There is a big difference between what Vermillion and ravienff are doing and what guys like Astic, Rexxus or jmcburn are doing. Don't get me started on this "mod" thing here.
I saw that jmcburn site. Looks like good stuff. What is Astic up to? Why so cagey? Just say what you mean!
Player who think that members like Ravien or Vermillion could do what they had created without a 'silent agreement' with the Devs....
If a player makes a tool for everyone to use, that's cool and very generous. But scenarios and custom configs are not "tools".
REALLY!? I thought I was aware of plenty of instances of modder, even MAJOR overhaulers who have . . . erm . . . rubbed developers furs the wrong way plenty of times over the years. I do NOT think that Bethesda are the least bit "in favor" of that whole "Script Extender" family of apps for example, and that **** TOTALLY changes ALL those games.
Mods from ASTIC https://empyriononline.com/threads/mod-all-my-mods-astic-comatible-with-the-a10.49107/
If a player wants to customize his game, he will use the tools and documentation for that, he will not use someone else's "customisation". I'm happy that Empyrion has community members that make tools on their free time for other players to use. The workshop is full of scenarios and ships, but once again these are not "tools". I did not talk about Bethesda, nor Space Engineers, nor Subnautica or Ark or Eve Online. I bought Empyrion and that's what I focus on, because all games have core differences that can't be ignored.
Ah yes . . . Precisely as I feared. That is the big deal with "workshop" content. Because it loads in as an assset, and doesn't depend on the API, it is probably less likely to be broken by changes to the vanilla game. I mean: I'm not tryin' to dis anyone. It is heroic to have created these many tools and extensions for this app. It is also tragic that most of them probably are not compatible with the game in its current version and/or are tricky or otherwise problematic to get running. A workshop item may only involve a simple meta-data change and refresh of the upload. Certainly major changes to the actual app might break even a workshop item like a Scenario, but mostly these are just config changes so that seems less likely to happen. I've always thought there is a "sweet spot" period for engaging in hardcore modding of any commercial game software. You don't want to start too late or there is little interest. But you also don't want to start too early or there is tedious and tiresome update fatigue. Gauging when is that sweet spot seems damn near impossible with this particular game!
Well I think you are missing my point. Vermillion offered(s) a "solution" to the "CPU dispute." Very few contributors to this thread have come anywhere near that level of contribution. Agree the structure of the survey is weird as ****; trolling/joking is about the only sensible thing I can make out of it.
Those who provide Mods are under the constant Pressure to keep them up to date. I know this pretty well from Playing TESO and its 1000+ mods. The Current Game has absorbed so many of those Mods into its Main Game structure that only a handful are still working.
TESO? The Elder Scrolls Online!? MoDS!? Shocked if I have your acronym pegged . . . My wife (who is not a gamer) were disucssing mods and stuff and she had question I couldn't really answer. If a user creates a mod, who actually owns it? I know that, the IP owner of the parent software has oversight over it, at least to the extent that they can require the mod creator to cease and desist if they decide to (thinking of child killing or ultra-violent mods e.g.). But what happens when the mod is, as you put it "absorbed" into the Main Game? Does the IP owner need to get the mod creator to agree to it or are they free to commandeer it? Or, is it simply: observe how it is structured and rewrite it ourselves kind of thing?
I offer that "solution" to every players asking for it : adjust values in the config files. Vermillion only offers his own interpretation of what these values should be, but that doesn't help players who want to implement their own custom values. @jmcburn is currently working on his updated playfield editor, and he's trying to integrate a "config editor" that players can use to modify .ecf files in a nice GUI without having to search through thousands of lines in text files. That's a "tool", not a "customisation".
All stuff belongs to the Game Company - like the 52k Blueprints. Because all was done with "Materials" provided by the Game Company Steams' Subscriber Agreement covers most of that. https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ Section 6, B:
Interesting! I've definitely thought that was the sensible interpretation. But then there are special cases where this seems to have a double-edge to it. Yes, as I said that stuff jmcburn is working on looks fantastic. I have found that I happen to agree with Vermillion's interpretations, so I'm good for now! My point in bringing it up though is: ANYONE who doesn't like the current systems has the freedom to make their own interpretation and "publish" it to the workshop where it can be accessed by other users. THAT is a far greater contribution to the community and a far better form of "feedback" to the developers than filling up pages and pages of a bulletin board with whining.
What would be a better contribution in my opinion is to either make documentation easy to find and read, or to just share knowledge when it's available. If players want to publish to the workshop, it's their own business, but that's not where players can share knowledge and maintain an adequate knowledge base.
It takes two to tango. But the documentation/ knowledge base is a topic that concerns all aspects of modding and customisation, not just CPU. As such, many new players have the reflex to search for the wiki, not the "workshop", and when getting there they realise that it's completely abandoned. Next logical step is to use the links pointing to the official forums and the documentaion is even harder to find. https://empyrion.gamepedia.com/Empyrion:_Galactic_Survival_Wiki Maintaining proper documentation and knowledge base is a full time job, and too often neglected in the IT world...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer Well in reality its not a logical system. Eleon has done ship building backwards and against nature and logic. They are using CPU; the Central Processing Unite to determine the role of the ship rather then the ships weight, size, role, and sub-role to determine what the ship will need in CPU; processing power. Here on the link below is a more realistic way of implementing this system in a more fun and at the same time immersive on how ship class, role, sub-role, should be applied that also brings along the realistic equations of weight and size which helps in determining their roles. https://wiki.star-conflict.com/index.php?title=Ship_construction In the real world and in reality, ships are made after their size, weight, role, and sub-role not by processing power. Processing power is designed only after the role and sub-role of the ship is determined. How can you design a specific processing power unite for a ship that hasn't been built yet? See how that doesn't make any sense? I'll use a tree as a metaphor for what Eleon is trying to do. Their trying to make ship roles backwards by trying to make the roots of a tree the leafs and the leafs the roots. Thats not how the world works and has no bases on logic or nature. Weapons: Why do manual weapons even require processing power when their manual and not automatic? Processing power is only needed on automatic tasks and electrical automatic programming. How do you think that world war 2 pilots flew their plains without a Central Processing Unite? Also, why do automatic weapons that do require processing power to operate need a cpu requirement info on their block when a small vessel core is more then enough processing power to control multiple ships with max 21 turrets/weapons that the game can't even handle firing at the same time? Like i said "makes no sense" the system is rotten and faulty to the core.
An example of how it could work better, from Star Conflict. They have a more realistic and at the same time fun way of determining class, role, and sub-role. The class of the ship determines the size of the ship, its speed and maneuverability, the number of slots for modules and weapons. The game features the following classes of ships: https://wiki.star-conflict.com/index.php?title=Ship_construction Interceptor. Small, light, and fast ships - designed for reconnaissance and precision attacks. Armed with two weapons and have the lowest number of cargo spaces. These ships are quick and very maneuverable at the cost of health and hitting power. Fighter. Well-rounded, medium-sized ships. Designed to gain dominance in space and take on most other ships. They are armed with four weapons and have a modest accommodation for cargo. They have balanced handling characteristics and are "good enough" in most situations. Frigate. Large, heavy ships designed for firepower and support. Armed with four or six weapons, depending on the type of frigate. Frigates are very slow with poor maneuverability, but they are very tough ships with significant firepower. Destroyer. The largest ship class, these battleships are specialized fire support vessels. These ships are very large, extremely tough, and have special weapons, shields, and modules available. They are the slowest ship class, however, and use a different control scheme to fly.
One of the problems with the Flight Model is that their using earth physics and ship flying model based on wind, shape of ship for easy movement through the wind currents, gravity, and weight to determine how the ship fly's in space. That makes no sense. In space there is no wind, or gravity, in space you rely on thrust power. The old flight model made more sense, and was also more fun and maneuverable then the one we have now. The new flight system favors a specific type of ship shape; the triangle, because its using wind and shape as if it was flying on earth.
