It's not the concept itself, I've supported the idea since @geostar1024 first proposed it 2 and a half years ago. It's that it's incomplete at best. I wont use it until it's functional, but then I also wouldn't drive a car with no steering wheel. Go figure.
There is no management capability. At the very least, devices powered off should not consume capacity, and there should be a mechanism to dynamically assign CPU to device groups, enabling exchange of efficiency from one group to another. This is a staple of space sim games, and was in sci-fi shows and books long before that. Probably because it's common sense and something that works in the real world The tiers themselves are arbitrary and top-heavy; capacity should be added more gradually, so CPU extenders work like cargo extenders- lose blocks and your capacity is reduced by x amount. Currently, if you're T3 compliant and lose 1 block, you're now T1 and probably dead in the water- if your gens don't blow. That wouldn't be as bad if you could shut down systems to compensate, but you can't. My sole issue with M/V, OTOH, is the speed cap. It should be acceleration reduction, not speed limitation. acceleration = force/mass
Well, in regards to CPU, its alot better than it was in A10. But still it is far from many thumbs up. Allthough values were adjusted, MANY still feel arbitary, completely random and therefor out of relation. Most importantly, basic ones... Ventilators -> Too few, could be like 1000 (BA/CV) Basic Block -> Too much (1-10 HV/SV, 10-20 BACV) WarpDrive -> Too few (could be like 100k) RepairBay -> Too few (specialy the T2 one! should be more like 100k-300k while actualy repairing, but stay as low as it is while in powered up standby mode) Turrets -> Too few, they should cost lots more. To name just those on top of my head. But most importantly I miss: --> CPU-Managment, like power... turn off = no CPU usage. <-- Flight mode... Well, I DO like the behaviour of vessels that do not have ANY RCS but are/were with proper thruster placements - at least so far while testing my updated vessels. But, I havent actualy played yet (A11 or A12), so I'm not too eager to give a difintive answer on this. But, for the cost of ~1mil CPU per RCS, they should be more... powerfull... (EDIT: or cost less, like 600-750k for a testing?)
you sure its feedback you want? because with no thumbs down option sure seems like all you want a pat on the back for your broken system
Absolutely... I love that thruster placement matters now. Get rid of speed caps, and the flight model/M/V is mostly just tweaking stats going forward
I guess they deleted my reply calling CPU and Galaxy trash, so I won't refer to them as trash. Just to clarify, CPU and Galaxy features are NOT trash. CPU is just adding more restrictions to a sand box creative game in the hopes of limiting the size of the build therefore improving performance, instead of actually working on optimizing performance.
Both of which should be done in beta anyway -> improving & optimzing. I believe that once we can manage CPU like power (off = not using power/cpu) it could bring/be a nice RP feature. At least I do so since A12 Back in A10 I shared your point of view.
Having played extensively with CPU and weight in both survival and creative here is what I've learned. With SV/HV T1 feels pretty good. You can have an agile scout OR a competent gunship OR a warp drive OR a sluggish cargo carrier with minimal weapons. If you try to do more than one thing with your vehicle you run into the CPU limit. T2 opens you up to dual roles, but because of the weight restrictions you typically have to spend most of your T2 CPU on more thrusters. This is fine and since the T2 extension is just 5 neo or whatever you can often jump right into T2. T3 has no place. T3 basically means you can now fit a shield in our otherwise T2 vessel. Realistically when you get to this point in survival you're ready for T4. Since if you can afford T3 you can almost certainly afford T4. I always jump from T2 to the T4 do it all shielded, agile gunship/tank with a 32,000 cargo. It makes more sense to simply add rare elements to the cost of the shield and have it be 300 or so CPU. T4 feels fine, there is plenty of room left over after fitting every imaginable feature into your ship, it just can't be ridiculously large. With CV/BA you aren't as strictly limited. T1 feels far too generous. I was able to build a warp capable, shielded T1 CV with 8 turrets and 80k storage. The only time you really run into issues is if you try to take over a large POI and make it a base. With CV/BA both T2 and T3 feel redundant. Again if you're building a T3 CV you might as well just throw in the T4 blocks and be done with it. I suspect most CV/BA designs with a shield will be T2, but the cost of it is irrelevant so it may as well be wrapped into the cost of the shield itself. As for the flight model it's a joy to fly winged ships, they handle pretty realistically, but I was able to easily build SVs that were more efficient, cheaper and used less CPU than their equivalent harder to fly winged versions. While winged ships have a nice RP value standard designs are far more effective at shooting Talon in the face with gatlings.
Is it intended or a mistake that BA cannon turret cpu cost is >3x that of minigun? BA Cannon = 8600; BA Minigun = 2800 CV Cannon = 2500; CV Minigun = 2500
The main balance issue is there is too much of a discrepency between T3 and T4. The increase of T4 just dictates that you skip T3 entirely and go straight for T4 ship. T3 for bases/cvs needs a boost.
I have been a fairly vocal critic of CPU however after seeing the devs commitment to improving it I’m now cautiously optimistic. There are still some glaring issues to be ironed out, I would like perhaps more ways of tweaking CPU limits with certain devices, or being able to switch off CPU intensive devices when not in use. A lot more work needs to be done in this area before I give a many thumbs up vote.
After a lot of pestering over the past few months I've finally convinced some friends to get Empyrion next week. So I install the game and start designing a base blueprint. After laying down the structure I notice this CPU usage statistic. I come to the forums to find out "what is this CPU stuff?" After a lot of reading I determine I'm not experiencing a bug. My base consisting of 20221 concrete blocks plus the core has 363,438 CPU usage and is going to require a minimum of a Tier 3 CPU extender for any devices I attach to function properly. In all my reading I can find nothing that indicates this is not working as intended. Nothing from the devs saying that concrete shouldn't be using ridiculous amounts of CPU. Most the arguments about this seem to focus on it being implemented to balance ship to ship PVP (then why is it on a base?) The best argument I found regarding why concrete has CPU requirements is the idea that it needs circuitry for a shield. I don't have a shield on this. I could actually understand if a shield's CPU requirements were calculated based on the number of blocks it's shielding but that's not the way this system has been implemented. A structure with no shield is being penalized as if it had one. So here I am looking at an immobile lump of concrete, one of the most basic of early game building blocks, with no devices save for the core, and realizing that I'll have to grind levels to unlock a tier 3 device just so that any other device I attach to it will function properly. I'm left with two options. Either I: A) Scour the servers for one that has a sane block config, or cpu disabled, or gives every player a free advanced core, and simultaneously also meets the requirements of having PVE starting planets and a consistent player base. OR B) Tell my friends to not bother spending their money and instead finally give in to what they've been telling me to do for years; get minecraft. After at least 7 years of flat out refusing to do it what finally convinced me to get minecraft was concrete that requires floating point operations. I guess I'll check in again after the next update to see if logic and sanity have prevailed and the game no longer penalizes an immobile structure made out of tier 1 materials as a side effect of balancing ship to ship PVP. However, I'm getting an impression from the community that the sunken cost fallacy is gonna rear it's ugly head and prevent reasonable changes to the system's implementation from being made. I really didn't want to buy minecraft... EDIT: Perhaps I spoke too soon as Barra74's post above mine seems to imply that there will in fact be an overhaul of the systems implementation. I've got my fingers crossed that I'll have my friends exploring alien worlds sometime in the near future.
CPU was not implemented to compensate for PvP, but to compensate for the computing power with the new flight model. Of course, that's my personal guess. But you can turn off CPU in gameoption.yaml.
Since he's also talking about servers, he's not the one controlling this, and I think he's aware of that. Nonetheless, network traffic also happens for PvE, in fact the "CPU = PvP" thing is not true, and nor is the CPU = balance, nor CPU = force specialization, unless they remove the multitool from the game... The main problem of Empyrion, in singleplayer and multiplayer, is the fact that in the present Alpha phase it is not optimized, and is heavy to run even on good systems. And if it's hard on computers in singleplayer, you can bet it can clog a network connection. The main problems have always been "too many blocks and devices" for a server to handle without hiccups, causing display and sync artefacts. Main ways to solve this are to limit the amount of stuff to compute/ render, and to slow down ships. Hence why inert blocks also have CPU points. They want us to build smaller, and if big then we can't run top speed.
I can agree so far, but there was already the possibility for server operators to limit the size class. Either max size class or maximum block number for a vessel. But instead they introduce CPU, which is a bad way for me.
Playing with HVs.. wanted to add a shield to a Tier 2 HV build.. the shield and tank alone already adds 16.000 CPU.. and we're getting 18.000 to spend, going from T2 to T3.. add a few generators and you cant even add a constructor any more.. let alone fancier turrets.. I feel like the Tier3 should give 40.000 points.. at least. You're adding weight too.. so you might want to upgrade the thrusters too.. 40.000 points still doesnt allow all turrets to be installed, or 10 maxed out cargo systems, but gives some more usefulness for Tier3 HVs.
Sorry @Pete HinesHummel-o-War but I'm calling you out on this. How do make a poll were the only responses are 'yes' and 'very yes'??? This isn't funny. Its not cute. Worst of all its not productive. Its honestly the sort of behavior I would expect form a snot nosed little brat who is entirely too full of him self, not a community manager. I'm sure Geostar is just laughing it up right now as you drag his idea that he pushed so hard for though the mud. If you want actual feedback and constructive criticism, this is NOT the way to get it. I urge you to delete this thread and start a new one without the self indulgent wankery.
Sorry my english isnt good. I think the CPU ist a very good system but there are a few problems. Steelblocks and all the other blocks shoud not use cpu. A Base should have the same CPU points as a CV. The increase of the CPU lvl are to high. You dont need a number limitation in turrets and so if give them fitting cpu values. So mal das ganze auf deutsch damit ich zumindestens den Entwicklern besser erklären kann was und wieso ich etwas so sehe. Das CPU System ist unglaublich großartig und hat die Möglichkeit vieles an "künstlichen" Beschränkungen eher nach ingame Günden (wegen zu wenig CPU) aussehen zu lassen. Allerdings die Anzahl der Blöcke über die CPU regeln zu lassen halte ich für falsch. Ok man kann sagen eh größer etwas ist eh mehr Kabel und Schaltkreise müssen verlegt werden aber wieso braucht ein verstärkter Stahlblock mehr CPU als ein normer Stahlblock? Das macht für mich keinen Sinn. Auch ergibt es keinen (Ingame) Sinn für mich wieso eine Basis einen schwächeren CPU Wert hat als ein großes Raumschiff. Der Anstieg der CPU Wert ist auf den Stuften finde ich auch zu stark und auch nicht nötig wenn man die CPU-Nutzwerte aller Items gut abstimmt (Ja ist ne scheiß Balancing Arbeit) und so kann man auch die Begrenzungen bei Waffen- und Werkzeuganzahl usw rausnehmen weil die CPU eben nur eine gewissen Anzahl erlaubt. Wenn ihr auf das Balancing nicht so die Lust habt kann ich mich auch mal ransetzen und euch einfach man nen Vorschlag schreiben. Ihr leistt großartige Arbeit mit dem Spiel.
