, i was on cigarette break and with my bloody telephone ( i hate write reply with it) I`m really think to make this as last of my topic on this tread. And i`m really think to take a break for good. I had two very funny mount. But i`m losing the "drive" i had before. No the same game anymore as i say long time ago. I have see something who caught my attention, and i know myself to well.
If the Devs played the game they would see just how incompetent the CPU implementation is. Not the concept, the implementation. As someone who only started playing true PvP this year. The vanilla drop rate of t3/4 components is laughable. In addition, t4 ships are basically the same as current PvP ships, with the exception of the new flight model. Speaking of the flight model, and CPU, it's nearly impossible for me to build a decently sized ship, with redundant thrusters at t2. I was hoping for something decent. 490k plus for one redundant thruster in every direction, class 3 made out of Carbon Substrate (for HWS) with 4 Rocket launchers, 4 pulse lasers and 8 turrets. I figured it would be nice to try a smaller combat CV, but it moves like a potato, maxing out at 88.9 m/s forward and reverse. Not to mention that accelerating with the break off slows me down in a direction that has slightly less thrust. Come on now, physics.... Fix your stuff Eleon, you can do better. I love your game, but I don't like it right now.
I think the same. The overall negative/ positive review ratio is still very good compared to all similar Early Access games that came out about the same time in that space sandbox hype period. When I check reviews and I see the same elements reported both in positive and negative reviews, I understand that it's far from being as bad as negative reviews want to make it sound, especially when taking into account that past a certain time in any game players loose a lot of enthusiasm and can mix it up into their overall appreciation. While I can understand all what you wrote up here since I'm an experienced player, I honestly think that a new buyer will not understand a word of it unless knowing much of the game already. If they do read it and understand it's optional, like you wrote, that may be enough for them. Why it's not enough for veterans is unconsequential to them indeed. I think I had my share of fun for 10$, and I'm sure the game will be much more replayable than most other titles I own in many years to come, even if they left CPU as is. I had my "intense" minecraft period where I would mod the game to the bone and break mouse buttons playing it and building, then it started slowing down to the point I would not play anymore. But once in a while, I fire it up and savor its particular quiet start, and have a few more hours of quiet fun with it. I know Empyrion will probably be of the same kind. That's not bad at all for 10$. Only time will tell I guess. I understand the will to "hurt sales to make developers react" but I know how eventual buyers can interpret that as I did myself for many other games suffering "bad reviews". This is a far too subjective approach to be relied upon by new buyers : these players racked up thousand hours and want me to skip that ? Why ? Now we're just chitt-chatting here, but on Steam forums its a bit more rough on the edges on these issues... I feel like what you call "playing the game" up here is mostly "building" and not "playing" as such. When you say that you "can no longer recommend this game" I know it's not true : you CAN, but you don't want to, and you need others to know it. If I can read that, others can, and the developers too. If some players have real doubts about buying the game, they can come to the forums, and they will have both sides of the coin. And if they have doubts it's surely because they know all coins have 2 sides, and I wouldn't want to miss a gem because some players got tired of a game after 4 years. If anyone asks me personally about Empyrion, I simply say "good game, erratic development, a bit complex but easy building with lots of stuff. Wanna try it in COOP ? Give me a call and I'll set up a game with a custom config and a small crate and ship to get you started. It's going to be fun". I know how new players get the thrills when they first fire up that mini-SV engine... No CPU can make that disappear.
My honest thoughts on CPU, I've been grinding for hours upon hours to finally get everything I need to make my first T3 vessel ever. I still am not even close to a T4 vessel. Now I don't want to use my ship because I'm terrified of losing one of these extenders and being forced into another seemingly endless grind just to get another one. That right there says all I need to know about CPU in it's current form. I don't even need to talk about all the other problems with it. That one issue alone is stopping me from enjoying my hard work. By the way none of that process was enjoyable to me.
I didn't see @Scoob on the forum for a while now. Last times I saw him he wrote he did not find the game as fun as it used to be, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. But I remember clearly having told him at least 1 or 1 1/2 year ago that playing "for real" non-stop like he was doing might lead him to get bored out of the game before it's even finished...
Steam regularly commits fraud with reviews. When sale times come around, positive reviews that are months or years old get their dates changed to something more recent. It was easier to spot when the game has been out for over a year & multiple reviews dated in the past month were labeled "early access review". There might still be a few of those around, but it's harder to notice unless you're looking for it. I'm also suspect of the hundreds of one-sentence reviews written in barely-literate english with 8 hours of playtime attached to them. It almost feels like an outsourced positive review team working under a pretense of "ad boosting".
@casta_03 : all that is quite possible too. I don't take these reviews into account for any game, and I'm sure many other "customers" don't. "Overall rating" means no more that a shade of grey, unless it's "overwhelmingly (negative) or (positive)". I'm more on the pragmatic side of things usually. CPU is done, they can now change it anytime if they want to, even if the game was to be finalized as it is right now we could still tweak it to our likings, and the vast majority of players who don't like it will simply avoid "vanilla" servers. Heck, even some "doomed" games can be highly recommended "with this TERRIFIC modpack", so I think it's a bit early to try to put nails in the coffin. If they now put CPU behind them and make players able to walk on moving ships, elevators and whatnot, and somewhat manage to fix collisions, I know CPU will just fade out from the front scene.
I'm still here, just not as much. As sometimes happens I've hit a natural "not playing as much" time. This is in part due to some of the recent changes I don't really like. CPU isn't great in my view, but the darn mass impacting top speed - especially in space - takes something away from the game for me. It robs early-game HV's of much of their utility as while they can lift their cargo just fine, and they're understandably a bit more sluggish accelerating, them losing their max speed is a show stopper. I've been trying, really, to adopt to CPU, but doing so means I can't have a well performing early-game vessel of any class and stay within the arbitrary limits. Here's the thing ALL of my early-game vessels, be they HV, SV or CV are basically about hauling stuff back to base for processing. Be it Ores I've mined, Wood I've collected or Loot from POI's. That's the early-game, gathering resources, hauling them back to base for the next project. Now, that process is painful where it used to be fun. Early-game in that first HV used to be fun and challenging. It was fun because I was finally zooming over the landscape at speed while carrying relatively heavy loads. I had to be mindful of slopes of course, as my acceleration was much reduced by the weight I was often carrying. However, driving an HV at high speed that didn't turn or stop quickly was a fun challenge by its self. That's gone now as the same HV would be crawling along at 7ms or something silly like that. Early-game I have no options. I cannot build the required CPU Extender thingy to allow me to place the extra thrusters I need to retain some degree of performance. For me, CPU ruins some of the fun of the early-game - by far my favourite part - with restrictions which stop me being able to counter effectively other new silly restrictions in the form off mass restricted top speed. How is that still a thing? It's so very bad. Despite all this, and after a short break, I've really tried to play. The game is still fun of course, but it can easily become not fun when I hit one of the restrictions. This game, I wanted to build a better hauling HV- but it wasn't fun. I wanted to build, or perhaps even spawn in via BP, one of my "Lifter" class of SV's - I have some I'm actually quite proud of - but they'd not really work now despite being within CPU limits. So, what did I do? Well I bypassed the limited and nerfed HV and SV class almost entirely. So, very basic - and fairly useless - starting HV, no SV and I went straight on to a CV. I actually had a quite epic, if buggy, encounter with a Patrol Vessel early-game, playing Project Eden. I documented it in the "What did you do..." thread. In essence though, through luck, the PV crashed near my underground base early-game and I was able to nerf it with very early-game weapons, break in by blowing out a thruster and access the Core. The parts gained from the PV effectively built my CV. That was fun. CV's are less compromised by CPU limits. I managed to build a full mobile base with Warp and Shields in my prior game - another build I was quite proud of. This time I've done a scratch-build again, but it's not yet warp capable or shielded. Like most of my builds, its initial task is hauling and salvage. I like that it's a bit ponderous and slow to accelerate, but the top speed being heavily impacted when only marginally loaded is annoying. Like all of my "Lifter" (SV) and "Hauler" (CV / HV) type designs this ship has excellent downward-facing thrust - that's where much of the device budget has gone. Conversely, thrust in all other directions is, at best, half and upward-pointing thrust even less. This is because the ship shouldn't need it. However, I of course find myself in situations where the artificial top speed nerf effective breaks things. I think it's clear that weights and volumes impacting acceleration was fine, I like that feature. Additionally, having aerodynamic drag impacting top speed is also fine, with acceleration reducing as speed builds, I quite like that too. However, having mass affect top speed is daft and takes a bit too much away from the experience for me. I'm actually ok playing within CPU limits. Sure, I can't build early-game POI-busting HV's any more, which is a real shame. However, I could potentially build viable craft for the roles I wanted....if it wasn't for the top speed thing. I know I go on about this mass / top speed thing a lot. However, I just really don't get this design choice at all. I don't know if others play like me, but my play-style has been severely compromised. I used to quite like going "Nomad" early-game and living out of an ever expanding HV. I can't really do that now...well, I could I supposed, but I'd not be doing it for fun as such an HV would become painful to use. It getting a bit sluggish with acceleration as it hauls its self and all my stuff around is one thing. That's a fun piloting challenge in my view. Its top speed dropping to a crawl however, before it's possible to expand CPU sufficiently, is pretty horrible. I know I can turn CPU off and just adding more thrusters - with no restrictions of course - would compensate for the mass/top-speed thing. However, like I said, I'm trying to play the game within the constraints the devs intend the game to be played. Problem is, rather than it becoming a fun challenge to balance or "specialise" (*sigh*) a vessel, it turns things frustrating and, to be frank, a little boring due to that top-speed limit. Anyway, I've waffled on enough I think, but I'll just say that it'll be a shame to turn off CPU after the obvious effort the devs have put into it. However, I might have to just to avoid this top-speed nerf which is just so darn frustrating. Scoob.
From what I've read, the overwhelming majority of feedback on the whole mass affecting max speed thing is that it's not enjoyable. I know that I don't like it. I can understand the desire for different ships to have different max speeds but right now it's too penalizing.
Everything you said is absolutely perfect! That's why I like your posts so much. 100% honest and you have a way with your words. Every single thing you said I agree fully with. The choices the developers have made has completely ruined the game for me. Same as you, I tried, I really did. I'm still trying once in a while. I just don't enjoy the game anymore at all because of this change. If it was logical and actually made sense I could learn to eventually accept it. It's not logical at all though. It's a terrible mechanic. You have to give vessels a STUPID amount of thrust just to have a halfway decent speed. Then the ship is no longer any fun to fly because of the insane amount of thrust it has. I can't even turn thrusters off to reduce the thrust when I don't need it, because then my ship doesn't have proper turning anymore (or no turning at all depending) and then it's speed is also nerfed right back into the ground. Then start adding in cargo mass and it's just excruciating to deal with these mechanics.
Remove mass affecting max speed. Change the CPU extender system so instead you upgrade the core to increase your CPU tier OR you upgrade the core to allow you to place more CPU extenders to upgrade your ship's max CPU. Something like that. Balance out the CPU tiers a bit better. The difference between tier 3 and tier 4 is too great. Make things like weapons, constructors, shields, etc cost more CPU (on average) and use that to remove the per-turret device limits and encourage specialization. Reducing CPU costs of some things if needed, like thrusters. Basically the things that every ship absolutely needs shuldn't cost a lot of CPU, while things ships only need for a specialized role should cost enough CPU that you have to make choices. Remove CPU cost from hull blocks and deco.
i honestly do not see how this cpu limiting system will help and make the game more enjoyable in any way. there are enough limitation systems in place. block limits, device placable limits, size class limits. we have seen what limiting systems can do to restrict creativity. do we really need more? i have scrapped all my blueprints more than i can count with the limits imposed under several different guises of "enhancements." i am tried of learning a new game with each feature we keep getting "optionally" forced into. rebuttals like "this is alpha" or "you can turn it off" are just excuses defending another horrible idea and in now way a valid argument. a feature was released that has zero benefit to gameplay itself and we are getting what in essence seems like "too bad it's our creation" hubris. not to mention all the blind fanboys tossing veiled insults towards those of us that are sick of being shat on for wanting something enjoyable.
I agree to all what I removed from your post. I kept this part for discussion. You (not just you, but...) are proposing to "bake" special usage for devices into CPU, and this excludes any future proposals to make specific versions for devices. Why can't transports have their own shields, but just weaker than warship shields? The problem is we have the shields system with only 2 levels right now : starter and T2. The system has been under critics because it does not scale-up with bigger ships. So maybe in the future we can get different versions of shields and/ or a different system (more tiers), so shields don't have to be made "specialized" right now. We can't even "mod" the shields with the config file to fit different roles because we have this limited, 2 tier, non-scalable system. Same for constructors: a car can have a toolbox and a jack to repair flats without becoming a "service vehicle", and constructors already have templates limits that require having a specific constructor for specific devices. Last time I checked this was far from optimal, and I would prefer that constructors were revised to reflect better "specialization" built in them by default, rather than having CPU deciding of that. Thrusters : I proposed a simple "max acceleration" cap to solve the thruster-piling-up problem. What we got was a "top speed cap based on mass" which only promotes adding more thrusters and causes headaches for building. I felt alone pleading that solution, and I still stand behind it. By making it impossible to reach ridiculously high accelerations (linear and turning) the whole thruster problem is solved because there is no way adding more thrusters to a ship hitting these caps would make it accelerate faster, but in no way would this prevent a ship from reaching top speed allowed by the game. More thrusters would be required to move more mass, but this would not be related to being able to reach top speed (or not), it would only be related to be able to have everything from very low to "top" acceleration. SO that could be fixed prior to "baking in" the CPU balance points. Weapons could also benefit from being way more varied, but for that I have to make some tests with 2 computers. I see a big difference between turrets and the front weapons of a CV. For SV it's a different thing because it has no turrets, so for now I just address CV. If front lasers could have a real punch and long range, or if we could have big long range railgun-type of front weapon, turrets would not be the "main" weapons for CV-CV battles, and players would not want to put dozens of these to try to overcome another CV or base. By making that railgun a modular thing that gets more powerful (and CPU costly) the longer we make it, this could promote specialization related to size without implying "more turrets" automatically. It would also radically change how battles are conducted because turrets would be pretty useless against other CV or BA, and ship nimbleness would become a real factor to use skill to hit opponents with front weapons. Players could still choose to have small railgun to get more turrets (defense against small SVs for eample) and rely on more armor, but another CV could simply grind it from afar with its frontal weapon. These weapons would all have the same range (ex. 2x the turret's range) but different damage output. If a CV allows a nimble opponent to get too close and to outmaneuver it, frontal weapons can poke a hole in the hull in no time, but that can be reciprocal. Turrets make marginal damage in comparison (but not for smaller ship classes) and at much lower range so only act as deterrent against another CV. Then make the frontal weapon the ones with very high CPU cost per "section" (since we could make it longer or shorter) so players can choose between very powerful front gun and few turrets, or mid power front weapon and more turrets, etc. With more shield options, we could also be able to redirect power usage from some devices to shields, for example, when the situation arises. Make these "dynamic shields" cost more CPU than the plain "standard, fixed-value shields". And I think "specialization" is not well defined nor agreed upon by many players. We can surely give some examples, but it's far from clear that we can see big differences between "ship classes" with the current CPU system.
Thanks @krazzykid2006 - I hope the devs are listening. I do like that my CV's are quite ponderous due to their thrust being more about lift than any other direction. So, when I have added more Thrusters just to get a ship up to a decent speed laden, it then becomes more nimble that one of my SV's once unloaded. That feels pretty horrible too. Plus of course I've used up a chunk of CPU allocation (and crafting resources) for something I don't need except when heavily loaded. Really, for me it's 90% about the speed cap that get applied. CPU-wise, and I've likely said this before, it's okay but just needs to be a little more generous at the lower levels for HV's and SV's. CV's aren't so bad. What I don't like is having to get RNG lucky, or grind cash to get the components needed for the higher-level CPU extensions. That's a truly horrible thing. Several times now, in a more mature game when I'm material rich, I think "wouldn't it be fun to build an HV / SV / CV for this particular role." Then I realised I'd need to obtain those special component parts from a POI or raise some funds to go shopping. That's NOT what I want to do in the game. When there's a majorly grindy / not fun obstacle in the way of what I want to do in the game, well, I'm simply not going to do it. I've hit lots of POI's in the three (or so) starts I've had since CPU was introduced, but I'm yet to find even a single one of the new items needed for higher-tier CPU. I've found Rare and Ultra Rare loot containers, gained a number of Epic weapons, but no CPU stuff. You know, I think "CPU Off" will be a perma option for me from now on, I'm done testing it and not enjoying my limited free-time as a result. That's a bit sad. Thought: Why try to force people to "Specialise"? Why not let us choose what we want to build as we always have before? There are plenty of natural, immersive obstacles to building already. Resources is the obvious one and weights and volumes was a great addition that I've enjoyed a lot. What's so wrong with a "can do everything" CV if the player chooses to put the immense time and effort into building one? I think, in some ways, this links to the "place holder" way the Factory works. Get stuff, throw it into your magic pockets then insta-spawn something in once built. It's a great feature enabling the re-use of designs, but it does change the survival mechanic a lot. Once this is in its more final version, with players having to construct these "Factories" out of blocks and ensure they have ample storage, power, fuel etc. that's going to be entertaining. Being able to target another Factions Factory as it slowly assembles their BP's would be darn cool. Even in SP, having Zirax or other enemies target your Factory would be a fantastic incentive to keep it well-protected. Hell, raiding an NPC facility - I'm looking at you Zirax - before their PV is constructed would be bloody epic! If NPC Factions end up using SV's and HV's too, well, Factories change the dynamic massively - so great fun to be had there. Fortify your base for the inevitable HV, SV or CV raid, or take the fight to them? Fun. With "Proper" Factories in the mix, it changes the balance again when it comes to spawning in giant CV's and other high-end vessels. It's not a case of get overloaded, bung it in the virtual factory, no, it has to be taken back to base, protected en-route etc. It's a game changer. Note: I'm not against having things require varying amounts CPU "points" to function. What I don't like though is the restrictive nature when it comes to adding to that CPU pool. A simple approach such as Devices need CPU to function, CPU takes harvestable resources to make and power to run. Which in turn needs more resources to fuel. I've mentioned it before, but being able to add lots of fully stackable low-end CPU that's power hungry and heavy would be good. At the other end of the tech-tree their would be lighter, more efficient CPU modules available to be constructed. So, you could have two large vessels, both with the same total CPU allowance. One uses lots of the low-tech CPU blocks, so is heavy and burns through fuel quickly. Another is exactly the same, except it uses the high-end CPU components which are lighter and more power efficient, but they took more, and more exotic, materials to craft. The latter ship were perform better as it's lighter, and use less fuel and power overall, perhaps needing less Generators, Fuel Tanks and even Thrusters for the same level of performance. That's balance, at least to me. Scoob.
Sounds good on the choice of action on the Vidding. I'm seriously shocked Enterprise Version would lack xBox stuff & GameDVR... it's as if they figure Enterprise Version could possibly be used by Microsoft Employees in Microsoft Offices & the Microsoft Brass was afraid if they let xBox stuff onto Enterprise, Employees might be tempted to use it to playbug test their very own Minecraft Bedrock Edition instead of actually work, or something... lol at them thinking that's REALLY gonna stop Employees from horsing around on the job. i'm sure if Office Employees tried hard enough they could find a way to sneak Java Edition of Minecraft on their Office Rig instead. Then they're not playing Microsoft's version. Whoops. (& yes I know Microsoft acquired ALL of Minecraft, but it's not the Java Version serving as Microsoft's "Flagship Minecraft" i'm sure, it would surely be the "Bedrock Edition" that is, so Integrated into functionality into Windows OS that if ya got Bedrock Edition installed on your W10 Home at least it even covers Minecraft Bedrock Edition Updates using the W10 Updates software itself!) Funny ya mention this... then less then a second later ARK: Survival Evolved comes to mind... with last I knew Vanilla still being bullshit & the Mod that fixes Wyverns and other flying Dinos still being considered "Mandatory" to play it properly... myself included. Fuck my fav critter in that game, Lightning Wyverns, being nerfed into ruination in my Shamelessly Biased Opinion. Even to start with I never liked Player versions (AKA Tamed) of Dinos being forced to have much crappier HPs then their wild cousins just cause they were one of the Big Boy Dinos... Wyverns also getting hit especially hard by that. (Mind ya I know full well the ARK Devs Intended that HP Disparity, i'm simply saying I disagree heavily with them choosing that Strategy. Why give a damn if Enemy Wyvern running on Dino AI vs Player Wyvern ridden by Player, both have = HPs, player & player Wyvern has advantage in superior access to tactical thinking be a problem? It'd just be Truth in Television fair plus War is never fair & that includes War for Survival. It can also go the other way easily enough... the Player & their Wyvern could get aggroed by additional Enemy Wyverns working together after in trouble Enemy Wyvern calls for help then it's unfair in the other way... that was the POINT of the Enemy Wyverns's unleashing of that Tactic. War!) Hell to the yeah, i've long since gotten my $18 I paid for this game so even if somehow something happened to my future continued play in this game, getting this game can't ever be a regret. CPU getting botched can't single handedly Hard Counter that. Hell it can't even Soft Counter it.
@krazzykid2006 really hit the nail on the head about the new flight mechanics compounding errors. And @Scoob s eloquent writing clearly puts it into context of how it impacts game play, especially for those who know things were a -lot- better before A11. I can and have decided to not use CPU. No such option exists for accel/mass limited top speeds, or the very difficult, if not impossible, to solve turning problems. I had a couple plans to leverage the new, and much requested Any-to-Any docking. I was excited about them. But I haven't built them. I'm just not very interested in playing. Same basic thing as Scoob describes. For me the Factory can suck all the fun out of a playthrough. So I have a personal rule that I can use it, but only if I first haul the salvage/loot home. So I've depended on starter HVs that can handle 100 tons, even if they only have 5~6 m/s^2 forward accel; heck I've used ones that only had a couple, and it -is- a special kind of fun trying to wrangle one of those back to base, heh. But I'll be damned if I'm going to crawl back several kilometers at 12 m/s, just 'because'. So, for me, the new flight mechanics are chasing me away from EGS. The Shakespearean Tragedy that is CPU is just a painful matinee.
Since we're so close to Christmas Sale, I doubt they will have enough time to give us a new flashy feature in time for it. Maybe they planned to make the sale's highlight " We removed CPU by popular demand "...
I agree with you. Right now, a small scout CV and a massive battleship have the same shields. There's no room for customization or specialization here. It's even a problem for POI design.
