A10.6 Experimental Feedback - CPU

Discussion in 'Experimental Features Discussion' started by Hummel-o-War, Oct 29, 2019.

  1. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    by making them. Except for one of the lava planets, pretty much all of the default planets cap out around 1.3 G
     
    #301
    dpburke2 and xelthor like this.
  2. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    #302
  3. Trig

    Trig Captain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    639
    (Build 2695 Feedback)

    Still some things missing from the CPU statistics page, definitely Cargo Extensions, probably some other stuff (assuming devs are aware, but posting just in case)

    Efficiency penalty increased on the two Tier 1 HV's I'd built recently, enough that I'm gonna have to find some way make them worse. The level 5 early game HV went from 97.1% to 87.4, causing it to lose even more acceleration (and it didn't have much to begin with). Not sure what to take off of it yet, guess maybe taking out oxygen support might save some cpu, and the hover booster. But I feel like if I make it much worse to save CPU it won't be worth the material investment (since presumably people want to get the most out of their first HV).
    As you can see from this, still things missing in list of CPU costing things, also it's counting the harvester as a Gatling gun:
    Also, it doesn't seem to be counting each block right in the Hull part - the number in parenthesis ( ) isn't accurate to the amount of those blocks on the craft.
    20191106142813_1.jpg

    20191106142711_1.jpg
    Craft's on the workshop here:
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1906718401
    pre-nerf pics of cpu and stats pics still on there (although I'll probably be updating them soon, maybe tomorrow)

    My attempt at a basic no-features, single-drill, HV miner went from 97.8% to 90.6%. Not much to strip out on that, harvest capacity is small, any less thrusters and it wouldn't be able to handle a full hold of ore, already very slow at turning. Not sure yet how to make it worse to save CPU.
    This craft has two different types of thrusters, but stats page is only showing Thruster S (this has a mix of the 1x1 and 1x2 thrusters). Stats page missing the cargo extensions. Also some of the carbon blocks types are showing as the old Plastic block types (and the number in parenthesis is wrong, assuming that number is trying to show the total number of that shape on the craft).
    20191106143225_1.jpg
    (this one's also on workshop here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1905526630 - workshop currently has pre-update cpu / stats pics)

    On both of these it kinda comes down to the small constructor costing too much cpu. It already reduces movement capability due to it's mass (fairly noticable on small craft, and it can cause balance issues if not careful with placement), to get a further reduction in movement from efficiency penalty feels especially punishing. (and obviously countering that movement penalty by adding RCS isn't an option since that would increase penalty even more) But removing it isn't much of an option either since both of the above craft wouldn't really be worth building without it (in my opinion). I feel that it should cost 1,000 cpu (instead of 2,000), OR Tier 1 cpu should be 6,000. Either of those would drop the efficiency penalty to a more acceptable number. Harvester CPU cost feels pretty high as well.


    Whenever I'm looking at craft trying to make them worse overall for this cpu stuff it feels wrong, and I keep asking myself why bother? The reasons for CPU aren't particularly clear, I've heard Specialization, but it ends up feeling more like punishment and another un-needed restriction.

    I'd be much more willing to accept CPU if A) structral blocks didn't cost CPU and/or B) only devices that are active consume CPU.
     
    #303
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
    xelthor, runlykhel and Germanicus like this.
  4. Damion Rayne

    Damion Rayne Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    78
    Ya know, all in all, the new CPU system is just downright broken. I feel this after a lot of time with it.

    Now, while there are arguments to be made, and good ones at that for using this system to push down performance issues, force ship types, etc. There are a lot more cons than pros though,

    1. You've made the XL Thrusters utterly useless and entirely unusable in anyway as one of them damn near maxes out a T4 CPU ship.
    2. You've made T2 RCS Utterly useless, and while this might be desired, you've made it so that T2RCS costs a 3rd of a T4 Cap CPU complaint ship
    3. You've restricted designs to the point of outright destroying creativity outright with the new flight model.
    4. You're talking about it being "optional" but you're going to separate the community across two lines, those who want to work with the new system and those who don't. Which also separates the creators and their creations.
    5. The design decision to make "non device blocks" such as cosmetic blocks, and hull blocks to cost CPU is just down right stupid.
    6. The costs of certain devices in terms of resources is discouraging in regards to building SV/HV/CV's

    I'm really discouraged right now to the point I think I might call it quits with Empyrion and go back to Space Engineers.
     
    #304
    dpburke2 likes this.
  5. Combat Wombat

    Combat Wombat Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    128
    New CPU caps are downright insane, 10 million on CVs? Why even have the system at that point. This is a giant waste of everyones time and honestly starting to piss me off and I thought it was a generally good idea to start with.

    The numbers were fine before you just needed to reverse a bit with each new cpu level offering diminishing returns over the previous, maybe dropping the tier system altogether.

    Core: 800k
    Core+1: 1200k
    Core+2 1400k
    Core+3 1500k
    Core+4 1550k
    Core+5 1575k
    So on and so forth
     
    #305
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
  6. StyleBBQ

    StyleBBQ Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    I'm tired so this is likely wacked but;

    Kinda feels like the new CV number is a surrender, and a hope that the majority of the players will grumble but still play with CPU On.

    The other CPU cap changes I can't make much sense out of.

    Being solely an SP guy, and 100% not supportive of the bs power costs, plus not seeing anything fun about having CPU on for SP, this is a DOA feature for me that will never be turned On. <shrug>
     
    #306
  7. RadsK99

    RadsK99 Ensign

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2019
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    11
    Hi, tested my biggest cv size 32, https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1737775107 , she pass for much the CPU max limit, if i quit all the RCS reduce also so much but it also have many Thrusters, that use more than the limit CPUs.

    The problem i see is that the RCS is ridiculous high, if we will not need them anymore is ok we quit it.
    - next the thruster, i have that many thrusters bcs of the weight of the cv (321 kT), works at max of 1.6 G (min at 1.1G-3500MN), solution: reduce the weight of blocks or the CPU's value for Thrusters.
    Also, can work reducing the CPU'2 value for the blocks.
    If the weight and CPU's value for blocks and thrusters are not balanced will be imposible to make big ships now, like as more you put blocks, the mass will increase so you will need more thrusters and absolutely you will need more and more CPUs.
    Finally if the things before can be fixed probably don't need to change the MAX CPUs, just the particular values from devices.

    Hope this little analisis work for devs.
    Later 0>
    (check my workshop... before all my works doesn't work anymore XD =(... )

    Sincerely. RadsK99
    cpu valiant1.jpg cpu valiant 2.jpg
     
    #307
  8. Mercman

    Mercman Ensign

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2015
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    i have almost 12,000 hours in this game! i have always enjoyed the challenges in making my builds fit the new systems and game play, from turret limits, lower class sizes to weight and volume. I do believe that there are still many issues with the CPU and i am sure we will see further adjustments but it is frustrating for me and many others. My largest PVP CV is a class 5 and it has been rendered useless as a pvp ship, my class 1.5 pvp HV is also not very usable in PVP, and you may as well forget about a large sv fighter[class 1.5 - 2]. The things that have made me frustrated the most over the past 10 ish days working on all my builds are: the cpu consumption on thrusters are the same from 2 small to 1 med, from 8 med to 1 large etc the weight and trust is not this way as you improve and upgrade why not have a lower ratio of cpu consumption! same can be said for fuel takes generators, T2 RCS is broken maybe give us a T1.5 or something. Items not in use or turned off should not use CPU. Not sure how i feel about blocks having a CPU cost, we need smaller ships with less laggy blocks but it is going to kill PVP, and it is nearly dead now but perhaps that is a direction you are taking! i hope not.

    On a positive note, not that i feel i was overly negative, all my starter builds and higher level PVE builds are good with the CPU limits and fly nicely!
    Thanks for reading my rant!
     
    #308
    Liang and xelthor like this.
  9. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    Here's what I'm seeing, based on looking at the numbers.

    CPU is meant to force early game specialization in vehicles by limiting the number of devices players can put on their constructions. As players gain levels & access to higher-end CPU pieces, these restrictions are lifted, allowing players to build more freely.

    The new number for T4 CVs is a little excessive, but it addresses key issues:
    - it shows that CPU isn't meant to limit construction the way size class was
    - it lets players build a single CV for all their needs (so they don't face the logistics of moving multiple single-role CVs all the time)
    - it opens up the use of XL thrusters on ships
    - it makes the issue of hull blocks costing CPU a moot point because that cost isn't going to get in the way of artistic freedom. If I'm hitting the 10 mil CPU cap (hell, if I'm hitting half of it), it's not because I'm putting down too many hull blocks.

    The changes to SVs & HVs appear to address other issues. For example, the before & after CPU difference on T2 SVs is literally the cost of a warp drive. The change to T3 CPU limits makes shields an important decision, but not the only one you make in regards to design. The change to the T4 CPU cap on SVs brings most of the workshop into a viable range for CPU.

    Now, whether this was intentional or not isn't for me to say. I'm looking at the numbers & telling you what their changes do in macro game effects. I'd find it hard to believe this is all accidental, though. While many of the core problems people had with CPU still remain, they've lost their teeth. That's part of the reason I'm impressed with the change- we were talking about processes that would pour hundreds of man-hours into overhauling CPU to turn it into the gold standard for what it's supposed to represent, then the devs get the silver medal with 15 minutes of work.

    Most of the previous problems are now non-issues. They can't be game-breaking without intent, & I can no longer get away with using adjectives like "glaring" or "stifling" to describe them. So until I spend some quality time with a thesaurus, I'll leave them be & instead focus on problems that still stand out- like what devices aren't showing up on the itemized CPU listing.
     
    #309
    StyleBBQ likes this.
  10. Boba Brett

    Boba Brett Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    15
    Why did the numbers on T2 and T3 bases go down? At least leave them where they were. Those seemed pretty reasonable to me.
     
    #310
  11. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    Part of the issue is that the ship is so massive that it's self-limiting. The RCS units provide negative value, the thrusters are canceling each other out, & you have so many fuel tanks that each new one provides infinitesimal boost to longevity.
    - Remove the RCS
    - Strip out thrusters, especially the ones oriented up & to the sides. A 2:1 ration of forward:lateral thrust is sufficient for the new flight mechanics
    - 20-30 fuel tanks is more than enough
    - Entire sections of the ship provide little benefit beyond 'being big'. Shrink it down, replace the combat steel with hardened steel, or preferably both

    The 15 minutes it took me to do that did 90% of the work before my computer caught fire.

    rads stats.jpg
    rads cpu.jpg

    With some fine tuning, you could easily drop CPU even further. However, there's only so much you can do around the edges when the ship is nearly half a km in length.
     
    #311
    RadsK99 and Vermillion like this.
  12. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,282
    Likes Received:
    10,248
    I'd say take out at least 1 generator. Look at that power output, it's 1.11MPU. That's at least 2 T2 generators. You'd be lucky to use even half the output of one on a CV and each one of those consumes 62k CPU and weigh 120t each.
     
    #312
  13. StyleBBQ

    StyleBBQ Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    @casta_03 good explanation, and likely correct. :)

    Yet just looking at things from my SP viewpoint I can't find a single "fun" reason to turn CPU On.

    I don't build for the Workshop so how CPU may or may not be good for CoOP/MP/PvP doesn't effect or motivate me. Just being honest. :)

    And while I generally like systems with trade offs and interesting balance compromises, I'm just not finding that here.
    Both the space requirements & power consumption for the CPU Extenders are severly immersion breaking for me.
    - the space part combined w the tight T1 points means 'building to upgrade' isn't viable for SV/HVs.
    Nor is adding yet more, non player craftable, 'Special Items' appealing at all. I avoid Traders like the plaque.

    And I've admittedly made things worse for myself by considering other ways to encourage 'specialization' that could be both rational and fun.
    Which are numerous. Power; more sizes, reduce S-blk genie output. Redo Thrusters so bigger wasn't simply always better; there should be trade offs. Any-to-Any docking (understand its not currently possible). Finer grained Class sizes, Size Templates: both for Server Owners, zero impact to SP.

    In the end most of this is silly. If EGS just mirrored most of basic physics, servers could simply use 'weight classes' and 'power classes' due to the Shield. Can see how an XYZ size template mechanic could help address the Death Cube builds, but ultimately there's no real cure.

    Anyway... time for some breakfast and then something other than forums, heh :)
     
    #313
  14. zztong

    zztong Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Presently, I don't see a reason to turn it On or Off. It only seems to affect the "end-game" which doesn't have a lot of content, so it only seems to maybe affect a high-end CV that I would use to obliterate some POI, then declare victory, and then set the game aside until the next release.

    I vaguely understand that CPU is to control something. I'm not currently able to tell what that is from the implementation, but I don't think the implementation is fully expressed. I know they've made efforts to communicate where its going.
     
    #314
    Kassonnade likes this.
  15. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one line only, mostly because I was able to do that on my first pass with SVs.
    https://empyriononline.com/threads/svs-cpu-at-a-glance.91057/

    If you look at it mechanically with only a game theory perspective in mind (which takes the fun out of everything, so I don't recommend doing it), CPU alters early game by forcing players to either perfect low-level designs or farm out more resources so they don't have to.
    It will be more difficult to use an early CV to faceroll your way through mid-game. I mean, it's still plausible & I'd have to take the time to test it, but you might be doing it with a plastic ship & far too much faith in your hull shield.
    Late game is artificially delayed because players will have to run more errands- either POIs or shopping trips. I can't comment on how grueling this will be since I haven't started a survival game in the EXP branch. It really depends on where the extenders drop from, their drop rate, & how much they weigh. Believe it or not, this actually makes reaching late game more psychologically rewarding.
    I don't PVP in this game, so I can't tell you exactly how CPU will impact it. However, late game ships just had (1-2 POI raids/2-4 shopping trips) added on to their construction time. You tell me how you think that's going to affect how players approach PVP. I think it'll make PVPers into bigger asshats, but that's just because everything does.


    Yeah, game theory sucks.
     
    #315
  16. zztong

    zztong Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    You're probably right, but my limited (darn Real Life) testing seemed to show that my usual ships that take me up to building a big CV from the ruins of the starter planet POIs were easily within the first version of CPU numbers at Tier 1. Now if/when CPU numbers get smaller and the loot tables and POI materials get stingier, then maybe that will be different. Those kind of future changes I cannot predict, and partly why I asked (in some thread) where the Dev's were going with CPU and what did they want me to test.
     
    #316
  17. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    minor issue I've noticed- when going above 2 million CPU while building a CV, I start getting little frame rate spikes every time I place a block. I probably would've ignored it, except that it started happening as soon as I crossed 2 million.
     
    #317
  18. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    7,737
    Likes Received:
    11,785
    Can you possibly add your ship for us to test? Thx in advance (you can also PM me if you do not want to post it publicly!) Would be very important!
     
    #318
  19. Momo

    Momo Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    90
    The first CPU extender need some rare ressources (neodymium and sathium), this ressources are not available on starter planet.
    You need a warp drive to reach these ressources, but this device need 3000 CPU and with other devices you will easily exceed the first CPU tier.

    So you need the first CPU extender with a warp drive but you won't be able to built it ...
     
    #319
    dpburke2 and Kassonnade like this.
  20. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    4,760
    Likes Received:
    5,966
    The "workshorp" is not even on the list of reasons why I bought the game, in fact I couldn't care less. While I do "understand" the "popularity" contests, I feel it is misplaced to use it as an argument to try to railroad development. And I imagine all players who don't care about the "workshop superstars and dramas" might think the same.

    Guys make nice ships ? Cool. But that ends there. I bought a game to play, not to watch others play it for me.
     
    #320

Share This Page