So, like... 28 of everything? 128 generators and RCS's to play missile bait with? One of those designs?
I don't play those kind of stupid games. Where do you get the idea I engage in PvP? I f****** hate PvP and everything to do with it. It just wrecks otherwise perfectly good games. It was an earlier version of this - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2013370986 In the end I had to remove a couple of thrusters, so now it slows down more when loaded. TBH - I really am not warming to CPU at all. To start with, kind of annoying and kind of interesting to design around. Now having done a reasonable amount of stuff, I am coming round to just plain hating it. Nearly everything ends up straddling a boundary and instead of feeling good about a design, you kind of feel like its just ended up a nasty compromise to fit some arbitrarily chosen threshold.
I've seen a few complaints that Gattlings cost too much CPU. Especially since they are more than a rocket turret. I assume that's because Gattling ammo is cheaper and thus more abundant? I'd agree they are too expensive at 720 and 900 for the Minigun Turret. The Rocket Turret is only 450. The numbers still need adjusting certainly.
That blew out your CPU and left you able to place only 6 blocks? As for the thruster issue - A12 sounds like this concern is going to get some attention for sure.
It was intended for hostile starts, so the turret was high priority, and the gatling less so (aiming gatlings kind of sucks on HVs), however I prefer to have a gatling too as you don't get XP for turret kills, however the turret is the nearest thing we have to an incoming hostile alarm once you hear it spinning up It started as an experiment to see if I could cram everything into a small cheap starter T1/L5 HV and allow for medical at 7. Just a shame abnout loosing the extra pair of thrusters. I guess I could try to cram one from them back in somewhere. Anyway - the experiment was a success despite this CPU system even if that eroded it. Its now my go-to starter HV for all starts. I just curse the entire ancestry of the person who came up with CPU everytime the thing slows to a crawl
I think the current implementation is wrong. First off, most any "smart device" has it's own CPU anyway. For example, 95% of what an RCS should do should be ( and would be ) handled within the RCS itself. What does the main CPU have to do but provide a conduit between the RCS and the cockpit controls and the thrusters? Very little if you think about it. I suppose it could be used to place a limit on the number of non-structural devices on a build and to balance a cost so so that things that are small, like a fridge don't have the same impact as a constructor or a food processor. I would probably call it a "Network Router" or something like that as it basically just provides data communications between the various non-structure components. But, overall, I think generator power and fuel cost should be the primary limiting factor. I think the CPU cost of items should be eliminated or greatly simplified to provide a hard number of non-structure items based on the tier level. T1 might limit to 50 while T2 limits to 100 and so on. Structure blocks should probably not contribute to CPU costs at all. But as each block has mass, it should contribute to fuel costs and to building cost. I realize with bases that there is no need for fuel to move a structure. I would probably add a Navigation component for ships and a special one to go with warp drives.
Easy: just stop including assets which shouldn't cost any CPU cycles to run. And make the existing numbers make sense. Then calling it CPU makes sense too. I like CPU, as a concept. It encourages decision making. Same as the mass of components does for vehicles, and energy requirements for everything. But it needs work.
There has been a couple of suggestions here... My suggestions are: Structure Management P0ints Server Weight Flight Control Points Structure Efficiency Integrity Points Logistics Points Size Rating I really hope the devs pick something new that indicates the direction in which they intend to go. Maybe they don't. I still like the challenge of compromising within limits.
To paraphrase the Bard: "A turd by any other name..." What the blocks are called has absolutely nothing to do with why the system is so disliked. Renaming them won't change it. Calling a parachute an "aerodynamic payload decelerator" doesn't make it work any better if it's packed wrong. It's not that we're too stupid to understand the grand purpose behind the system, it's that it's implemented poorly at this point. The tier structure is far too top heavy, capacity needs to be added more gradually, (i.e, perhaps each tier needs upgrade mini-steps to the blocks), and most of all, there needs to be a way to manage your capacity. At the very least, powered off devices should not consume capacity... I was an early supporter of the CPU concept when it was first suggested, and I still think the suggestion has merit. I think the concept needed to be fleshed out more before implementation, at least we do have the ability to disable it...
