If your server chooses to use it and you don't want to then it's time for you to find a new server. It's not that hard to understand. No one is forcing you to stay on that server. The server owner obviously wants to have it turned on so..... As for 2 sets of blueprints for with and without, why? Haven't you decided you aren't going to use CPU already? If so then why do you need any CPU compliant blueprints?
If only the game offered some form of marketplace of design where those with talent could share their handiwork... Why one might even be able to use blueprints prepared by someone else!
Maybe it could be specified what is meant by "design" here. If players only have to remove some devices to fit into a CPU tier, then it's not a "whole design is obsolete" situation. If "design" means "shape and size" (because of hull CPU) then it's more than just being "outdated" : it's "forbidden" and to some it's a problem.
Essentially what your saying is if you don't like it too bad. And its called restrictive, and thats the problem. Now its even more restrictive then before when it was tried to do it with the lag size calculator here. https://empyrion-homeworld.net/tools/emp-class-calculator Now you can't build anything larger then a class 1 or 2. And thats the core of the problem here "more restrictions" to try to force us to build ever more smaller to compensate for their terrible and lack of optimization. This has been going on for years now and they still won't get their things straight. Has anyone pointed out the fact that CPU should not be in a plain armor block? What is the CPU chip inside the computer telling the plain armor block to do thats made out of nothing but iron or wood etc? To be more woody or more irony?
I still think hull blocks shouldn't use CPU. They already add mass which means you'll need more thrusters which use CPU so hull blocks are being charged twice basically.
I think it would be a useful thing if there were an Official, written by Eleon, "Important Info to know before Subscribing to a Blueprint" link on the Workshop. If it covered; very basic definition/explanation of what "CPU" is/means; so new players would understand the rest, state that the CPU System is off by defult, so any blueprint can be used, whether or not it is 'CPU Compliant' explain that any blueprint posted prior to Date (late Oct?), and that hasn't been Updated, was not built with CPU detail the Special Bits that indicate if a ship is using T3 or T4 CPU Extenders and explain that these are rare, later game parts which will also require explaining that not all builders include the stats page. no idea how to cleanly explain all of that bit... should cover change to flight model as well, since any 'old' ship will have RCS/s. and the flight changes are not optional, so I'm guessing the majority of old ships are very difficult to control or impossible? So explain that stuff and how to use the ReplaceBlocks command to remove RCSs. ... erp. this was a stream of consciousness, meant to be helpful to folks & Eleon. Hadn't really dawned on me how much of Ex10.6/A11 folks need to understand in order to use Workshop blueprints and not be unpleasantly suprised.
I forget that the older posts were you.. haha my bad.. I'll put the wolves of war back in their Cage. "Bad Wolfy"!.. But i was going by your recent post which fits right in with my reply. Maybe make your recent post more understandable with what your trying to portray. Cheers bro.
Sad after 50 + pages it is the same crazy debate. An option to turn a feature off is great and still people have come up with CRAZY reasoning why that isn't good enough. Sorry but so many people in this community have shown great intelligence in the past but this cpu thing is showing the ugly side. Single player is not on a multiplayer server(Why is this not understood?). Saying a server doesn't fit your specs because the devs added something you hate, doesn't mean the option is gone. Rent a server or find one that suits you, otherwise you are just being ugly at this point. Most games don't give you options and sorry ALL GAMES have negative sides to them no matter what. It is in ALPHA so that means anything and everything can change and it might not suit you.
I'm still against size limits, like I wrote yesterday. Calling a design "obsolete" because it's too big make it sound like CPU is "progress and innovation" while in fact it cuts all BIG STUFF from the game, totally the contrary of what I was hoping for long time ago. SO it's not "obsolete" but "forbidden" to say the truth. What you write here is only true if CPU achieves what it is assumed to be designed for. Strange that after 50+ pages it's still not clear that it makes no sense to "tax" building other than because of server performances, and none of that BS that has been thrown around regarding specialization and roleplaying. Also note that it has been mentioned for many other features that Eleon doesn't have all eternity before them and have to make choices and sacrifices like working on X instead of working on Y. From there, no need to draw a picture why time spent on multiplayer or singleplayer "exclusives" puts fire everywhere... That's why I always find the "Just disable the damn feature and shut up while they code our game like we want it" a bit hard to swallow silently. I think everyone agrees that CPU was not asked by the playerbase in any significant amount in any survey done up to now. So why the entitlement all of a sudden ?
*Raises Hand* Hell yeah, I do for one. I've also long wished for "Armored Cores" that could take more beating & would be a solid cube in Dimensions with the formerly empty space showing the Armor/Heatsink dual purpose composite/alloy, & be sweet for us Brawn Types who's OCD grates every time we Inset the damn normal Cores into our Builds & have how it looks sitting there like that make no sense... AND can't find any rational way ya Looks Oriented Peeps would ever make the Device Design look rationally connected to stuff... AND I feel like my preference for Insetting my Devices into Walls/Ceilings/Floors/Inside fortified armor layers gets discriminated against by the Art Dev... For the Topic: People who are having the audacity to demand Server Owners to cater to you... I humbly please ask you to imagine the following Scenario...: Stranger barges into your House's door... Stranger strolls right into your Bathroom while unclothing... Stranger jumps into YOUR Shower using YOUR Hygiene Products... You don't like this so you confront the Stranger... Stranger think their way of thinking MUST be right & yours MUST be wrong, so... Stranger chews you out to hell & back condemning you... How would you feel... if you were the YouServer Owner & listening to the gripes of the StrangerForumites here having the audacity to demand of you to cater to THEM & their mindset...?
"If you don't want the **** on your sandwich, you can scrape it off" My computer starts overheating if I break 2 mil CPU. Most of what I do in-game is build CVs in creative mode. This occurs whether or not I have CPU turned on because the game still calculates values for blocks. This happens because the system is poorly-designed, most likely because it's making large-value calculations for every single block placed. I might be able to forgive that if CPU did something useful, but it doesn't. It's just codified bureaucracy. It adds nothing to the game. It doesn't even know what it's trying to do. & every hour that went into designing it didn't go into fixing bugs or improving other mechanics. Imagine if A11 was a really polished flight mechanic release instead of this laughable pile of half-baked ideas topped off by an aerodynamics simulator that uses the same mechanics whether or not you're in a zero G vacuum & some other mechanic that's nothing more than a rehashing of size class. Maybe next time you should read those 50 pages of forum posts to make sure you can at least attempt to sound original. That was the first thing people complained about when CPU was released. Devs responded by reducing the cost of blocks that aren't solid cubes. It's the type of compromise that ends with $10 million worth of tea floating around in Boston harbor.
After making the first draft of the Post where the Armor Core's 'shell' surrounding the Core was just Armor, I got to thinking that this is the 24th Century... so why Armor the Core against just damage if the Future could instead find a way to Armor it against damage AND overheat at the same time with the same Shell & do more with less, for the Design Efficiency? Speaking of 'Heatsink'... I can still sometimes feel the need to vent my frustration of many of the Devices & the way the Shape & Blockspace still flat out refusing to co-op or synergize with Blocks like territorial cats refusing to get along... -_- (Easy example: Try taking that Blockshape that looks like Cylinder on one half & Solid Cube on the other half, & try making its side work as a 'Connector' to the round end of that Wing that looks like a sort of Bat Wing that was drawn up & modeled by a Druddigon, & note how the 'round cylinder half roundness' & the 'wind end roundness' fight each other instead of blending into, aka co-oping, with each other... *Facepalm* ) I just realized recently, to my humble humiliation, that I fell behind on my Computer's Routine Air Can Maintenance & it was so bad in my Case that my CPU Heatsink Grills were even under Siege by a blanket of Fur, Fuzz, & Dust Bunny army forces... it's a wonder my Computer wasn't suffocating... Has your Computer had a Routine Air Can Maintenance lately...? How easy it is to forget about this really is scary... one of the reasons i'm switching to Liquid Cooling next Rig Build.
I checked hardware before blaming software. Unless it's some weird dust that only started existing after Nov 6th & only affects my computer while running EGS, it's CPU. Even then, it's only while fiddling with ships over 2 mil CPU- no problems running the game normally. As soon as I start trying to revamp one of my older designs by stripping out RCS, the cats think we're under attack.
You mean lag size or real class size? If real class size like in mass its only logical that size and weight of the ship determine its class type like light, medium, or heavy. You wouldn't call a little tiny sv sized ship a capitol because that is not logical. So sizes class is a naturally by-product of size and weight. Sense block limits are a decent indicator of mass size they should be apply'd with cores. And if these new cores are made the original core which has no limits can be left alone and therefore will not brake any ship at all. The original core can easily be allowed or not allowed by server owners. With cpu any changes server owners or players want to make to it will mean changing every single cpu block that exists in all Empyrion and that is ridicules.
Size. Size. Size! Plain, ordinary measures, overall dimensions. No class, no lag, no device counts. Refer to my big post on previous page. Some players had a clear understanding (often exposed in their signature) that "Class Size" was directly related to "Lag" and illustrated their idea by showing that specific blocks were seen as "devices" (ex. windows) in the "Class Size" calculation. And this all boils down to computer strain, not "size of ship". So a smallish CV made only with windows and having 50 autonomous devices (running scripts and checks) might easily cost way more computer performance (real computer, not the game's CPU) than a CV 4 times bigger made with simple blocks with one texture and no fancy shapes. Where the line is drawn is only known by Eleon, and maybe not even them if all the voxel work is done by a Unity store package they did not make themselves, which is surely the case. They may have total control over a majority of the game's scripts, but they may have very little control over the way the voxel grids are managed in the package. When I see players invoking other games to justify their suggestions for features, this always pops in my mind : no 2 games share the same "flavor" of engines, or packages, or coding habits. While some things were seemingly "easily implemented" in X other game it's absolutely not indicative of its feasability in Empyrion. So for many features, we might never get better than a "simulation" but, hey, it's better than nothing, no ? And I don't expect Eleon to reveal their secrets on the forums, but we can see the outlines of limits, and that can help figure out what kind of improvements or features are the most likely to be "feasible" in a majority of different game engines/ setups/ coding rules (and then surely in Empyrion), and what has the most chances to end up as a "simulated" feature like physics in Unity, for example. And of course, while everyone is advancing in life and earning gray hair in the process (if not losing them) then surely Eleon's staff is also learning in the process, and might overcome problems with time that they could not solve previously. Just look at Any-to-Any docking for example : not 2 years ago implementing this was seen as a big problem if we are to believe what Eleon's representatives told the community when such a suggestion was made. Discussions did not stop there, and players brainstormed regularly on the subject. And now we have it ! That is exactly why I am quite reluctant to yield on "size restrictions", knowing that lots of things have not yet been tried. And first of all, if the true "problem" is obfuscated behind reasons that don't resist player's sustained analysis, we're far from discussing the right thing right off the bat.
So, I'm relatively new to the game, only had it a month (less) when CPU etc came in so didn't have a long pedigree of favourite builds that were hit by it like a lot of people. Having been playing around in creative and on official server, trying out builds and ideas and my general feeling is I quite like the new flight mechanics, though there are clearly balance and bug issues to iron out as a lot of people have already pointed out (being too slow to warp because you have a loaded - not even full - SV being my pet peeve). In terms of CPU, and this links to the flight mechanics, I neither dislike it or, at the moment, like it. It just doesn't seem to do what it says it does in terms of encouraging specialised builds. I'm just finishing off my first Tier 4 Battleship. This is not a PVP or anything ship, and I've had a lot of fun with it. It still has several layers of combat steel, the max default number of weapons in all categories, reasonable lift, speed and turn etc. And falls well short of the CPU maximum. In fact, were I to add more than the default number of weapons on it I can festoon it like a demented christmas tree with them without even being in danger of going over CPU. The only real, major contributor is the thrusters. I guess this is the main balance to armour, but it seems like they massively overly focused on thrust as a contributor without balancing it with the other components that encourage specialisation - guns, constructors, cargo capacity etc. Surely the aim would be to be able to build a superb lifter (but has a much more limited ability to defend itself), or a battleship (that has limited manufacturing and hauling ability) and so on. Yet they don't seem to have balanced the numbers at all around this. I could certainly see a better balanced CPU system being fun to play around with and force meaningful choices for those that enjoy that, but it feels quite a way from there at the moment.
The real problem here is thrust/torque vs cpu needed is really annoying. ( my opinion ) to have a decent lift (as cargo ) capacity you need to spend lot of cpu on thruster....who are really cpu expensive...but look like you have to fill up your ship with engine... I mean today i was trying to bring with me some prometium duble pack fuel for my new sv.....who cant lift anymore becouse overweight!!! balance should be a priority! Also the lost of performance caused by weight come really fast and dramatically, look like there is some math problem here, as some one reported quite often. (better to don`t talk about physic ) p.s. Is the new fly system who really really really giving so much problem....my opinion again
Yes, you could well be right Ronewird - there seems to be quite a bit of balancing needed across the board I think!
