HAHAHAHA are seriously ALL of your surveys going to be, Do you like this ? Yes or yes yes with sugar on top ? What the actual FireTruCk guys, how absurd is the entire question, did Donald Trump put you guys up to this ? Hey look, old survey, more people like the old flight control system, but hey ignore that if you like..... https://empyriononline.com/threads/proper-flight-controls-new-cores.37118/page-4 Its convenient to do that I guess. CPU sux. The new flight model, erm, sux. The old flight model was more FUN. CPU effects flight controls via penalty, silly. We still have to this day, 2 flight control sets, SV, CV, and one hover flight control set, HV and thats literally it. So this question, how good is the flight model is nothing short of a JOKE, when only its great its super great are the options to answer. Its super crap. Did CPU and the flight model changes, that damaged 65,000 BPs on workshop and cost literally countless players to leave the game, is that a direct cause of jumping out of Alpha prematurely as it appears to be, with no mention of even a Beta period ? What gives ? And the survey has yes or yes with sugar on top, doesnt sound to me like your really looking to find the truth in this to use to take a better direction ?
Sorry for bad English, it's not my native language. I don't like. It doesn't work like a processor, and it performs the wrong function. Modern fighters and spaceships are incredibly complex devices. But they do not need to carry two/three/four server racks to function. It's as if to turn on/off a light bulb, you would need a bulky server. Most functions don't need a processor, while others already have their own processor. Also, building materials suck the CPU. What? If I don't have enough CPU, will my wings fall off, or will the walls collapse? As for the flight model... This is a shooter model of movement. You press W to reach maximum speed immediately, or break your fingers trying to set a fixed thrust with the CTRL modifier. There is no convenient way to control the thrust value, instead of constantly pushing W. The pull in any direction is always maximum. Engines start instantly. This is a fantasy mode of transportation... but for lack of a better one... Ships have no inertia, no mass. Suffice it to say that a modern battleship, if it turned with such acceleration as CV does in the game - the team would be smeared on the walls, and the ship would fall apart at the seams. The CV is like cardboard. CV SHOULD be heavy, clumsy, slow-moving monsters, not cardboard boxes. The complex and fragile internal structure should impose restrictions on the permissible overloads when turning. I understand why you need a processor. But this is a workaround, instead of a direct one. A straight path is when a lot of blocks means more mass, huge inertia, and engine overload.
The new HV control system is awesome; I can finally use HV fixed guns to precision target stuff. The CPU system is unfun garbage. Vessel top speed affected by mass is more unfun garbage. One slight thumbs up, ten billion thumbs downs, from me.
Some insightful commentary there... the release does seem a bit abrupt and forced. The steam page for the game has this to say... Lies and lies, apparently.
Beware your language or the way how you are addressing The ELEON Team. There is no Lie in the Sentence “We are planning to be in Early Access until the game is complete.” The Devs made it clear that ALL the Main Features are now within the Game-Structure. And the Main Features are what the DEVS Decided to be there. I marked it what language I meant
I see nothing wrong with that 'language'. Complete, imho, means a mature feature set with all the major bugs fixed and most of the minor ones. I guess we can't expect every non-Factorio dev team to live up to the Factorio ones.
This looks to be true. Steam said: Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access? Eleon responded: We are planning to be in Early Access until the game is complete.” We know for a fact that this games core mechanics are not finished products to say the least. So you are correct sir that these in fact where Lies and lies, apparently. This is the steam store page for empyrion see it for yourself: https://store.steampowered.com/app/383120/Empyrion__Galactic_Survival/
Correct there is nothing wrong with your language. Germanicus is attempting to censer you because he doesn't agree with the truth that you say. Facts are CPU broke this game. It caused countless people to leave new and old. Everything after CPU became not fun and over-restrictive because eleon felt the need to compensate for their lack of optimization by limiting players creative freedom to build. Facts. Also, they disregarded us their playerbase and empyrion community that make up this game by trashing almost 100% of our pve blueprints and about 100% of our pvp blueprints. Thats how much Eleon cares about their community. Always focus and what people like this do in their actions and not on what they say because its their actions that tell the truth.
Very true but from their actions Eleon does not care for the voices of reason otherwise they would have reverted these bad changes already. Their more interested in making things pretty and new cosmetics then true, creative, and logical core game mechanics.
I'm perfectly happy with the Mass, Volume and CPU systems. They are not perfect, but the game was an absolute JOKE as a candidate for "survival" game before these systems. Anyone can turn them off completely, so I really do not understand opposition to the systems in general. Substantive feedback on what could improve on them is understandable, and I see quite a few folks offering that sort of thing, but not that many. Mostly, what we seem to have here are: a handful of longtime players who had grown very accustomed to the state of the game before these features were introduced who just cannot cope with the fact that many of their old builds don't work anymore or they are unable to play the game (with these features turned on) the way they did before these features were introduced. Well, just TURN THEM OFF, and continue to play the game how it was played prior to the features being introduced . . . or, offer substantive feedback on how they could be improved . . . I tend to agree (in principle) that the maximum velocity cap from mass is . . . unsatisfactory, but this may well be a very conscientious game play and balance issue and not even one of balancing 'server preformance' so much as 'how the game can be played. Wishing that the laws of physics are closely reflected in the game is perhaps fine in theory, but do we really want to go that route? Do we REALLY want "realistic" falling damage? Realistic crush damage for collision of vehicles with solid objects? Realistic healing times and hunger and sleep needs? Realistic planet sizes? Obviously most of this is simply out of scope; it is a GAME so abstractions and fudges of how the real world works HAVE to be imposed to make it playable and fun. Planets that are only some 50km in diameter (the "large ones!") can make me cringe mightily if I let it, but I'm not gonna do that. I understand it is a matter of making the app run on my rig and on the servers that run it. To some extent, all of these features are likely to represent the same sorts of tradeoffs between pie-in-the-sky and the harsh realities of 2020 computer science. I've been playing with @Vermillion Reforged Galaxy and apparently he has adjusted the way CPU limitations work in that mod. It does strike me as "less restictive" and more fun, though still plenty restrictive that as one's situation improves and you are wanting to engage in bigger, better, faster you have to make efforts to secure the additional resources and tech to build better CPU upgrades. I'm honestly rather surprised at how much negativity there is about these features, ESPECIALLY given that they can be turned completely OFF! I have the impression that this is the intent for the long haul, i.e., to NEVER require that the game be played with these features turned on. Given that, a lot of the tone of community feedback on these features just strikes me as unhelpful, petty, childish snivelling. I applaud those of you who are not happy with it and have made substantive suggestions for how it could be improved. Vermillion is perhaps the examplar in this case as he made an excellent scenario in which he adjusted many or perhaps MOST of all the values for various items in the game (as well as reintroducing disused items like the mechanical drill) and rebalanced the whole thing for a more challenging and prolonged 'mid to late game' transition. If you Eleon folks have not played 40 to 50 hours with Reforged Galaxy then you really owe it to yourself to check it out, as I think the balance he has achieved in that scenario/mod is just about the best I've seen.
I agree with all of these commentaries. When it comes to the additional functionalities related to "CPU," most of what you propose sounds lovely. It seems to me you are asking for a Tesla S Class or perhaps even a Mercedes Benz, and I would like one of those too! However, for now, we have a very nice Honda Civic LX, and it runs fine I think you can appreciate that, for a small crew of six, all the functionality we HOPE will eventually make it into the game cannot be expected as a "minimum" requirement to play it with any particular feature turned on under the guise of "the feature is not finished, thus I refuse to play with it turned on . . ." The issue of maximum velocity cap from mass is one where, the developers may well have good reasons to impose it, even though all of us might well agree it is unrealistic and even to some extent unsatisfying from a game play standpoint. I can well imagine that: the faster an object in the game is moving (whether in singleplayer mode, or a networked mode [coop or PVP]), the more the app is having to place substantial demands on hardware, and eventually you get blue screen of death or a fried chip. The boundary between what is physically possible and where the limits are right now might well be a huge distance. Maybe all the max speeds could be increased by a factor of 5 and all the machines running the app would be fine. But maybe not. I trust that these developers probably have a better handles on that than me.
The OTHER option is: change the game settings so CPU limits are off or find a server which does not apply the CPU limits.
Let me take a crack at your question "what is the CPU system 'for'." Ideally one of the developers will respond, but here is my take on it. Socratic question: should a player who has achieved say . . . Level 5 or 10 be able to build a "ridiculously large" base? There is a logistics system that any player can use which allows that huge base to act as a "conveyor belt," so, I would say, not only is something that is "ridiculously large" purely from the standpoint of a "survival game," but it is also imbalancing (even in singleplayer) from a game play and "fun" (meaning sufficient challenge with sufficient risk/reward ratios) standpoint. The synthesis of my answer to this Socratic question is: in a "survival" game (meaning when the player is playing it in "Survival Mode") there need to be constraints else the game is no longer actually a "survival" game but simply a building game (and the other playmodes have that covered fine as it is). Limits make the game more challenging to survive and thrive in and thus make the game fun. From a theory crafting standpoint, I would say that, "dumb" blocks like steel and concrete ARE legitimate CPU loads (though perhaps not at the valuations they presently have) because: (a) there is a logistic system which is abstracting a system of conduits, ducts, valves, switches, and probably small flying robots, all of which will be needed proportional to the number of blocks in a construct; (b) as the size of a construct increases, there is an overall shift in many of the basic demands of operation (life support, lighting, maintenance/repair, etc.) and these factors mean that, there are legitimate hypothetical reasons why more "dumb blocks" should impose some "CPU load."
They tried just upping the limit a bit and it clearly showed it would cause problems on most systems. Sure, it may look "impressive" to see 8 players on the forum saying their rig has no problem running the game with max settings and they could swallow more speed like beer, but there are now +/- 575k game owners, and many have already lost the ability to play with more than 20 fps, so these also have their rights to play.
I don't think making CPU cost dependent on the device being powered is that big of a stretch. That would allow minimal management, and is what I consider minimum for me to enable it in vanilla. I'm actually playing with CPU enabled in Reforged, because Vermillion's cumulative stacking of extenders and the rework of the costs make it more viable there. If a modder can do it, the devs should be able to do one better I've repeatedly said I get that there is an engine limit to velocity. It sucks, but it is what it is. However, if you take any given vessel and make no change to it other than filling the cargo boxes, there is no conceivable hardware-related issue that needs to be compensated by reducing its top speed. Yet that is exactly what happens under the current system. All thrusters, CV, SV, HV, are grossly overpowered and provide instant acceleration to the "fixed" speed. Whatever the vessel's current mass reduces it to. If they implemented proper mass reducing acceleration instead, they could reduce the thrust values and allow a vessel to gradually accelerate to whatever top speed the engine then requires for the given environment.
I suspect that the intent is for the "sand box creative" game play experience to be had from the "Creative" or "Freedom" or even "Scenario" modes of play (see the page that is opened when selecting "Singleplayer" in the Main Menu "Start New Game" dialogue). It is probably also possible for server administrators to configure multiplayer environments for one of these "non-survival" modes of play too. So, I have to respectfully disagree with your criticism. In the first place, any user can turn off the M/V and CPU limits and play "Survival" Mode without them. But there are also tailor made play modes which are more suited for a "sand box creative" experience too.
I had one "conceivable" explanation for you when you made the same statement not long ago, so here it is again. Empty cargo boxes are just items. When they are filled they refer to lists/ arrays, so even if these don't show up on screen they do exist for the game trying to keep track of everything. Instead of 60 empty items, these now become 60 x (number of slots occupied + stack numbers) lists referred to by items. And X number of ships on a server, PvP or PvE is not important here. If the game doesn't care about this data, then when the player uses the control panel to access any container, it should show blank. And the point is not to show that lists of items (with stack numbers) have the same "impact" on performance that voxel grids have, but it's just another element in the pile. Taken separately, each feature "has no impact" on performance, or so little. So yes, there is a "conceivable hardware-related issue" ; but to what extent it would "need" to be compensated for by reducing top speed, we have no way to know but ask the developers. Everything else is pure speculation.
Not really- M/V is interwoven with the flight model. As long as mass affects speed instead of acceleration, you can never truly turn it off completely
The CPU system is broken and really doesn't make any sense, it just restricts the creative freedom of players ever more to compensate for Eleons bad optimization which has in fact killed most of the fun in this game. If i was the devs i would revert back to something that wasn't broken before and was actually fun to play with. But it looks like they keep listening to people who advocate this bad system and who are in fact constant developer apologist for almost every bad action they take. Its sad but its the truth. This is what they constantly do everyday. No wounder this game has gotten into such a bad state. Their not being held accountable for these bad decisions.
If CPU was decried by lots of veterans, and many left the game, who are these players that have been here since the start that do what you describe here ? Who are these players that are "constant developer apologist for almost every bad action they take" ? And before jumping on the accusation train again, make sure to look at post history of whoever you "think" these players may be, just to see if they are really "constant developer apologist for almost every bad action they take". I have seen most long-time players that are still here on the forums, and they all have something to say against more than one major feature, so I am eager to see who you are thinking about here.
