CPU like Volume or Inventory loss on death, all these are just difficulty settings that you can switch on/off to your liking. You can also play CPU off and respect the CPU rules, you do that if you want to play fair while loading a legacy ship/vessel that is not configured for CPU but offers clear playing advantages. Otherwise every discussion about CPU or not is just futile.
I tried search but I guess I am not very good at it or really isn't anybody tried to do this so far. So a little feedback on SV SHIELD and CPU I just tried to make an unlock level 7 small vessel. I wanted a shield. (Because it unlocks at lvl7) And it cannot be done!!! (I mean inside CPU limit ofc.) I made a simple thing REAL Simple. without even a generator, or thrusters >>>> Just a SV Cockpit, a shield gen, a pentaxid tank, and a t2 extender and like 10 blocks of steel.. And guess what... It was above CPU limit already! <<<< Then I saw... that the shield and the tank eats up 16,5k CPU. And the extender only gives +9k making the available CPU to a total of 15k. That's no bueno. Not at all. I would Either raise the level requirements for the shield. (Less liked option...) OR cut the shield CPU cost to at least half of the current. or even down to just 5000... OR raise extenders limits (broadly) t2 should be around 25k to be worth having it. (and of course all the other SV extenders should have been scaled up too) Because A decent sized ship hull could eat up the T4 CPU limit, without ANY devices. LVL 7 opens up the medium thrusters too. And there is no point having less thrust than the max. So these things should be counted in the numbers. And SV rocketlaunchers too... We need for a minimallistic build at least 15k+ more free CPU for these "upgrades" only at level7 t2. And T3 unlocks at LVL12 AFAIK. Oh and IF any rebalance occures... Please Keep in mind that on LVL10 the short range warp drive becomes available. Which also needs 3000 CPU. This should be calculated into the T2 extender range as well. I haven't checked bigger thrusters is a thing or not before LVL12... So all and all I still love the CPU limits, I just don't see them fair enough as they stand now. Especially with the Hull/interior "deco" blocks (carbon, steel, hardened steel) eating up CPU... Not to mention storage.... Those modular containers eats up a LOT for the tiny SU they add especially the non full blocks...
Not all Tech you are able to unlock enable you to build at once your 'dream' Vessel. Some of those Parts need Large or even Adv. Constructors. Therefore a simple SV but having Shields... Level 12 seems here far more reasonable. At Level 7, small Recon or even Fighters are possible. But as soon as you want to Transport Loot/Ore or other Cargo the CPU costs explode and you'll find yourself pretty fast in the CPU-T2 or even T3 Range.
Thanks for the reply. Although I respect your opinion that you think it is right. I really feel this might needs some adjustments. Because as you saw it on that post: Even the most simple thing (which unlocked) is not allowed to be made. It is not some devilish thing or some "dream" vehicle. Just simply a small vessel even without guns on it, without any cargo capacity, and in this test it wasn't even moveable... The option is there (all parts unlocks at lvl7) and still unuseable. NOT logical at all at least in my opinion. But you are right. I haven't even checked if they are possible to even create in single player... In MP this should not be a problem, Anyone can ask a bigger lvl player to create the parts. BUT that limitation would be another one of the missplanned stuff...
I would not say that it is 'miss planned', rather a way to build first the small, agile (armed) recon and later, as sort off follow-up, the shielded Version. I have build a Lvl 12 Transport Shuttle, minimal Armament, Shields, Warp and 17k Storage. It works, after a fashion.
Nice. That's the Next step up of what I'd like to build I mean for function. Thanx to you at least now I know that is possible We have just 2 missing links between these things. -A LVL7 shield capable option. -A LVL10 shield and warp capable option. (inside CPU limits OFC) IF I have to I can do CPU noncompliant things. I just feel that wouldn't be appropriate. TBH I made a full T4 jam packed Small-ish Kind of SV. with like 7 guns, and 2 turrets only. Mid sized storage and no interior at all. (almost like a bigger bluedart) And I started create blueprint-saves in different stages. In these stages I have junked out all the later unlocked parts from it. And exchanged the guns on every major level drop... To have a line of SVs which aligns to the player's unlocks. Almost the same Chasis, but different setups. And there at level 7 I found myself lost. Because I could not keep the shield with the T2 extender. Than I made that "experiment" to have only a cockpit, a T2 and the shield. The blocks I mentioned came from the frame of the Vessel starter. But those are negligible. They wanted feedback on CPU so there we go I made my post. And I intended to post my opinion in a constructive way even with possible solutions. Because I love this game as much as I care about it. And that's why I made a thread about other "missconceptions / inconsistencies" regarding to leveling up and unlocks, and stuff... Because I still feel the system is not in it's best shape right now. If they allow us to have something on one end, they should create an environment where the thing is possible on the other ends too.
That's what I would call cheating I intend to upload this line of ships to the workshop. So it would not be "ethical" if I modify my game's files. I guess my only option is to wait... and hope the system gets balanced. Or just skip those steps...
If your not going to do something right, it should just have never been attempted. CPU effects the flight model. It does that via penalty. Oh joy. The flight model is nothing short of an utter joke, anyone who flies anything real from RC choppers to planes to real planes or choppers, understands that. Flight controls in any atmosphere of any planet in Empyrion are utterly afubar. Space flight controls feel out of whack because we dont really have real simulated physic's in Empyrions space, things dont hold orbits and mass wont keep rotating etc etc. It SUX this game has no way to even mod flight controls. In a way where real ship classes could be created for a scenario, and my guess is because Eleon are afraid that a scenario like that will become WAY more popular than the vanilla game. Starter core blocks for HV with difference, with different abilities. Same for SV and CV. CPU doesnt effect your flight controls absolute BS. The whole point of CPU is to punish your flight control system if you do not build to the rule set you have been told too..... Still, doesnt beat new ship classes and new flight controls in my opinion. CPU just modifies the current flight controls. The game only has 2 flight control sets, that are very similar. CV and SV. One is a clone of the other, hence why CVs turned on a dime. But both are simply an arcade version of a space flight control set. CPU cripples the flight control system via penalty. CPU I recon should have been used as a carrot, not a stick, with new starter cores that are tied to specific classes of ship, you know, Frigate, Destroyer, Carrier, Battle ship , etc, the tech lines, Prop engine tech, jet engine tech, space engine tech all rolled out through a logical tier up system based on tech. Making ships not turn on a dime is easy as pie with that system. Making truly specialised ships is easy as pie with that system. Limiting and regulating literally anything at all about any one of those specific type class of ship is easy as pie on that system, far far easier than trying to balance CPU for ever. We have wing sets, perfect for applying different resistance levels giving them different lift capabilities. I mean we could have done this really awesome in this game and really had a game of true diversity and specialisation of ships. Workshop would right now have everything from Spitfires to Jump Jet Harriers to F22 Raptors all with unique flight controls, Empyrion seriously missed the mark here with flight controls. Why would ANYONE not want those extra options ON TOP of what we already have ? Its utterly illogical to not want that as far as I can see. There could be things like, a Stealth fighter starter core flight control set for atmo. Stealth fighter space starter core. Drop ship starter core. [ for example the flight controls on this ship would have 4x thrust boost for any thruster pointing downwards ] Scout Sv starter core. Fighter SV starter core. Freighter SV starter core. STEALTH Recon SV Starter core......... Frigate CV starter core. - All of these have different turn rates etc in flight controls, no more turning on a dime........ Destroyer CV starter core. Battleship Cv starter core. Carrier CV starter core. SuperCarrier CV starter core. Explorer class CV starter core. Freighter CV starter core. HV scout starter core. HV raider starter core. HV defender starter core. HV battle starter core. Imagine the epic story that could have been tied to those classes as you worked your way through the levels. Imagine how much better exploring and discovering new things to unlock said classes of ship, for example to unlock a said class you might need to find a blueprint of said class of tech, how cool would that have been. But CPU really really never was about classes was it, it was only ever about device performance.. I think Eleon tried to hard on CPU, to make it something it just can never be, true specialisation comes with true distinction between vessels, we dont have that yet, you never will when they all use the same flight controls, its the FLIGHT CONTROLS THAT DEFINE TRUE SHIP CLASS....... Nothing else. So its now really important to allow players to be capable of adjusting flight control parameters, and create new starter blocks, so we the scenario builders can create this system how we imagine it, modding the game is good for the game and the more variety in scenario the better, so what about finally unlocking those things for modders please ? If we can never do this, its literally just a matter of time, even for veterans, until we get bored and move on. A template for flight controls that can be attached to new starter cores. Just how hard is that anyway ? Didnt seem hard when you created HV, Cv and BA, after you already had created the SV. So what about it, can we get those parts opened up for modding or not ?
Unfortunately from the looks of things Eleon is not listening to the biggest part of their playerbase. In the CPU & Flight Model feedback page they only had a "thumbs up option" and from the looks of it only 16 out of 5,560 liked the CPU & Flight Model. And even if we were being generous and just say it was 500 people who saw the post, thats still just 16 out of 484 who liked the CPU & Flight Model. How could this happen that Eleon can be so out of touch with their playerbase? Its ridicules. They made a clear mistake by adding the new Alpha 12 CPU & Flight Model but they could easily fix this by reverting back to the original Flight Model. That would be a huge improvement. At the very least allow modders to remove Alpha 12 CPU & Flight Model entirely so they can make their own scenarios without it.
That is most likely impossible as something big as the flight model is most likely tied into other systems and maintaining two different flight model wouldn't just be an enormous task but also would lead to an exponentional rise in bugs.
Eleon can be so out of teach with their playerbase? This one is easy to answer, they only listen to a chosen few gushing fan boys. When all you will listen to is undying praise, your not not going to have a very good grip on reality.
Dear, you obviously have never tested what's happening when your ship gets damaged in space... If I understand well and if I'm not missing something: If your ship gets destroyed 30%, then the CPU system when playing with volume ON will make it destroyed 100% because you return to CPU T1 and you generally don't have volume to carry extra extenders with you. So you have to take your ship apart and sacrifice all devices that cause to surpass T1 - devices that you have to throw away because lack of volume to carry them, essentially making your loss close to 100% - and all this just because a single extender got destroyed. Do you still like the CPU system that much? I think this is the major flaw of the entire CPU system, while I understand its requirements for building an object, the consequence of every major damage is lethal. Not an optimum system when it comes to handling damages. To my experience, when my car is missing 2 wheels I'm stopped for good, but I don't have to throw my car away because of it...
Apologies Japp_02 I found your post a bit confusing to read but if I understand correctly you are referring to the situation where if you have a T4 CV and one of the T4 CPU extender's get's destroyed you are set back to T1? If that's the case then to me it just suggests the cpu extender's should be placed in good locations where they are safe. It's the same thing for me as with the core, generators and fuel tanks. All of those are critical components and should be placed in safe areas. For example if you placed a T4 cpu extender right up against the hull with a turret the other side, then that wouldn't be a good spot for you. Proper placement of the cpu extender's can mitigate this issue.
Yes you are right with the concern to place extenders like cores to a privileged place where they are safe, but on SVs this is barely possible, what I say above mainly applies to SVs compared to the plenty of space - and options you have - on a CV. And yes, if only 1 of your extenders is destroyed you are back to T1, because you miss the T2,T3 extenders that you put away or do not install when you have T4 extenders. In a recent play, I was playing with volume OFF when my T3 ship got badly damaged, so the CPU problem is not that apparent, I had to throw out of my ship everything to get to T1 and everything was in my - unlimited - cargo, after which I made it back to my CV where I initiated a repair. If I had played with volume ON I would have been forced to abandon the most part of installed devices etc. because of cargo limitation problems - the difference from T3 to T1 is already abysmal, not to speak what it would be from T4 to T1...
... Bring spare cpu. I have an emergency box on every ship that has the required CPU extenders, a core, generator, warp if applicable, fuel, pent/tank and a cockpit. The interesting thing is the problem you are complaining about really is no different than pre CPU, back then losing a core meant losing the ship. The only real difference is now the core is a 3x3x1 block. Your CPU and core should only be destroyed if you lost the entire ship. If that is not the case then they are in the wrong location.
I actually really like the CPU system as an idea it just needs to be: 1. Completed. It is not properly balanced right now and many things are nonsensical about it such as CPU requirements for blocks. 2. Be THE limiting factor in design rather than spreading that out over multiple iterations. IOW, it is dumb to have device limitations AND CPU. CPU can take care of the design limits. Only exceptions to this should devices that have other problems exceeding 1 like the repair bay. 3. **** can the advanced core. Having CPU, making it integral to ship design and then placing a 'ignore the feature' block is asinine. If you want to play without CPU there is a toggle to do so. Those that want to play with CPU should actually, you know, play with CPU. For SP games and CO-OP this is pretty irrelevant, don't care what you have access to there because I can chose to not use it but it is redundant considering the option to turn it off. In PvP, the adv core is a **** show. Don't really have much to say about the flight model. Not sure why so many hate it. SE is far superior in this aspect BUT they are far inferior in many others.
This topic comes up regularly, and same answer each time : Advanced core is not to be commonly found in all loot crates, it's a special device to be used for special cases. As usual, server owners can make sure it is reserved for these cases and not available to players after raiding their first POIs. Examples of usage : player-controlled ship for a "police" faction, which allows making ships very tough without having CPU restrictions, in a game where CPU is enabled. Other case could be a scenario requiring the player to fly in some very specialized ship into hellish environment, only possible with a prefab that has special device that can't be put on any other ship because of insane CPU cost - Advanced core allows it on that build. Advanced core is "advanced", just like the Level 99 Diamond Sword of Gods, and players have no reason to get that apart from specific cases or end-game scenarios.
If you have all that, why not just have a CV, and use SV's for specialized tasks. Like taking out turrets on unshielded bases. I only use an SV a main vehicle in the early game when I have no choice (and I am working to get a CV ASAP). If I have enough for double all those fancy late stage cores, I am not using an SV for anything besides specialized tasks. If it gets blown up, fix it, or bring in a new one.
