A small thought/suggestion I have on making the logistics UI a bit better: Whenever you open a container - either via F4 or manually with F - that is already setup as the Input or the Output for a constructor, a button should be somewhere in that screen that you can click to take you directly into that constructor's interface. If multiple constructors are using that container I guess there would need to be some way to pick which one - maybe a small menu that opens when hitting that 'connect to constructor' button with a list of connected constructors (or just another drop-down list). This would save a lot of clicks and menu using, especially if you're not right next to the constructor. As it is now, if you want to construct stuff semi-remotely, you have to put the inputs in a container, then close the F4/logistics screen, then open the control panel of that base/vessel (assuming you're close enough to it to use P - if not close to it you gotta go through the registry), then go to device tab, then find the device group with constructors, then find the one that is connected to the box you put the stuff in, then place your order, then close control panel, then hit F4 and open the container for the output from that constructor.
@Germanicus - @geostar1024 is a closed alpha tester, and one with very motivated attention to the details of balancing at that. Wait.. this is the Logistics thread, not Volume! So much crossover there's offtopic everywhere, even from moderators!
The UI will probably get something that combines Logistics and Constructors/Devices when Automation is phased in. You're very right about the need for accessing linked constructors, making the workflow symmetrical (viewing Logistics->Automation, and Automation->Logistics). We'll see how they fit it all together.
Sorry, but NO! Unless you tell me to completly ignore the CPU values - which then questions why you implemented it in the first place (EDIT: for the public release)!? Even a complete 'Job oriented' Vehicle can get easily over that vaule, this makes no fun, as i tend to try some/certain values.. cpu would be one of those… and as Long we dont have away to increase the cpu value… Or have any way to 'relate' to the value… i feel… bleh… True, I could make the Rogue One, which i think is quite a good ship regarding the current values (applied or not). I probably should keep improving it, which i'd like to. But i do not know how thruster, CC, CE, RCS, o2/fuel tanks, Vents, other things are affected by Incoming changes. Which makes me kind of nervous. To put it blant, i'd like to know a rough Roadmap of what volume should be/represent in EGS? I really hope that volume will add more Slots in the upcoming updates, still having the volume determine how many Slots can be used. But this would make this a very nice realism TOGGLE for game/server Settings - while keeping the CE's usefull - so builds would be both ways compatible. But as of now (public 2099), i'm sorry to say, but it is more than just frustrating.
I can't wait to see that! Having something to defend (other than just a base for cargo, but a resource as well) would really spice up territory wars in PvP and could add a new dimension (and design) of defensive bases (vs. the AI) for single player. I can then see why then getting DSL up and running well is such a priority. If they are able to survive vs. the AI in single player survival games quick conflict resolutions (and efficient) from afar is key for when the player is away. All of these faction infighting has my mind a buzz... It would be interesting to have allies to aid in large scale resource strikes in a single player game. It would also need an entire new form of treaty AI as well.
Lets wait out and see how the new current AI settels in... I feel a certain inspirational light brighten up regarding the current AI bevhaour, but then again… lets see how that 'static' turns static -in terms of movement - first… (sorry for OT) But then again, the spawning behaviour would Need a check up as well, to have that 'static' work nicely IF the @dev's were refering to movement as i was when i first read that word 'static'.
CPU isnt in the public release. It doesnt work. Even if u put it on in the Gameoptions it still wont work. The number is there. Some values on devices are there but thats its. It just doesnt work. Something that is said before i believe. Its not balanced. Its not finished. And ive told u this before in another post. So no need to pay attention to that. Ofcours WHEN it gets activated there will be a way to INCREASE the CPU points. CPU just wont make it in A9. It was planned but Volume asks to much time to get the CPU done. My guess is either we going to have to option to place more then one core since 1 core gives 7500 CPU or we going to have some device that will increase the points. As 9.1 looks now no more extra slots are added.
It'd be interesting if they added functionality to NPC crew such that they could be hired and assigned a role that could temporarily increase CPU (a term which I think would translate better towards Command Points, if Eleon are heading in that direction). Lots of possibilities there. Hiring hubs, possible named/legendary NPCs that could join your "faction" for the right price or conditions. Experience + veterancy leveling towards specialist roles (gunner/engineer/pilot/commander, etc,.) would help transition the rookies into professionals. Losing a highly trained and leveled recruit could be a major setback for the functionality of the grid. It would be a lot more challenging to implement. However, this would certainly be more interesting than simply adding another device to deal with some abstract number designed to limit grid sizes. Of course I get the need to limit the grids. I'd just like to see it done in a more interactive fashion. For instance, if you've been preparing for a large class CV, a limit to its functionality / devices could be related to whether or not you have enough crew members (and of the right type) to actually operate the craft properly - and this could tie back into command points/leadership/reputation. Personally I'd find it to be a blast assembling a proper crew and gearing them up for larger scale projects rather than being an omnipotent loner that can single handedly operate every single system aboard a gigantic space fortress.
I expected the storage extension would increase slots for the CC but no. Advanced constructor will use and create lots of components that need space. Assuming only a 1000 ingot stack size limit, you may often need many stacks of each. I can already imagine space running out soon. (i haven't even flown off my first planet and the container is more than half filled) I guess it would help if they stacked to 10k. If you start crafting blocks for massive capital ship, you need many times more base resources.
If volume is enabled, slots shouldn't even be the primary representation of the UI, to avoid this issue entirely. We need a better UI for splitting stacks precisely (transferring certain amounts automatically will likely come with automation, but even once that's in, there will be a need for convenient one-off transfers (simple, manual Logistics). . .), and it will only get more important if stacks are replaced with arbitrarily large blobs of resources.
I'll Keep placing those old 2-block Cargo boxes then, gives the better storage, and since the CE's dont give Slots... are just as usefull while Looking better. You just agreed that Volume was a more urgent factor. I mean, you know… it IS possible to run out of Slots, while having volume left. This is specialy true to the (WHY limit to ???) 320k L volume Storages. Specialy later with the volume of items adjusted. Adding Slots per volume would solve this, at least that's my opinion. With that last sentense… EGS just died for me until 9.2 No (adequate) Storage solution possible, while EGS is a game where lots of storage is required… All you do is making the grind even longer. Sorry but that's my Impression.
Yeah but if volume is disabled, the game should still be playable - in a sandbox style - with the same blueprints. So those that want, can Limit themself.. those that dont want to, dont have to. My whole Point on Slots per volume goes by the (why Limit to) 320k L Storages. Its' nice, but it provides the VERY SAME slots as a single CC without any CE. So... one Pays a Prices, for EMPTY - not-usable blocks - when having the sandbox mode active. My Point is: The storage of an old single 1 block Cargo container provides half the Slots that 1 CC does. When i then add 5 CE's, i still have the same Slots for the CC. But when i add more Cargo boxes, i do get more Slots. for the volume they 'eat up' in my base/cv/sv/hv… So i could actualy save more items. With disabled Volume, using CE's makes no sense at all, and it will turn Volume-Focused structures useless in a sandbox with volume-disabled.
in 9.1 u can texture the Container Extenders (CEs) so u can give them a better look. The textures arnt yet final. Were looking for container textures. The whole Volume system is still beeing developed. There more issues then just the containers. How u handle the BP factory for instance. I can write a note about either extending the Slots or add so many slots per CE. Cause ye i do see your point. A personal note: Think most server owners will either leave volume off or tweak the settings in the config.ecf. For my own server iam bussy tweaking the config.ecf so things fit better in there. For instance i increased stack sizes of the ore and ingots and crafting materials to 10k
So just out of curiosity is there any plan to address new fuel types to work with a new volume/mass system? The fuel system was really changed around 5.x. Before that, fuel tanks worked more like cargo containers (which used the same slot system). Will fuels packs have different weights or benefits to creating them? If you can store fuel in cargo containers (which I can see as players doing as an exploit to bypass the fuel tanks and use future logistics to store fuel cells in cargo containers, which would then autoload into the ships fuel tank... you'd only need one small fuel tank per ship using this method). What would be the point of larger (and numerous) fuel tanks then in the future? Will fuel packs be restricted to fuel tanks only? If then, would the fuel cells like hydrogen and fusion have no purpose anymore?
Reproduced from thought here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/alpha-experimental-9-1.46962/page-4#post-288397
Sittimg in a train, please oversee typos. I dont see how storing a gasolinr canidter in a shack (box) is bypassing the tank. Are you suggesting that i should only priduce fuel when i need it - as much i need, without having reserves stored somewhere? This might have been possible in a8, but with the reduced ability to place fueö tanks, tje standby times are soooo drasticly reduced in MP... yoi might just suggest to ppwer off a base when logging out as well. Because if you dont, your base/cv will be powerless by tommorow or the day after anyway. Though, this is only if you 'follow' the not applied cpu values. But since it is a volume thread, i'd like to suggest/ask for an increased fuel storage for the t3 tanks. I do not feel comfortable having a cv with grow plots using 7500 cpu to last only for 60hrs - IF thrusters are off. 7hrs with active thrusters. Even less so for a base.. allthough we have solar for those, which helps. You cannot take 2 days off, and scratch your holidays completly, because those 60hrs wont last the half of them... Just some of my thought.
@Sephrajin , @mR_kAt https://empyriononline.com/threads/...-weight-limitations.46806/page-10#post-288424
@IronCartographer Ahj i missed a paragraph to clear it oiut. What i was refering to is.. To question wether @mR_kAt is suggesting that we should not (be able) to store batteries and fusion cells in a box until we need it? Edit: And what about job oriented cv, that does not have amy AC on them? As so mamy seem to wish for (which i only üartly can understand, the other part is yelling for sandbox...)
