So all the people that took a break(Quit) won't come back for alpha 12? or when the game is in beta you are saying 100% sure all of them? Also CPU you can turn it off, most folks had issues with the aerodynamics which both CPU and aerodynamics are getting some attention. Also what numbers? This is EA game and as such, there is zero proof of this being a thing but it keeps coming up like it is real? EA games see a drop in players after a month of new features and those same people come right back after every major alpha release. Major games see a drop after being out for a while and see a pick up when they add content this is been forever in all games...
Very True. We started SWTOR with 300k Players in the first days only to drop to 150k after a month. And, as you say, it was a constant come and go with each new patch or DLC brought into the game. Thats now 9 Years in the past. And you know what? I still play it from time to time. Its still fun. Its still so full of Story...and of Star Wars
Rotation sensitivity? I won't say no! Thank you. How about water tanks for cv and base? Growing plots, toilette, kitchen sink, shower, etc would use small amount of water. Another idea: Plants don't need air but co2. Give us the possibility to use plants to produce the air. PS: Vertical axis wind turbine?^^
People have been saying this for a while now, and honestly... one GOOD update and this place will blow up with excitement again because frankly... Empyrion has a LOT going for it in the end. The ONLY two things that keep player counts down are the bugs, and the lack of compelling new features over the last few major releases. There just wasnt anything that excited the player base is all. Not in multiplayer at least. Eden has done more for the game than the updates have lately. Buzz wise anyways. M/V, Chat, CPU, flight model changes, AI changes, its not "Pretty" lol. Or should i say Visually Stimulating and Entertaining. Honestly Im excited for 12. If they do a good job Implementing NPC interaction, and make it simple to understand... Scenarios could make things fun as hell.
I can tell one thing, I'm certain I wont be back and roll out any POIs until the spawn limit removed. No mater what Alpha come out. I just spent one month on my largest POI alone to build and balance the challenge, this unexpected change ruined the show. Logistic in this present form, pathetic AI, CPU crap, bad performance, piling bugs, just spice on top of my disappointment.
I've never ran into a spawn limit. I'm sure there's some technical limit on the max number of entities that can exist in one area at once but our computers would probably lag if we ever got that many.
The Limitation @Ramachandra may address here could be the Problem CPU provides for structures like his Theater. Its a size class 29 with 64.000 Blocks - the concrete alone without any Devices catapults Way over Base CPU Limit. For Comparing: My Aztec Temple has only a few devices and is Size Class 6 -> As I stated before: You get punished for building with Concrete.
POIs aren't affected by CPU though (unless you use a special cpu core for them). There's basically no limits on how you build a POI. You don't even need to worry about structural integrity if you don't want to. NPC spawners can be set up just like before too. The only thing that was changed is their spawn zone actually matches what it shows in creative mode. And they no longer respawn enemies after they die by default but that can be changed in the control panel.
Great feature. Maybe such a great feature even, that it should be 'earned' first to get it as an upgrade (for instance when/if 'Research' is implemented).
It's more of a quality of life fix because some ships are hard to control at the moment with the new flight model. This will go a long way to fixing them.
Agreed. I always kinda hoped they would fix it with "One Directional RCS's" (...not talking about Harry, Niall etc.) though: Just place those and rotate them in the right direction where you want more (or even less) torque.
This is basicly what i've been waiting for, it is yet to be seen how these get implemented. Last test that led to my grand disappointment was when 11.5.3 came around, and that was for SV's only. Enough to throw in the towel at that point. Did not get around to see what differences they made comparing to HV and CV torque acceleration models. But from what i hear there is just 1 model for all. Could be wrong but if it is, i was hoping for 3 distinct models respectively focussed on type of vessel (HV,SV,CV) . Last thing we need with these sliders is another shift where the wrong type vessel over performs and another wrong type under performs according to common sense expectations. That brings me to : ...because it is interwoven with the torque acceleration dynamic. It is much easier to place large thrusters in CV's in order to get better torque, because of its general size model. Not so much on SV's , counting out huge SV models. It sure would be unadvisable to being forced to use large model thrusters just to find a good torque value, destroying sleek looking designs capabilities where huge thrusters protrude out of in weird places. So all i'm saying here is i'm curious about the 10 point sliders and how they will act. Not lighting the candle on the cake just yet. Hope this will be thought out in depth and tested beforehand. Ofcours all this is going to get even more of a headscratcher to get right with the CPU buff added. Wish you good development tidings.
If you add a Tier 5 you will need to update your little diagram on the CPU tab Or if we can just add more extenders at T4 to give more CPU points as we need them, would that provide enough difficulty/progression curve to still encourage smaller builds without ruling out large builds completely? Tricky balance to get right. perhaps as we add more extenders they have a diminishing effectiveness, adding less and less points as we add more? Eg: the 5th extension might take us up to 13 million for a CV, the 6th takes us up to 15.8, the 5th to 18.3 and so on.... Another idea, not so much a tier 5 but an override block/device of some kind. You could have some fun with this one: - Alien AI core - Prototype super computer - Quantum State compressor - Virtual Dimension Drive Whatever you call it, this is either a super rare, super expensive or even a quest reward item you only get once for example that removes CPU limits from the vessel/base its installed on. This could add that end game progression for survival and return the currently impossible ships back to possible again. feedback, critique welcome of course.
To be perfectly honest I have no problem whatsoever with CPU, and don't really understand why everyone is wailing about it so much. The only CPU I think needs to be boosted is that of HVs and SVs by a bit, and I would like to see hull blocks not cost any CPU. Simply because it makes no sense for a chunk of steel to require computing power. I am perfectly capable of building giant bases and CVs well within CPU. I have yet to even hit the tier 4 limit. Even with the slightly low CPU cap on HVs, I can make a perfectly functional HV tank at tier 3 capable of taking out turrets on POIs. So I don't really understand where all the flak is coming from over CPU. Now I can understand that we can't spawn in the CVs the size of a small moon anymore. But to be honest, those are just going to create FPS problems galore, and CPU stops us from doing that. I have a tier 4 CV which is only at about 7M CPU (still under construction). It's designed to have multiple other CVs dock to it. All CVs are within CPU, and I only have three spawned in (for a total of four), and I ALREADY have FPS problems. So complaining that CPU is limiting what we can spawn in just makes no sense to me, when the build itself is going to make the game almost unplayable...
Anybody remember me saying "This is an Alpha, and just the first iteration of CPU"? Like, several times? Let's see what round 2 brings. I'm betting "not perfect, but much better" will be a general theme.
Wow... so it'd be like we could program the RCS, instead of it just runnin full auto? I still can't quit being suspicious that the Devs never figured out how to program "Empty Void" into the game, so they cheated & instead filled Space with personal conspiracy theory Code Name: "Celestial Void Soup" instead... *Tinfoil Hat* In Gravity, as the Gravity exerts its force on that extra Mass from the 'junk in the trunk'... the problem is when it's doing the same thing in the supposed 'void' of Space away from nearby Gravity Sources... this is the part that defies logic, sense, & reason. Oh, yeah, right... Air Drag too, derp. >_< This is indeed a recurring problem with Micro SVs... it's a glaring part of the New Flight Model that needs fixed. For now, the only thing one can do is to stick out the Thrusters with sticky-outty thingies to extend them farther from the Center of Mass so the Thrust can get more leverage, thus more Torque... kinda like how RL little Civilian buyable Drones do. For the Topic: One Feedback I can think of atm is to compliment the CPU Penalty for overspending points... maybe there could be CPU Bonuses as well to do something useful with not-spent CPU Points in a Build, so we don't feel Min/Max compelled to hit 100,000 CPU Spent right on the Nose or else it's wasting power thus sucks.
