i copletyly agree with paxxo CPU is not needed we should foces on makeing lag shot and DSL not be a problem elon
You do know that you can turn it off, yourself, right? You are not obligated to be bound by it..... Its an option. The only time it was forced was on the experimental branch..... As they needed people to test it out, find bugs, report them, and balance the system.
There is a big problem, flaw, in turning it off. The new flight controller that is tied/come with cpu. Ships are now uncontrollable if set off from cpu variables. Insane speed and turn. In an optic of pvp/end game content is just unplayable. Thats why we are all here. If cpu is set to off - Flight controller need to be limited / revisited for servers with cpu off.
the mechanics of the system are calculated by the computer (thus slowing down the game & making my computer angry in creative mode) whether or not CPU is turned on. In fact, the only thing that switch does is dictate whether any of those extra calculations putting strain on my machine will artificially influence vessel performance. there is no way your builds perform better with the CPU system. It's literally a mathematical impossibility. CPU does not improve the performance of vehicles; it artificially reduces performance if you break arbitrary limitations. Additionally, the CPU blocks themselves add extra mass to your vehicles & are a larger passive drain on power than anything else on your ship, so your standby time is cut considerably. If you turned CPU off & removed the corresponding blocks from your vehicles, it would improve their performance by removing mass & reducing power consumption. So there is no mathematical way your builds perform better with the CPU system.
You are correct. I mis-wrote. What I meant was that with the new flight mechanics, my builds are performing better. I still love the CPU system as it does add more dynamic to the builds. Does it still need tweaking? Yes!
I agree with everything said by paxxo in this thread so far. CPU has been the biggest disappointment in years and has completely wasted this communities time. It wasn't asked for and wasn't needed but here it is and now we're all suffering because of it. Why at a time with games like starbase and duel universe does eleon choose to rock the boat and scare players off? The market is about to become a lot more crowded. We need smart and interesting new gameplay mechanics, not a hobbled classize system.
I'll always fondly remember my Tyrax 3D Deathmaw... but I never for a moment thought it was a sane rational Build. Plus it's not like we can't build them anymore... they're just no longer "Vanilla Compatible". No Shield AND PvP oriented at the same time...? That's... interesting... (Though to be fair i'm very outta touch with the PvP Scene, so i'm not about to take my own tactical word on this.) One of the faults of the current Implementation is that using "T2/T3 fallback" hard loses to "Hug T4 Extenders to Core & treat them as pseudo-same Device" in Tactical Power. & no Devs, Ham Fisting the Extenders away from the Core instead of actually solving the problem is NOT the answer... I gave this Post a Like because it suggested the 'Core Upgrades' which would make so much more sense then the Extenders that can't justify NOT hugging the Core anyway... then I took that Like away because it suggested another form of 'Weapon Max Count' which i'm opposed to & wish to see gone. (I wanna 3 Arty Hover War Tank if I damn well feel like it!) On the other hand, the Devs decided that massive all in one hulks that could do everything by itself effortlessly was massively OP Godhood... like a Vehicle equivalent of the Vehicle hitting "G" instead of actually playing the game. We had that OP Godhood in the first place partially cause Core Foundation like CPU wasn't anywhere near ready to be Implemented yet & partially as compensation for the frustration & nuisance of putting up with Bugs & Instability that Alphas naturally have. Alas... we all got drunk on that OP Godhood & many are still under the delusion that we were never meant to be mere mortals... Mind you, i'm sure as hell not innocent in this myself... Maybe its job is to specialize in being a Swiss Army Knife! aka some of the people who hate CPU are actually just hating losing their Godhood. Counterpoint: This is Alpha. A lot of the lack of Limits was never intended to be permanent in the first place... & to progress the game further towards feeling more like a living breathing Universe & further away from looking like a Space Mole CV Build that looks about 15ish% done... (That mass amounts of the Playerbase keep trying to drive to, hop onto, & drive off with while inanely psychotically demanding that CV to perform at 110% of finished CV Power with that 15% completion... AND to boot act like THEY own it instead of the actual Devs...) & to boot, also tend to think they are rightfully entitled to dibs on that fun & no one else is ever allowed to have any of it... screw catering to selfish greed. I can't help but to wonder if this is even Intended... might be Bug Report worthy.
Shields on pvp are downed in 5/10 seconds and cannot be charged up until someone stops hitting you. You can get away from a POI but you cannot get away from another player that wants your ship. So there is no need in pvp if you ask me. Since with cpu system you need to cut something for something else i prefer more thrusters than the shield system.
Doubt it. That issue is tied to the big thrusters, which if not restricted by CPU become common thrusters on ship because they look cool. Unfortunately, someone rebalanced the thrusters really, really, really badly and is still continuing to this day in the opposite direction to the CPU and thruster torque system, so that the big fancy-looking jet thrusters now produce so much thrust and (when used in multiples) torque that any SV is completely uncontrollable. 0-200m/s instantly with a single Jet-L Thruster and without CPU limitations people are back to packing on 10-20 of them like a10. Sadly, it's also the same guy that keeps poorly balancing the CPU values and the optronic drop rates (it really is just one guy). Just look at those weapon and thruster CPU values, They're horrendous.
Well at a mere 1,154 hours of game time, it seems I have to bow to your expertise in telling me how I should enjoy playing. Thanks for that. You clearly know better what I like than I do. But I can learn.... The Deforestator 9000. 16 lawn-mowers, 16 130mm Seeker Rocket Launchers, solid Combat Steel construction. Dual cockpits, no mercy. Those trees won't know what hit them. And plenty of CPU left, just in case you need a few more guns to defend yourself against those dangerous trees.
When reading this think of the title “Harmonizing Naturally Into A Logically Solid Foundation of Specialization”. Before this cpu update we had size size, and even though it was an indicator of lag size it still helped to create some specialization. But i think most of us can agree that it wasn’t enough, and at the scale that it could have been achieved and improved upon. So in saying that, here are some ideas based on the principles of Harmonizing Naturally Into A Logically Solid Foundation of Specialization. Your Class Size should be measured by the number of blocks you use to build with, and sense this is also decent indicator of what type of ship your building and its mass this gives it a solid foundation based on logic and naturally occurring specialization based on gravity mass and weight. Part of this is already implemented in Empyrion but the CPU update which is not a solid foundation based on a standard random numbers being thrown around and configured. Also, the old class size calculator name should be changed to what it logically should be called which is “Lag Size” and not Class Size. This so called “class size” just further propagates the confusion and disarray this game is under instead of promoting clarity and understanding which this game desperately needs. . Each of the four core levels for all structures could be called Light, Medium Light, Medium, and Heavy. The block amounts per core level are well balanced in this way for small vessels: level 1 core 1000 blocks, level 2 core 2000 blocks, level 3 core 3000 blocks, level 4 core 4000 blocks. Hover Vessels are supposed to be more tanky so its well balanced in this way. level 1 core 1700 blocks, level 2 core 3400 blocks, level 3 core 5100 blocks, level 4 core 6800 blocks. Cv’s are supposed to be naturally bigger: level 1 core 5000 blocks, level 2 core 10000 blocks, level 3 core 15000 blocks, level 4 core 20000 blocks. Bases could be about the same as cv’s sense their also supposed to naturally be bigger and serve as a base or home. level 1 core 5000 blocks, level 2 core 10000 blocks, level 3 core 15000 blocks, level 4 ore 20000 blocks. So in short; here are the pro’s and cons of smaller vs bigger ships. This logically should apply to all vessels; cv’s hv’s, sv’s. Bases are different accept on the armor part so more blocks for bases equals more armor they can use to protect themselves. And the bigger the base the more the shield should consul fuel and power sense the shields field needs to cover a bigger mass which logically takes more fuel and power to create. Smaller Ships: Pro’s: Their faster so harder to catch up to. Their smaller so harder to aim and shoot at. They use less resources to build compered to bigger ships. They use less fuel because they are smaller compered to bigger ships. Con’s: Can carry less Cargo. They have less armor which makes them easier to destroy. Bigger Ships: Pro’s: Can carry more Cargo. They have more armor which makes them harder to destroy. Con’s: They are bigger in mass which makes them a bigger target to aim and shoot at. They are slower which means they can be caught up too by a smaller and faster ship. They use more resources to build compered to smaller ships. They use more fuel because they are bigger compered to smaller ships. The bigger the ship the stronger the shields should be and the more fuel and power it shield consume because a bigger ship can hold more fuel in fuel tanks and generate more power with its larger generators. Further, bigger ships are naturally bigger in mass which means easier to aim and shoot at and are slower which means they are easier to catch and shoot at which makes them more reliant on their extra hull armor and shields in general compered to smaller ships. You can naturally see this in other games where the knight class has more armor and can tank more but can’t chase down archer because archers are too fast. So as you can see each of these roles of specialization have their own naturally occurring and unique, strengths and weakness which makes them a solid foundation. I originally posted these suggestions on HWS Forums here: https://forum.empyrion-homeworld.ne...ally-solid-foundation-of-specialization/21827 Theres also one here in Empyrion forums on Suggestions section here: https://empyriononline.com/threads/...lly-solid-foundation-of-specialization.91536/
It won't be a good anything. The harvest modules on the sides cannot be used from a cockpit facing forwards. They're also side-by-side meaning they take longer to cut down a tree individually than if they were stacked. The armor protects nothing, since all the devices are on top of the armor, including exposed generators and harvest containers. Only 4 of the thrusters are positioned to provide torque, so it turns slower. The cockpit is an ordinary closed cockpit (not armored) exposed on top, making it a clear target. The turrets are backed up against a wall of combat steel, obscuring their firing angle so they can only shoot 150 degrees of their arc. The turrets are also all rocket turrets. They make a mess of the ground when firing at ground troops or predators. Especially when 4 turrets decide to kill 1 spider, they leave a giant crater in the ground. There are 6 center-mounted spotlights overlapping the same area instead of being spread around the corners lighting up the entire area around the tank. It's also Tier 4. The maximum a tree harvester should ever be is a tier 2, and only because it's got a buttload of cargo extenders and a couple of gatlings to keep off predators.
I have a big problem with the following: People who like the feature: "I like it. Has some flaws. Glad it's optional." People who don't like the feature: "REMOVE IT FROM THE GAME!" And repeat every major update since I started playing in alpha 6. Seriously, I'm so tired of people asking for an optional feature to be completely removed. Give criticism of it, suggest ways it can be better, and turn it off if you don't want to use it and don't join servers that use it if you don't like it. But stop trying to take away something other people enjoy because you're so self centered you think everyone else in the world shares your own personal preferences. Please.
### None of the below should be taken personally by anyone. It's spleen venting from watching helplessly as the car careens into the wall. While I hope I haven't come across as demanding CPU be removed, I won't lie and say I haven't been hoping it will be reverted. General idea of something/s that adds clear advantages & disadvantages, so thoughtful design is rewarded, heck yeah. CPU as it is right now doesn't do much of that, imo, rather it's much more a 'gate' mechanic with some hefty cliffs you're forced to climb to utilize it; the gathering of the special bits for T3 & T4. There's also the new "Top Speed will be severly limited unless you have ridiculous amounts of acceleration; ~30 m/s^2 in space & ~17 m/s^2 on planets". That one I haven't seen anyone supporting as it is. **But CPU has been "balanced" with that _in-place_ Has anyone ever built a small CV hauler that had 35+m/s^2 forward thrust when -full-? That's what it takes to be able to go 150 m/s. And that feeds into the New Flight Mechanic where there's thruster Torque. We're building -more- over thrustered ships than before 10.6 dropped, just to try and stay above a walking speed and not take 5 minutes to turn around. Rather than adding in a player configurable max rotation Speed & Accel; so an empty hauler could be set to turn the same as when full, there's been a couple rough changes to how much turning force thrusters provide. Which -wasn't- the bulk of the problem. Thruster rebalancing; more power at -less- fuel consumption, same CPU cost per Newton across the board. This was the last really significant power/fuel sink, and they went the wrong way (based on what keeps getting pushed into the game; insane power usage &/or Idles, and can't turn things Off. Seems really clear one or more devs want power to hurt). Wouldn't it make sense that a more powerful or efficient thruster would take more CPU vs. one that's less powerful or guzzles fuel? Can't forget that when CPU dropped just the T4 extenders for an HV consumed 1,600 PU -all-the-time-. Some of that stuff will be getting changed. Maybe large changes, no idea. Yet, imo, if they all get even a quarter of what I think it will take to begin to get them back to sanity, that'll be enough to result in devs lowering CPU thresholds; if they choose to stick with the current impacts. So yes. I think CPU should've been reverted. The other new mechanics in 10.6 were more than enough work to bug-fix and knock into rough shape. And since CPU lives on top of all the other systems, the more stable those are, the more readily CPU could be tuned to do whatever it's supposed to be doing. Sorry. rant off.
i feel if a "feature" being introduced causes this much drama, it should be pulled and seriously reevaluated before being shoved in our faces as a "too bad it's here to stay, turn it off if you don't like it" option. you are loosing a client base when changes like this are made. i don't see anyone really having a fit and quitting the game because something they want is not implemented. i do however see several others getting fed up and stop playing when it does come. unless it is by design to lessen the player base, this is a huge mistake by the developers. stroking their egos and saying all everything they give us is gold does not help anyone involved here. constructive criticism on what needs improvement does. side note, lots of insults being thrown around over this. there is enough drama and hatred in this world, it is not needed here at all. try to stay civil everyone. it is currently a holiday weekend about being thankful in the USA. perhaps we can all try to look at life and be thankful for all we have that gives us peace and sanity in our own corners of the planet...
Counter-shock - your premise is flawed. The operative word here is "basic". The intention is pretty obvious. They're trying to steer us away from constructs that contain 8 of every single thing we can build, simply because we can build them. If you're building a construct that is meant to be a tree-trimmer, it doesn't need 32 turrets, 26 RCS, 4 mobile constructors, WiFi, a hot tub, six clone-chambers, 4 armor lockers, and a kitchen sink. That's what "basic" means. I just needs a tree-trimmer or two. Likewise, if you're building a main battle tank, it doesn't need to have six repair turrets, 12 laser drills, 54 RCS, a mobile hospital, satellite TV, and be a mobile factory. It needs guns, it needs armor, it needs shields. Again, this is Basic. You're looking for Highly Specialized, and we're just not there yet. The limiting factor of CPU means if you want to build a general-purpose vehicle, a "multi-role" vehicle, that can do a little bit of everything, it's going to do those things less well than a dedicated vehicle, because the CPU functionality has to be split among those tasks. How about posting a full view of your 9m CPU ship from your video so we can actually see how many unnecessary, redundant, UNSPECIALIZED systems you've got packed in there? I bet we can get that CPU cost down below 9M and still have a functioning vessel that's actually specialized. In addition, how about clearing up what that vessel is supposed to be? It looks like a gunship to me, so if there's a Food Processor in there, or a fridge, it's not Specialized. And see my reply above - I have tried PvP, just not min/max meta-game PvP, because that's too uninspired. Anyone can build Borg Death Cubes. Want a counter-challenge, try minimalism. How little can you survive on?
When you talk about a food processor/fridge in a pvp ship are you serious or what? There is absolutely nothing inside there except thrusters, generators fuel tank and weapons. Pure pvp ship. Probably this Fight club of pvp servers. The first rule of IndigoFight Club is: You do not talk about IndigoFight Club. The second rule of IndigoFight Club is: You do not talk about IndigoFight Club. Never saw a server in the list locked that contains more than 5 people at once. Probably never existed, same as your experience on pvp.
No. I have never constructed a vehicle as you describe. I have always built small generally dedicated crafts with some small conveniences -- like a spotlight or a fridge. CPU was doing three things: stripping me of the fridge, preventing me from armoring the vehicle (and thus getting me killed/disabled more frequently) and preventing me from staying out very long on salvage/exploration/scavenge missions (from the excessive power drain the T2 extender takes). It wasn't increasing specialisation: it was punishing me because I'm a bad player.
