base extenders use WAY WAY WAY too much power.. too much PU's.. I designed all my bases with full solar and with constructors off, they are all energy/solar self sufficient. I won't play on an server with CPU on due to this. period.
What's the numeric value of WAY WAY WAY? I've never actually looked or had a power issue on my solar bases, even those with as many as 4 batteries. Over 4 and they simply take too long to charge.
how about we leave this "specialization" requirements to the server admins themselves. HWS used block amount and size class limits to do just that. forcing players to build specific ship types for different systems. leave it up to the server hosts to allow or deny what ships are allowed in their server. releasing an optional system with full intentions on making it a future requirement does not seem like the right move here. hard coding limits into the game doesn't seem to be doing anything but limiting builds across-the-board. just seems more and more like a lame excuse to keep us from pushing the boundaries of the engine because that's easier than fixing memory leaks. if u limit what the game can do, less can go wrong. i get that but how are we supposed to grow if we don't push our limits? software is the same. push the boundaries and break the engine. that is what a true tester should do...
Hello Devs! Lately i don't have much time as i used to have to play this game but all i have i use it playing it and not in forums, ATM i'm couting with 6283 hours of game playing (in Steam) . I've seen some improvements and a lots of downgrades of this game the new flight model and CPU is one of them. this is a survival game , at least it started to be as one in Pre Alpha and now is a total war game betwin players and all the changes you are doing are going in that way and further away from survival in space. resuming this mess of flight model you implemented is good for BBBIIIIGGGG CVs, HHUUUGE SV's and so on and not for the cheapest ones when we start and try to survive because if we do a cheap SV for EX. it just wont fly friendely its a constant war against the commands. Before was a good tyhing this game had and again you messe it up, congrats. Here's a sugestion if you realy need to make things real instead of messing with the nice stuff that this game still have , why don't you implement a permadeath mod (optional cause i understand there are some players who will not like it) because to me die and reborn next to the corpse, that is not real. Sorry for my bad english but its because i'm Portuguese. PS: please, the Avatar is still working good, don't mess it up. Cheers BW
Yeah right, everyone has hundreds of gold ingots laying round. Most planets don't even have gold as a deposit. If they do, it's usually not in a very good spot, meaning, you'll have to fight for it without a decent ship. So yeah you could get lucky have gold as deposit, and go in with a level 1 ship or on foot, and get it. So your really not being honest.
You forgot the very next sentence where I said, I never claimed they were cheap at all. If I were inclined use CPU I would probably adjust those recipes some (a lot). I was 100% honest. You didn't finish reading.
Now, i do like the idea of gated progression, and having the parts for the extenders be rare forces players to engage in missions and story/raiding.... but a possible workaround would be to make a ship/or upgrade it in creative.... then re-build via the factory in SP/MP. Nonetheless, it is time consuming, but, i personally love a grind.
I was talking about crafting them, they take a fair amount of gold ingots (not cash) to make. That was my point, your going to be hard pressed to come up with enough gold ingots to make a difference. That is, until later in the game. In the mean time, you are taking POI's on foot, or a cheap (read crappy) ship.
I hate missions, since they rarely work. If the game was mission based, it's a loser then. I like raiding POI's, but doing it without a ship (since anything you have is junk for raiding) really not a good idea.
So was I. Expensive, as in expensive in exotic material to craft it, as in it requires a lot of rare materials to craft.
Well, you have your play style, and I have mine. But the game does have missions that do work, and again, its been said a million times.... its Alpha, so expecting everything to shine and be perfect out of the box is not a reasonable position. If you do find something that doesn't work, report it to the appropriate thread in a level headed fashion, and engage with your ideas. The dev team is hard at work to resolve as many issues as possible, but they aren't gods..... god-like, maybe.... but just human, like some of us, at the end of the day. They need to sleep and have lives too.... I know they have been cramming to get the bugs fixed just before the holidays, and good on them. They are doing an amazing job on keeping this game fresh with new concepts and content, unlike other alpha games that grow stagnant and lose momentum, Empyrion has had steady progression/improvements.
Yeah, so it's alpha. Just responding to a post about making the game mission based. Been playing a long time (3,700 hrs) so I know all about features that don't work. Why put/leave in missions you know don't work? This seems to be the developers mode of operation, put out obviously broken (as in can't work) features. Then want "feedback," when maybe, just maybe, they could actually have someone play test it first. Like real game developers.
What missions specifically? And in regards to testing.... They are tested, in experimental branch. Not all bugs will be caught in the process though, and will surface when released to the larger player base, and more time is invested. If you find a bug, there is a process to reporting them. Here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/...ort-template-requirements-known-issues.47082/
There's a problem to making progression "gated" by missions in a procedural world : missions are fixed instances and the play universe is randomly generated (partly), so if balance is too tight on an average game there may be huge discrepancies when scaling difficulty up that make some missions impossible to complete.
Agreed, but the scenarios with missions would more likely be static, rather than dynamic. however, there could be traders that give you generic missions.... Go here, get this, grab that, bring there..... and based off the simplicity of those tasks, it could easily be integrated into a RGW (random generated world) game. But i think we are now getting a bit off topic.
The TOP quest chain. At the end you get an epic drill & partway through, you'd get epic armor. It was introduced at some point in Alpha 8. For a solid year, it suffered from a glitch. A building required for the completion of the quest would only spawn on a lava planet. More importantly, it was only one of the two possible lava planets, & default scenario settings means you only get one lava planet, so there was a 50% (+/- 10%) chance that the planet needed to complete the quest wouldn't spawn. Now imagine that quest instead provided players with parts to build T3 or T4 vessels. Suddenly the idea of tuning difficulty & gating content around such a quest isn't looking like the best plan. Sure, removing procedural system generation can help avoid such problems, but development has already gone from static to procedural generation once, & going back is a pointless move. Much better to tune the difficulty of the game around actual difficulty & add quests after. Also easier from a development standpoint. Survival games require random world generation. Making the map static requires you to do something else to balance it. I can think of three survival games that made it work with a static map. Two of them did it by randomizing everything else, & two of them managed by making the game try to kill you at all times. As much as I like(d) Empyrion, it can't do either of those. Best to stick with procedural generation to at least make the 'survival' in the title think it's still relevant.
I wasn't pushing for static only, as yeah, that would be a step backwards. The idea is that when you make a scenario, there are static settings... like planet types, sky colour, temps, gravity. They are all set in some file, with variables allowed. Definitely, a world that is static becomes predictable, and the game loses replay value. #beentheredonethat However, various things could still be set to random, with a 100% chance (mandatory, if you will) of being spawned in the game, vanilla or custom. Plenty of games, like 7D2D, have RWG, and have traders randomly placed, and they can help to expand the players story.... and the loot process also ensures that there will be progression. I am suggesting that a there are other ways to achieve the desired effect, such as trader missions where the NPC rewards you with said items. These traders, or NPCs could be randomly placed all over, but mandatory, nonetheless. It would be neat if they (the Devs) could make a trader NPC who deals in missions.... like an NPC that you have to talk to. They can be set to be 100% created/included and thus there would not be a chance of it not being spawned.... So, really all you would have to do is find them. Now, if the "Mission NPCs" were hard-coded, it would remove the possibility of the player not being able to progress. You would go from planet to planet, station to station (POIs), and run into the Mission NPCs, where the goal is to complete a generic task. Now, if one makes a custom scenario, and neglect to ensure that there is a planet with pentaxid, and one of the main missions requires pentaxid.... they have made a faulty scenario, and that is on the creator. I look forward to the progression of this thread.
The CPU balance is bad Engines that scale linearly with the power Switched off units consume the CPU RCS with much too high CPU load And you're limited to the 10M
