Draw any curve you like. There's a function that'll match it. There's probably a reasonably simple computation that approximates it. That said most of the simpler functions will dive more quickly than a linear drop off and then flatten out. If you want have initial decay slow then rapid then slow again, The sigmoid or other ess curve can be made to fit.
Yes, this. Why would I not want to have a constructor on every SV when it's only 1x3x1. And a basic constructor is required for field maintenance / etc. I'm actually not sure when I'd ever NOT want an SV to have a constructor. It's not specialization. It's basic functionality.
Instead of constructors magically connecting to storage containers, guns magically connecting to ammo stores, etc, wouldn't it be amazing if you actually had to connect them? Oh wait, that game exists, and it's called Space Engineers.
If the goal is to encourage containers to be built near consumers like weapons and constructors, then charging energy proportional to the mass of the item and the distance to transfer it would be a simpler way to go. You could get even fancier with rate limits based on how far away the consumer is from the container (so supplying gatling guns from across a ship instead of near them might cause them to be starved of ammo under sustained usage). There's a lot that can be done to foster logistics design without needing physical conveyors. EDIT: You could even have a temporary CPU charge for item transfers which could depend on distance transferred. So, an inefficient ship might see a spike in its CPU consumption (potentially putting it over its current limit) when its weapons start firing and requesting more ammo.
Yes! Also would give pause to those who build a 'base' with a turret pylon the farthest possible edges of the base building bounding box. hehe.
In the immediate topic at-hand: 1. blaming the math is a rubbish excuse. Math is a language & its limitations aren't the problem here. Either the person who wrote the code isn't fluent enough in math, or they weren't trying to produce something better. Either way, the equation isn't to blame. If it's a design preference, then it's a design preference, but don't try to act like math was the problem. 2. According to your initial posts here: Those paragraphs are now useless in all but the rarest of circumstances where someone has failed at ship design. T3 & T4 extenders are rare commodities. This means that any player designing a ship in those tiers would try to push that ship to the upper limits of its CPU tier, using as much as feasibly possible (except maybe T4 CVs), because failure to do so is a waste of resources. T3 & T4 are also the only tiers that might have a fallback CPU (because T1 & T2 literally can't have one). Once the intended final penalties are implemented, any construction near the T3 CPU limit would perform at 0% efficiency on a T2 extender. Anything near the T4 limit would perform at 0% efficiency on T3 extenders. In & of itself, this isn't necessarily a problem. However, the only detailed explanation of CPU is the one you posted in this thread, & it has information that's so outdated as to be misleading & confusing to anyone not already familiar with the mechanic, say, the entire playerbase that wasn't involved in testing for the 10.6/11 patch. Good thing you had a math wiz like @sillyrobot around to notice it.
Indeed. Having only a few widely-spaced tiers and an all-or-nothing upgrade system makes the whole thing quite fragile. You absolutely cannot lose a single extender or your ship ceases to function entirely. This is exactly why a modular approach would be much better, as loss of one extender wouldn't completely cripple a ship.
Amen... Also, speaking of "Basic Functionality", i'm STILL waiting for my Cup Holders for my Cockpits... dammit, I need somewhere safer then between my legs to hold my Pumpkin Milkshakes! Also means i'm never not gonna hug my Extenders to my Core & protect all of them with the same Armor Layers cause doing anything else can't be Tactically Justified.
To belabor to the point, here a comparison of the tanh curve compared with the proposed linear slope:
.. Although I'm starting to get used to the CPU system, I don't believe the CPU feature is the right solution for this game. In the real world if you have the materials to build something you will find away to make it work no matter the size and as far as it being overpowered that's not your problem it's the other individuals who have to stop you issue. As far as game performance the Class system is there for that as Hummel has stated multiple times. There are Spaceships in different Sci fi tv shows and games that are multi function ships. We can't act as if it doesn't exist because some people do not like it. The only real solution is a normal real world energy consumption based system. You want to build a very big ship with insane agility or a small ship that's pretty much a little tank then your energy consumption is going to be pretty high for something like that. Which is how this game should work. The CPU system in it's current state still limits people during survival game play from building what they would like until they managed to get the parts for T3 or even T4 which combined with looking for the resources for Large thursters and T2 ship parts it turns this game into a game about grinding which takes the entertainment out of this game especially for casual gamers who don't have time to put in 1500 hours in the game like some of us do. Which casual gamers will out number everyone a majority of the time. Trying to stop those who are willing to deal with high energy consumption cost in order to build these type of ships just because it makes your game play uncomfortable is kind of insane in my opinion. Games are suppose to have challenges even if that challenge comes from another player.
Excellent example @sillyrobot And though this would also likely suit the 'top speed limited by acceleration' curve better as well, I'd favor a linear, straight line fall off between upper & lower limits more, if it has to remain.
Well, CPU system failed spectacularly at this from my point of view. Example: Most my light multi-purpose vessels all fit in T1 CPU without much issues, be that lvl5 HV or cargo SV, including some weapons and turrets! But specislized weaponless, barebones (not even warp or life support) low-level compact Cargo CV for lifting ~300Kt of cargo (personally I don't consider that to be much) is firmly in T3 zone... It is specialized, yet it counts as T3... I'm fairly sure carriers will face same limitation and they often need to lift more. Basically it is possible to build very specialized vessels (like carriers) that won't fit into T4. Reverse is true, it is possible to build light yet multi-purpose ships that work. Currently CPU system limits size, not specialization. Another issue: When Devs implemented CC and CE, the first thing I did, were to build more bases for storage purposes (to save some power) and I built couple SVs that were docked to CVs instead of cantainers (now that probably will be CV-containers). I already have ideas for doing same for other equipment to save on CPU and power (like medical and production). If I decide to build larger SVs or HVs I probably can just dock production&cargo based HVs to them and save a fair bit of CPU and power that way... large baseship with single thruster, warp and a lot of turrets, a lot of docked smaller vessels is probably achivable (this might count as specializtion, but more likely it counts as mokery of shipbuilding). And finally: 'atmosphere' wise CPU system doesn't make sense. Why armor on a station would consume CPU? Why inactive thruster would? Why such a jump in CPU values from switching tiers? Interstellar Rift also added CPU, but there it made at least some sense. It would have been much better for game's 'atmosphere' to make it something like 'heat' (or radiation), 'heat production/capacity' and 'heat vents' (and more fun to manage). Same effect, but more logical appearance. P.S. I'm not sure what specializations developers had in mind, but CPU so far doesn't look related to specialization. Weights brough more specializtion to the game because manuverable and small vessels can't haul much cargo now (or couldn't, feels like new system might have changed that). I'm of opinion that better way to implement specialization is equipment that actually affects role. Examples: Very large solars that take time to deploy and hide and only work with shields off, fall off (or gain damage) in case vessel moves with solars deployed => would contradict combat specialization but would compliment some support roles. Plus heavy industrial capacitors. External expensive sensors that extend jump range when outside => again not something you put onto combat ships Early warning systems that detects and warn about you being targeted, but doesn't work near power-heavy systems (obviously pointless at heavier ships) Directed and basic radar systems that get affected by proximity to large targets (or by being on large targets). Combat (compact, power hungry) and industrial (large, efficient) thruster specializations... E.t.c. P.P.S. If I remember correctly, 'empty' aircraft carriers have bigger turnrate than most frigates (but I might be wrong). There was a video somewhere of loaded aircraft carier doing a 180 degree turn almost in place(relative to it's size) without losing speed. So complaint about bigger ships being too manuvarable is not entirely valid.
The CPU system alone isn't that much of a issue but when you combine the CPU system with the Weight and volume system that is where even a FEW specialized CVs may barely fit in the T4 range. Also on a side note.. The CPU system has highlighted another topic and that is what exactly is the CV role in this game. Although I do use my CVs as a mobile base BUT I also want to use it for real combat not just some over glorified carrier. I don't want the DEVs to overlook the the fact that improved CV combat is still a very popular feature because a lot of us really want that.
In SP primary purpose is obviosly multi-purpose (cpu-unfriendly) mothership and carrier. Even without galaxy growing that was one role that CV just needs to fullfill in SP and for solo players (unless devs decide to implement alternate type of CV or will grant warp capabilities to bases). But with how game progresses in SP that's somehat true for HVs and SVs as well. We start with very simple HVs, we slowly upgrade them to be multipurpose, then we do same progress for SVs once we got enough fuel/resources (order might be different), and finaly repeat the process for CV... CV to CV docking allows it, that's why it was requested in first place. Since we can dock CV to CV now we will also be able to carry our combat CVs with our mobile bases.
The main thing I had trouble with in CPU was the fact all our building blocks now had cpu applied. There was just no logic in my mind as to why this way done. To me this is still a sifi story we are living in and things must stay true to the logic of the story for it to be believable, at least to my way of thinking. With no dev's giving us any logical reason even in lore as to why this was done. I came up with my own logic even if it's crude but it works for me. When the new shield technology was developed they found by using the old concept of bubble memory where each bubble would hold a state of charge. Building material was changed in how it was constructed. This allowed any thing built could hold this charge reinforcing it's strength to allow greater absorption of damage. Okay yes it's a crude concept but it helps me. Hopefully the dev's can work in a better concept to the story of the game and it sound logical as to why it's there.
That is something i am not a fan off: "just build bigger and build more". I am a fan of building what you want, but i am not a fan of building childhood dreams. You know those uber powerful behemoth that are the best in everything, super strong, super sturdy and super fast. I think there needs to be a system that makes you chose, so you can have all of those things.... just not in one vessel. I am not opposed to multipurpose ships being possible, but i am highly against huge ships that can be more agile than much smaller ships just becaise they have more thrusters and RCS. Because that is not a system of clever building. Just slapping on more has nothing to do with being clever. And energy cost is not really a limiting factor. You can have a harvester HV on a planet and a solar powered refinery that makes biofuel 24/7. Two rounds around the globe, chopping every tree and you have almost limitless Biofuel. I am not opposed to the CPU system. But the current one is to linear, to limited and not inspiring. Other tiered systems could (as geostar said) also be modular like cargo containers. CPU and shield generators are good examples of non linear, dynamic systems that make you chose. They can both have a slightly exponential progression path where the added shieldpoints/cpu points per module is always the same, while energy cost raises exponentially. At some point you need to add an extra generator for just a few points more. You'll never reach a limit, but you need to make a decission if that gain is worth the cost. There are also other subsystems that could go that route and hard limits like fixed block numbers or tiered systems are not needed at all, while it also prevents super uber mega powerful best of the best of the best ships. Expand that system on thrusters and rcs, weapons and turrets and you'll see maybe big ships that have a lot of everything, but they are naturally slow and not agile. But most would try to fit smaller systems with a well thought out layout of functionallity in compact builds. ;-)
Which, for me, would be an incredibly boring way to play. Grinding trees is not my idea of fun. I'd really like batteries for CV/SVs and a way to charge them from bases... solar / passive power gen is what I like best.
I am not against that. You should be able to charge your Tesla Model C 100k V from a base. But is actually the same as chopping down while forests for Biofuel. Just a lot less active. But it shows (when possible) that engergy cost is hardly a limiting factor. Fuel is for ships the same as Oxygen for the players charakter. And it should be. If fuel (energy) is hatd to come by throughout the whole game, you would be mostly on your feet the whole time.... and this is galactic survival, not ARK, the Forest or Seven days to die Zombie survival. ;-) So energy should be the same as food or oxygen: hatd to come by in the beginning, but in later game there needs to be other threads to survive against. Otherwise the game wouldn't need free ship building and would better work with static ship models.
Ok. I will be Long. And i hope staff read this as i will try to be much clear as possible. I was really waiting for the new patch. It add great staff to the game, new hud, new doking capacity. Also the volume is interessing, must need to be take in consideration when you build the ship. Problem number one? to much staff all in one. Cpu system and new fly dynamic. Expecially the last two togheter the work dredfull. I cannot use rcs becouse of cpu....ok, so i need to put truster on a some way. That`s affect also the design of my ship ( the way it look and i wont it look). So to make the ship have a rasonable roll, yaw and pitch i have to put engine. ( and weight and cpu). When i add engine my cpu and ship wight go up. So i have also to load some staff on it....Overall Mass affect my ship performance and the top speed go down... So i need to add extra engine. But my cpu are near to finish.....ok i trow my ship on the garbage i try to make another one I was playing space engineer before i was coming here....a game with absurd phisics, logic and full of bug. It try to do a lot of thing, and as a concept is lovley.....but the multiplayer version is not really easy for everyone and you need to have a lot of patience. Expecially about absurd bug and game mechanic. Now i was in looking for someting that was simple and funny. Got the point? Why at this point i`m not suppost to go back to play it? I means you will make happy your long time player base, introducing new staff.....but think about that. Are you making money with old people ( who already bought the game), or with new people? New people as a first impact they will like the game so complex and diffucult? They will wait to learn and grow up as a player, or they just shift to another game. And if they shif becouse the game is complicated, full of bug and hard to play...they will write down a nice review or suggest the game to friends? think about that, guys.
@Ronewird remember that CPU is optional and you don't need to enable it. it's just bad game design really. not sure how much more i / everyone else in this thread can flog this dead horse before the devs realize it's dead
