I understand the explanation of the system as implemented, but I can't say that it makes 100% sense to me. There are a few annoyances: Locking higher-tier CPU extenders behind non-craftable loot is quite annoying, but can be technically fixed by changing the recipe in the config file. Hard-coding the various tiers is also annoying, but can be technically fixed by changing the CPU consumption of all devices. But, what really bothers me are two interrelated aspects of the upgrade process: No incremental benefits for T2 and T3 CPU extenders: It's all or nothing to get to the next tier, so it's pointless to place T2 or T3 CPU extenders until you actually have enough to activate the next tier. No other system in the game works like this. Cannot place more than the exact number of extenders to reach the next tier: Even in the optimal (from a redundancy perspective) case where you have 1 T1, 2 T2, and 4 T3 extenders, losing a T3 extender still drops you back to the previous tier because you can't place more than 4 T3 extenders, exactly the number you need to reach the last tier. The simple solution here would have been to have a single type of extender that added CPU points to the limit, and then cap the number of extenders. Upgrading is then simple and incremental, and the system as whole degrades more smoothly with damage. Supposing the number of extenders was capped at 10, one could easily have the following: HV: 5k + 3.5k/extender SV: 6k + 4.2k/extender CV: 200k + 140k/extender BA: 150k + 105k/extender TL;DR: the tiers and upgrade aspects are unnecessarily complicated and non-intuitive.
@spanj USED in his Stream yesterday the new system in a, partially fruitless, attempt to change his builds to fit into the new CPU-Tier-System. And he had the same attitude when the W/V system came up - he hated it...and now he won't play without it.
One Major difference in them is that M/V is able to be compensated for by adding Thrusters/RCS, but there is NO way to compensate for CPU penalty. M/V is annoying. CPU is game breaking. The STO-3 Longhauler I the MAXIMUM thats allowed???? I Call Stupidity.
We don't know the CPU numbers yet. Even the numbers in Spanj's video are, at best, unbalanced and in-flux even as we speak. Even if those numbers end up on experimental, they can still be tweaked. It's not stupid, it's needing balancing, and that's what experimental will be for.
Understood - and this is also why we will add a dedicated "CPU" tab to the Control Panel where ALL the figures and costs are broken down to the very block and device .. so you have all the infos and do not need to guess or try and error where to save costs or where you have still wiggle room. ALL functions of any structure will work when you are not in the same playfield. If this does NOT happen, then please file a bug report!
That is an interesting question: @Hummel-o-War If CPU is in place and effectivly restrict the devices in use, or in case of overuse of CPU restrict effectiveness ( :-D ) are there any plans to lift restriction on devices like weapon limits per type and/or restricting use of devices to certain playfields? I think that would open up more choices within the cpu system. As well as new type of specialised vessels and bases, like a CV artillerie support ship for Planets, or a rocket bomber SV. Being able to balance weponload outs based on CPU makes a good system to have a more freely chosen weapon loadout or a general device loadout.
I hope they do this. It never made sense that you can have 12 projectile turrets and 6 rocket turrets, but not 18 projectile turrets. I think the CPU system is a step towards eventually allowing more device freedom, but we'll have to see.
But there is already option to turn off block limit. After stable 10.6 release, I will try to play only on CPU point limit, without block limit
They probably will either remove or increase the limits eventually. But not now while the limits are in flux, maybe A10.7+. Otherwise we'll see a whole pile of new ships with excess weapons to reach the CPU limits, only to have the costs rebalanced in one update and rendering all the ships useless and all the people who subscribed/used to those ships frustrated.
One thing to note that adjusting one dimension of constraint gets tougher the more dimensions exist and interlock. If M/V needs substantial tuning, adding a new constraint system will tend to both bury issues with one inside the other wrt user reporting, and make adjustments to one more complex with a greater number of unforeseen consequences as the changes ripple through the interlocking systems.
That must be new (as in in the last year of development). When I left, even structures on the same playfield too far from the player would stop working. I'm impressed and a bit scared that all structure I make throughout the system will remain operational and consume CPU/memory resources.
Simple put "MaxBlockCount: False" in the gameoptions.yaml. WE might concider to set it by default FALSE as its now default TRUE Removeing it compleet? No Some devices are hardcoded to only use 1 or 2 this will stay this way since you never should have more then those
This is a must (one day), and probably better sooner than later - this would be closest thing to 'modding' that some people ask here from time to time. You just need to figure it out when & how so that can work nice & simple and not break things
That's the exact stream I was talking about. He like a few others finally accepted the W/V and still it's optional. I never made a big deal out of the W/V . I have a feeling the CPU thing will be different. People have a right not to like something or disagree with it. I don't see how posting his stream is disproving anything I just said or made Spanj opinion invalid. Hummel said the other day that the CPU system would not make your old creations useless. So of course Spanj and others will want to try it out. If it's going to restrict them too much they just won't use it.
Well I have to agree . There is a off switch so it's optional but I'm not getting the "balancing" idea. I haven't seen a Ship in game that is doing something different than Ships in SCI movies or even in other Space Ship games are doing. If you can gather the resources then you should be able to build what you would like. The W/V and block limit should be enough limits for "realism" sake .
I've been following the CPU discussion for a while now and I was just wondering why it appeared to change direction. I mean, initially when CPU was spoken about it was performance performance performance suggesting it was being done to help in MP. This made sense as restricting builds should help in that regard one would think. However, it then got flipped around and it's nothing to do with performance what so ever. Was this a case of lost in translation? I'm not against CPU in essence, I like that I'll need to build smarter. Though, to be fair, I can't see how any of my recent builds could come even remotely close to hitting a limit - I build small and compact for the most part as I'm doing it in survival with limited resources. I do build Mobile Base CV's but I deliberately under-power them so they are slow (except lift) and turn like an oil tanker. I think the proposed add-on CPU progression seems a little weird how it's described currently, but I'll give it a go and see how I get on. I'd personally have thought something along the lines of the current Cargo Extensions and Controllers might have been nicer and more intuitive. I.e. Built a T1 CPU Controller, add some Extensions (to a limit) then build a T2 and Extension etc. Make it cumulative for a good sense of progression. Currently, during an ever-evolving survival build, I'll potentially be adding extensions...scrapping them, building the next tier etc. as I find / buy resources to do so. So, the proposed system is close, but with ad added unintuitive element. I'd just balance it so cumulative additional CPU works. Like I said though, I'll try it first before giving serious feedback...assuming I hit any limits considering my compact designs of late. Additionally, I do hope that lag shots are pretty much gone now, as a hit to the CPU extensions could mean practical game-over for that ship until the player can find more in POI loot / buy it etc. Without the ability to turn things off to divert CPU to other systems for example, you might become stranded...though to me that's interesting game-play to be honest lol. I understand the penalty limits will be quite relaxed initially if a design goes over CPU - as long as the game tells us "this would be unflyable with the final values we can provide appropriate feedback. As an aside, I do hope the Tech Tree (aka research tree) gets some love before too long. How the player can discover, research and unlock tech needs to be addressed so many current restrictions can be lifted. I.e. why can't we craft certain things and have to find them? We should be finding things we can't craft, analysing them (or several of them) and unlocking their requirements. When additional components were added some time ago it made this idea of researched progression more viable I feel. Scoob.
Alright, so the longer I'm exposed to this, the less I like it. As an example for CVs, it's like this idea of 'specialization' breaks everything down to one of two continuums: Firepower <=> maneuverability Cargo <=> thrust So you have to choose between winning a fight & surviving it, or, if it's not built for heavy combat, you get to pick between looting a high-G planet & leaving it when you're done. & right now it feels like the former was the goal while the latter is a casualty, & this whole 'specialization' talk is just something being filtered through a PR spin team. With that in mind, what 'specializations' do we get to pick from when, say, designing a CV? Or is it really just a matter of guns vs maneuvering?
