I recently decided I wanted to design and build a really large base with a large hanger deck to house my SVs and HV and with sufficient landing area on top for several of my CVs. I was seriously disappointed by the size limitations imposed on bases - especially when compared to CVs. Pictured are my Masada base, built as large as I reasonably could even with a T4 CPU and just using basic concrete and steel trusses with some carbon used for the more decorative parts. I also spawned in Jeff Randall's, Leviathan and was amazed at the size difference! A base is capped at 1.3M CPU while a CV is capped at 10M CPU. Now, granted, a CV requires lots of thrusters but it seems pretty insane to me that I can build a CV literally large enough to build the largest possible base inside it instead of the other way around!!! Also the structural integrity settings is really too small or needs some kind of work to allow wider spaces between walls, at least with some building materials!! Is there anyone besides me that thinks this is really messed up? My suggestion for fixes would be to start with reducing by half the CPU usage of concrete and hardened concrete! It should be the cheapest material for base building! Steel trusses should allow a much greater span as they were designed specifically to span long distances. Also, game needs larger sizes of base hatches and ramps. Lastly, the CPU allowance for bases should be upped to 5M at least.
In case a like is not enough for anyone. I agree with everything and i would love to see "Steel trusses should allow a much greater span as they were designed specifically to span long distances. Also, game needs larger sizes of base hatches and ramps." happening. Actually i wrote pretty much the same a couple of days ago in another thread.
I do largely agree here - CV's can wind up being absolutely monsters, dwarfing what seem to be large bases. That said, I have been able to construct landing pads for most of my large and larger CV's, entirely of concrete blocks and truss blocks to support them, without taking a major CPU hit. Of course, I also don't include things like A Room Full of Advanced Constructors, 1.2m SU storage containers, a Food Processor every 10 feet, or many of the other CPU sinks I see lots of other people doing. I actually haven't had a base go over T3 in quite a while, many of which include large concrete slabs as part of their makeup. Hatches, Ramps, Doors - there are quite a few things that need some attention. Ramps especially come to mind, as I like using them for boarding ships, and they're frequently 1 unit too short, and I wind up having to build ramps on landing pads to be able to enter/exit without having to jump. Shutter Doors also suffer some sizing issues, either being too short, too narrow, and requiring one additional block height to allow the players to pass through it without hitting their heads.
One thing to remember is you can only use one CV at a time, but you can have whole compounds of BAs working at once. You can have a bunch of bases, like factories, warehouses, residences, clinics, greenhouses, garages, all surrounded by defense towers. Each one can even have its own solar array, so you don't have to worry about a constructor draining your fuel and destroying your food supply.
In that case, you team up with people to make different buildings providing different services. In other words, a settlement.
Now people, I find such questions unnecessary. It should be clear to everyone that a game that works as a multiplayer has to set appropriate size restrictions in order to remain operational. And that depends on the size of the server and the performance of the database. If you want something different you can switch off all restrictions in the single player (including the structural integrity) and build as much and as big as you want.
Officially, it is for the conduits for Oxygen, Ammo, and/or power transfer. In Empyrion, you don't really need to worry about it (it's magic!), but in, say, Space Engineers you need to build a path from the cargo container to the turret or it won't fire. Same with O2 & Pressurizing rooms. Personally, I think it's just a bit silly.
I dont see the issue with concrete blocks costing CPU...ever since we had a new drive way installed my computer has really started dragging.
They may not be devices, but concrete and other shaped blocks ARE functional. They're the material you build rooms, hulls, and armor from. If you could protect your BA with as much concrete as you could get your hands on, there would never be a reason not to. Stone is plentiful and concrete is resilient. Try building something without structural blocks sometime. It's certainly possible. You might find it annoying that you can't protect your soft bits without a shield or heat/oxygenate a garden to grow food, but at least you can spend that CPU on a third advance constructor. I see this opinion that structural blocks should have CPU costs expressed a lot. I wonder if it's related to the prevalence of the "greebled box covered with turrets and thrusters" design style.
That description is too large. We can all agree that the prime motivation for CPU was to prevent servers from exploding, but "size" alone is not descriptive of the real problem, which is a compound of size + motion + number of players + block types. There were already restrictions and "size classes" prior to CPU, but that was not enough because a 2000- blocks "glass castle" made of windows required more processing than a 5000-blocks plain matte steel box. Dozens of players shooting at each other on a flat desert planet could suck more juice from a server than a 200 x 100 x 75 blocks mammoth quietly mining asteroids in space, etc. So it's all context and content dependant. In the end, imposing CPU costs on structural blocks while leaving everything else as it is only restricts builds, and does not make ship combat more fun, and it does not fix bad AI or lame animations that make foot combat boring.
I feel ya, but I still think its a rather arbitrary way to control the size/use of something. I still think that if given free reign there would still be a limit to walls and such. And I reckon if someone wanted to spend days turning rock into concrete they should be able to have a massive "Great Wall of China" style defense. But even that can just be flown over. And if someone wants to invest the time in making their base quadruple walled and 6 foot deep ceilings to protect them from drone attacks...well ok, it isnt like building bunkers or highly fortified positions is something new or revolutionary.
Or you can build some CV's like I have, which are little more than columns of truss blocks on a little base that allows you to maneuver them into position, turn on the Spotlight on the top, and have some floodlights for your base. Remove the cockpit and the thrusters, feed the fuel tank and enjoy a brightly lit base.
My driveway uses a little processing power, but that's because it has pipes buried in it that carry hot water from a tankless heater, as well as some temperature sensors to report both the ambient and surface temperatures. I don't like shoveling snow. Exception, for sure, not the rule.
Been there, done that, hundreds of times. Just need a Survival Tool and a mountain side. Burrow in, hollow it out, drop a core, turn on Attach to Base, and structure block-less base, safe from attack from above. Ground forces are easily repelled by some sentry guns and a little downward slope that requires a jet pack boost to get up.
generally, the core limit is both per player and per faction so that only provides a small amount of relief
Yes, really I'm not the only one here who talks about the need to fix the incorrect limit of cpu points for the base !!! Yes, let's finally fix this nonsense! I want to live in the base, not an Indian shack! Live not 1, but together with friends! And park the ship at your cosmodrome! And for this base limit of 1.3, this is very small. A friend of mine! I support you, you need to fix this by changing the limit to sane values. Let us build spaceports and not the pitiful Indian huts in the forest!
So Ventilators shouldn't be able to pressurize rooms when used in Concrete bases then? That was the official reason for it.
