Some of us do... & have been begging the Devs for more Manual Fire Options for our Hover War Tanks for ages to boot... Pilots wanna have some of the fun too. I know how this feels so well... i'm often in my own Morning Coffee Drinking when reading & Posting on here...
Heh, RNG is a real git sometimes... Considering I rarely die and never during the early-game these days, hell, I even got off a Project Eden irradiated Dead Planet just fine, and the Snow Dwarf lol. Well, I crashed on a new Arid vanilla game-start in the middle of the desert, no water just one fruit-bearing tree and certainly no plant protein. I made it to a lake finally, about 1/3rd of the way around the planet, picked some seaweed and was just crafting a snack when...dead lol. Literally ten seconds more and I'd have been just fine. I'd never actually noticed how quickly your health plummets when you're hungry. Personally, I get a little cranky and that's about it lol. I do think health should drop more slowly, but that's not really the focus of this Experimental. Just thought it funny I'd die to bad-luck RNG rather than anything with more legs lol. Oh, it's sorta frustrating that I'm now in a better position having died. I have full health and a 50% full food bar. Edit: Ran into something else that, surprisingly, has the ability to kill me. At the bottom of a deep lake, so it's nice and cool (34c tops) compared to the surface, I encountered the Wreck CV POI "Crashed DSE-2 Front". An early-game looting opportunity. Nice. However, inside this wreak, temperatures are in excess of 60c, underwater and at night! Not seen that before lol. I thought power-down POI's - as this one is - should just be ambient. However, everywhere inside this wreck is hot. Edit 2: It's doubly weird... On the lake bed, camped outside the wreck...30ish degrees constantly. Inside the wreck 50-60c. Swimming UP from my camp outside the wreck, I pass a layer that's 80c before reaching the surface. Never seen temperatures like this before. Scoob.
I agree that it should be legal to build a CV without thrusters and use it as a base. The reason that what I'm doing is something I consider cheesy/gimmicky is because I'm not doing something logical. I am taking advantage of a game mechanic that is not realistic because I know how the game works. I am "gaming the game" so to speak. In reality, a base constructed on the ground which cannot move would have many advantages over something that was built to fly: Does not need to be aerodynamic Mass is unimportant since it will never lift off Does not need to handle friction/heat of atmospheric re-entry Can draw water or other materials from ground Can be connected to planetside electrical grid Furniture does not need to be fastened/bolted down Does not need to be built to handle large amounts of force/torque, beyond making it earthquake resistant Does not need to be airtight on a planet with a non-toxic atmosphere Does not need to handle high/low pressure environments, only the normal atmospheric pressure of the planet Does not need to handle extreme temperatures, only the temperature range of the planet You can probably think of more. Clearly building a spacefaring vessel would be more expensive and have more restrictions on structure and materials. But none of these "real life" advantages apply in Empyrion. Thus, I can make a CV that looks like a skyscraper, a warehouse, or even a log cabin, and just put a thruster on it and launch it into orbit. I find it amusing and fun to do stuff like this, but also "cheesy" because it is illogical/unrealistic. I'm not saying it should be prevented, only that the game mechanics should not encourage it. The higher CPU cap of CV's now actually makes this approach advantageous. That's what I think isn't such a good idea.
I too have been trying to persuade the Devs to not discriminate against Bases. True, CVs can actually move & need a lot of extra Infrastructure to facilitate it cause Moving is a primary job of a CV... but on the other hand I think it'd be totally fair for Bases to use the same CPU Amount as CVs while not needing to worry about Thrusters or RCS partially to facilitate stuff specific to Bases, like Furnaces, partially cause Bases can't move thus can't dodge or evade Damage & MUST Tank it, & partially so people could have a reason to build an immobile Base instead of a CV if their Objective was more along the lines of Mass Refinery of Goods + Mass Storage instead of stuff like Mobility. Even as is, aren't people constantly citing how hard it is to justify using a Base as a Base instead of a 'Flying Base CV' as a Base as is even without Bases being discriminated against further via worse Max CPU Allotment...? >_<
I asked him specifically about that and here is what he answered in post #154 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you make a CV skyscraper with one thruster to take it in orbit, it is a relatively useless CV, especially if hull blocks consume CPU as it is now. Bases can't dodge and will need better armor than ships, but blocks have a much lower CPU price than thrusters or RCS, for example. I don't want to argue again regarding what should be "realistic" and what shouldn't in a game. Not again. That horse should rest in peace. Not really related to this but regarding CPU for hull blocks : while some players complain about multi-layered armor ships, it is sometimes just the way blocks are made that force usage of many blocks just to make a slope or corner. If not, then only way to "close" a shape without superimposing blocks is to use cubes and 90 degree angles. Players are penalized for using nicer shapes by having lower armor, and they also have to put other blocks in the inside to avoid walls looking blocky. This means that the game's nice block variety is there only for cosmetics, because for multiplayer it is undesirable, and impractical. So with CPU players are not encouraged to use fancy shapes that they have been asking for a long time, else they pay triple penalty with CPU, mass and lower armor.
Yes they could do these things, they will not do these things. As my stack of T1 multitools will testify, if your level 25, increase the T1 multitool drops. You only really get parts you don't need. It's a very rare find indeed, to get something useful.
Good idea. That is my major concern with the CUP system. I new right away that shields were not going to be possible on most designs.
Yep, bases are so limiting, once I get to the CV stage, I never use my base. If I need a base, I just use a conquered POI, and move on. The CPU system in no way encourages base building.
CV RCS => 75000 CV RCS T2 => 1250000 this my should be 125000 ;-) but CV Thrusters/RCS are TOO heavy with their CPU Points
So you have to really get back to the balance of the CPU points. The mini standard Polaris from the Stock already needs a CPU Tier 4 :-( RCS and Thrusters are MUCH too high. Take this as a template to adjust the CPU values that the stock blueprints ALL get along with a simple CPU Tier 1.
So i have more than 1000 hours in this game and needless to say I really enjoy it. At first I was intrigued by the CPU system, not quite sure why we need it but it seems like an interesting enhancement. I loaded up the exp branch and one of my exploration cv's. Its easily one of my smallest designs and even with 4 new cpu t4 extenders it was way over. I had to downgrade the main engines and RCS to T1 just to get it to fly. It wasn't clear to me if the CV also benefited from removing the side, up, down, and backward facing engines. It appeared to be just an SV thing. Honestly guys, I would much rather see you add more exploration and trading content. So far I'm either confused or having less fun that I used to due to this change. Also, I would very much like to see a VR option for this game if possible.
Played with the CPU in SP game using CV. I personally like the changes/options for this as I think ship design should be intelligent, not just throwing a bunch of blocks in a lump and putting as many guns as you can fit on said lump and going out shooting everything in sight. That being said.... definitely feels out of balance right now, especially thruster CPU use vs. CPU point capability. Currently 3 XL thrusters use pretty much all of a maxed out CPU. I have my ship (Grand Polaris SL, can be found in workshop) down to 8 L thrusters, removed all RCS, still will not fly right even at 97% efficiency, and I am still requiring more than double the output of the level 4 CPU. Before this I would have considered this ship no more than medium sized compared to others in the workshop, it had decent acceleration, rotation, etc. now it wont fly. To be fair, I also tried with a small custom CV, designed as a starter CV, barely big enough for one small SV and one small HV, smaller than the in game lvl 1 CV. That CV seems to work just fine after removing the RCS, but it is a Tiny CV. For me, as of right now, this feels like another attempt to limit ship size/block count as a back door way to keep the game from bogging down slower computers, I really like the concept and hope the coming balancing will work to let us use larger ships. This should really add balance to PvP ship building, better design will create better, quicker, more maneuverable CV's, adding an entirely new dimension to the PvP combat scene. The same will apply to PVE, though it wont be as critical to play. This may open up interesting scenario's, lumbering cargo vessel escorted by nimble fighters defending against poorly designed pirate ships comes to mind.
Damnit @Psycho ! You're first post and ya beat me to the punch! <kidding!> Welcome & well said That's an Elephant that needs to be discussed imo. Single Player games need less specialized, more broad function ships than Multiplayer or Player Vs. Player. (don't yell yet) I usually stay away from sweeping statements regarding "players"; give me a bit of rope here. I don't think that the majority of SP players would support super specialization; - if a Core only Starter HV couldn't support a Harvest module for wood & a Constructor & a couple Minigun turrets. - nor are they likely to agree with a setup that forces a 'hauler' type HV to be so fragile that a hit from a zirax trooper disables it. - and unlikely to accept having to have T4 CPU just in order to make a CV capable of defending itself against space drones while also capable of Warping & hauling their aquired stuff & HV/SVs; in order to relocate from the starter planet and venture out to other worlds. I don't play MP or PvP in EGS, though I have in other games; this is just my best guess regarding those game types here. > MP: may like escorting a fragile hauler out to captured POIs to collect loot. --- They can also bring along defensive HV/s to gaurd the hauler while they're inside looting - same goes for moving to another world; carrier CV + hauler CV + combat CV/s > PvP: seems these games could benefit the most from the CPU mechanic? - -if- balanced right could support heavy armored, non-shielded ships vs. light armor but shielded ones. And be a ~fair fight. - new flight mechanic looks like it will punish the Death Cube meta. The Elephant is "One Config To Rule Them All" I -absolutely-do-not- want to impose my SP needs onto MP or PvP. Yet it's already been said that at some point in the future CPU will be default On. So, to me, it feels a bit like we're poised on the edge of an 'everyone for themselves' scuffle and I don't like it. My suggestions are; 1) Role back CPU for now. 2) Rationalize the Masses & Volumes across the board. This directly impacts Rotation, Thrust, ship sizes, etc. & has to be done. This will also clarify how much M&V a T1 Hauler needs to handle to be useful later on when discussing Specialization. 3) Implement a solid Rotational Mechanic that will address the turning rates. This will allow future CPU to not be so focused on it, thereby allowing decent (not fighter. decent.) handling large ships that are still specialized to their role. 4) Along the way work with the Builders League to come up with examples of Specialized ships. Add them to the in-game factory and then hold that-one-ship discussions to determine if it needs A or B to fufill it's role, and if it should be a Core only or TierX CPU ship. 5) Reintroduce CPU and referee the discussion. Only the Moderators have the cachet needed to wrangle us cats & minimize the, "ooh, shiny!" With the baselines from #4, CPU costs for devices should be in a workable range; now edge cases can be addressed. --- I read what you said about not wanting EGS to be a physics sim. Though it may not seem so, I'm not pushing 'physics' cause I like it, I'm pushing implementing a cohesive system that supports fun gameplay. Every time a poster says something like, "it feels off" or "weird", where did that come from? Compared to what? It's from the one thing we all share & know, the dreaded 'Real World'. I'm by no means carping for Promethium to fit rw fission, or saying 'Warping isn't possible'. Not even brought up thruster outlet size. Because those 'not real' things allow EGS to be fun. The 'physics' I and the others I've seen posting about it are promoting are the basic macro parts that we all experiance every day in real life, within reason. And it's not simply 'because'. It's that they can automatically address much of the, "it feels off" bits, without needing to impose caps or artificial limitations. Which always seem to chafe at least some of the player base. With all Good Intentions
Apologies if this has been asked and answered already: What is the thought process behind the requirement for multiple CPU extenders for high tiers? This doesn't feel very intuitive to me and after a bit of head scratching i'm getting a grasp of it (I think) but only by standing back and looking at the problem, and an idea to fix it. I get that you are trying to double the number of CPU extenders with each level (at least I think this is what you are going for?).... except you're not really because the T2 extender falls out of sequence when you compare the number of devices required and the number of blocks the device takes up and you also have to exclude the T1 (core) from the progression list for this to make sense. Spoiler: My suggestion This is what we have: T1 (core) = 1 block / 1 device T2 = 1 block / 1 device T3 = 4 blocks / 2 devices T3 = 8 blocks / 4 devices To make the progression make sense this is what you would need to do: T1 (core) = 1 block / 1 device T2 = 2 blocks / 1 device T3 = 4 blocks / 2 devices T3 = 8 blocks / 4 devices Now this looks tidier. Each extender is now the same size so we will be more familiar with these devices and each time you double the CPU you are also doubling the block count and device count required to extend it. This is more intuitive IMO. You are also distinguishing the CPU extender from the core (i.e. the primary CPU unit). Side note: I am reminded of the beacon pyramid in Minecraft when I look at the CPU progression.
People are already up-in-arms over the number of blocks taken up by extenders and how much power they eat. I don't think the solution is to increase the size of the T2 to fit in with the T3 and T4. More likely to decrease the number of T4's needed by 1 so the extender requirements are 1-2-3 instead of 1-2-4.
Or they could have just gone with one extender per tier and had more tiers. Then you'd always get a benefit from adding an extender, instead of having to save them up (especially important for those that require rare drops. . .).
Can I just say that I quite like the idea of using multiple blocks to get functionality (as we have seen in the T3 and T4 CPU extenders and also in the cargo-controllers and cargo-extenders) and would like to see other devices built like this. Here is my idea for constructors (for BA and CV) start with a 'constructor controller' that acts like a small constructor add a 'constructor extender T1' to make this function as a large constructor add 2 'constructor extenders T2' to make this an advanced large constructor This kind of modular building would allow us to use the available space in our builds differently and be more creative. Also, having modular building would open the possibility for other modules - efficiency module, speed module, extra constructor-build-que module, automation module, etc, etc.
I was going to add that to the... closed thread (which is why my latest post has 3A, but no 3B for CPU options), Unfortunately as I did the math you'd need to reduce the power consumption and boost the CPU per extender to make up the difference. If you go by flat, step-by-step increments, for example with CVs: +200k for each extender, you end up with the same values for the same extenders all up without any of the drawbacks from losing or not-using one... on the surface. But then you're using ALL the extenders at once to get those same values, so they're taking up twice the space with full power and mass consumption. Whereas with the current system, you can shortcut by just using 4x T4's. If the values increase per extender tier, you end up with the same CPU with less blocks but can use more blocks for higher max CPU. This is gonna be somewhat confusing for those who haven't exhaustively tested the numbers... Currently: CV = 200k CPU. 1x T2 Extender =400k cpu. 2x T3 Extender = 800k cpu. 4x T4 Extender = 1.6m cpu. Straight Value Increments: CV = 200k CPU. 1x T2 Extender = +200k cpu (400k). 1x T3 Extender = +200k cpu each (+400k total). 1x T4 Extender = +200k cpu each (+800k total). Combined Total = 1.6m cpu, but you're using all 7 extenders, while the current values you only need 4 extenders to get that 1.6m. You can fine-tune with that setup so you're not wasting CPU on things you're not going to need or getting no CPU while paying for space, power and mass because you've lost one extender or don't have enough. But by default, you're using all those extenders and therefore have higher mass restrictions and higher power consumption. There's probably an in-between method that balances between the two, but it'll likely have more cons than pros or do something that'll ruin some other part of the balancing act somewhere else along the line.
Here's the thing- I have a slower computer (barely over minimum specs for the game). The CPU system is terrible for it. Having to load 10 different specialized vehicles/structures per system I'm active in is more taxing than 1 CV, 1 SV, & 1 HV that I take everywhere.
