Help needed CPU - Armor and Deco

Discussion in 'Experimental Features Discussion' started by Vermillion, Nov 5, 2019.

?

How should CPU costs on Armor and Deco be handled?

Poll closed Dec 3, 2019.
  1. Armor and Deco blocks should have no CPU costs. (Let mass and cost be their deciding factors)

    86.8%
  2. Only Hardened Steel, Combat Steel and Hardened Concrete should have CPU cost (restrict heavy armors)

    24.5%
  3. CPU costs on armor blocks should be halved and the 10hp rule increased to 30hp (Softer Limits)

    3.8%
  4. All armor blocks should cost 1 CPU. 25 hp exclusion rule (Max-size limiting)

    5.7%
  5. Armor and Deco Block CPU costs are fine as they are (No changes)

    7.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Combat Wombat

    Combat Wombat Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    190
    This is a highly flawed poll. Having deco cost cpu makes no sense at all but having armor cost cpu could have a balance purpose. Therefore I can't vote.
     
    #21
    GoldDragon likes this.
  2. zztong

    zztong Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    The fourth option doesn't work, or you'd like armor to cost more than 1?
     
    #22
  3. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    5,186
    Likes Received:
    11,122
    Creating any custom content during the alpha (or even beta) of a game is always a risk. This wasn't the first new mechanic that required authors to update their blueprints and it won't be the last. There's also no reason to pull your old stuff from your workshop, let players subscribe and modify them themselves if they want. Removing your blueprints from Steam just hurts the people who subscribe and like your content. :(

    Sandbox games still have balance, limits, resources, etc. Nobody is telling you how to play, however, as you can tweak many things in the game difficulty settings menu without ever going into a custom config file. It is up to you whether you use mass/volume, food and hunger, or the cpu system in your single player game or dedicated servers. The choice is still yours.

    The problem right now isn't that the game is too hard or too easy. The problem, I think (from my perspective) is that the default game for new players is too hard on the starting planet, while the hardest game options are too easy for an experienced player who would prefer a difficult challenge.

    Custom scenarios can certainly help with this, but the default game should have a wider range of difficulty, with the default tutorial experience being very easy so new players can learn the game without getting so frustrated, while giving them the option of increasing difficulty if they want.


    Sometimes rants are needed. :D
     
    #23
  4. Sephrajin

    Sephrajin Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2017
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    2,865
    This - should have been said WAY earlier!
     
    #24
    Sofianinho and dpburke2 like this.
  5. Sephrajin

    Sephrajin Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2017
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    2,865
    My POV/2 cents on the topic:

    Deco blocks should not use CPU...
    - IF they should changhe CPU.. then they should GIVE CPU.. most of them (I'm refer to) are computers anyway, the other half are plants.. WTF...

    With blocks costing CPU, I guess Eleon wanted to 'solve' that magic riddle, of how we transfer our ammo, power, air and petnaxid accross our structures.
    Nice idea there, BUT.... UTTERLY HORRIBLE realized. :(

    Because, as already stated... on SO MANY occasions, CPU feels more like a (plain & pure) performance fixing mechanic, for which the so called 'size class' mechanic should be for....

    With only 1 saying:
    DO NOT BUILD LIKE SCI FI IN THIS SCI FI GAME - AT ALL - NEVER !!!!

    I like the new building challenge though - temporarily.

    For the long run, without beeing able to toggle this (yes we still can, I'm aware of that) MY game fun is over, as in totaly.

    You cannot build large..
    And by that I mean, you cannot use L and sure no XL thrusters.. at all....
    2 XL thrusters for forward, L thruster for every other side and 1 RCS, you're at 3.3 mil CPU.. WTF...

    So my POV: One cant make a proper transporter CV (mind all the mass/weight of all the docked vessels.

    But one still can make a CS hull CV covred in turrets...
    Yeah.. great pvp fix.. when most of the ppl complaining are PvE builders....


    Final note / idea:
    Blocks could cost like 1 CPU per 100 blocks - maybe even just 1 CPU per 1000 blocks..
    Because i'm not aware of a pipeline that has a controller sensors and propellers (which would explain the cpu cost) to accelerate the liquid inside the pipe - every 2 meters / single block....


    Seph over and out
     
    #25
    xelthor likes this.
  6. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    7,547
    If you've got (and can afford) 2 XL Thrusters and 1 L Thruster for each direction, you probably won't even need an RCS. Even at 3.3m CPU, that's only 1/3rd of the maximum CPU limit for a CV (10,000,000 CPU at T4).
    This is also all dependant on the physical size of the ship, construction materials, mass, details and whether you actually need 2 XL thrusters to move it.
    I know for a fact you can make a large, detailed, warp-capable, combat CV for under the T1 limit (with a hardened steel body); provided you specialize it. No aimless design, know what you want before you build it.

    For visuals, deco thrusters would go a long way without high costs in building sci-fi.
    Look at most sci-fi ships, they tend to have giant thrusters on the back; but if you did that in empyrion you'd hit the CPU limit after 5 and be screwed not only because you ran out of CPU, but because your acceleration would be insanely... pointless.
     
    #26
    casta_03 likes this.
  7. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    Basically this. Even the design I threw together that was meant to troll the devs by exploiting cracks in the CPU system only had 4 large thrusters (total) & then like a dozen medium. If you find yourself needing two XL thrusters, you should probably take a second to look at what you're making & how much of it is superfluous.
     
    #27
  8. dpburke2

    dpburke2 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    I think the point of many players isn't whether what you are building is superfluous, but rather because of CPU costs certain devices such as the XL thrusters for CV have little to no purpose to exist. As if the game developers have given us devices well suited for large builds and then decided years after the fact that large builds should be sidelined to the dustbin. Thus we begin to question why we even have these devices to build with.
     
    #28
    Kassonnade, Liang and stanley bourdon like this.
  9. Liang

    Liang Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    197
    The voice of reason is always drown out by the vocal few. I tried explaining this when this was first announced. They do not give a shit. Eleon is clearly focused on making the game so multiplayer will work on a potato server and they do not care if they gut what the game can do or if the playerbase that is making it so they can actually make this game (those that bought it) are split or up in arms. They have their money and they ARE going to focus on multiplayer and do things the derp way.

    Once the workshop becomes a royal cluster-f**k with items made cpu and non-cpu compliant, the games reputation will start taking a dive. The best ships will not be cpu-compliant, and those playing on cpu enforced servers wont be able to use them...and ta da! more complaints, lower game reputation. Toss in how every other major survival game has no caps on building, even those with horrible game engines...the potential downward spiral of negativity about the game is staring us in the face. And all to gain a possible few FPS on potato servers when all they had to do was add a way for server admins to set block-limits on their own servers...lol...smh.
     
    #29
    Kronoss likes this.
  10. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    After the recent changes to CPU, no part of that hypothesis holds water anymore. CPU doesn't limit high-end ship size (until you get to obscene values), most of the numbers are set with SP in mind, it's not exactly helping performance if my computer is any indication, & it's far less limiting than W/V right now.

    Your post would've made a lot more sense like 2 days ago.
     
    #30
    Vermillion likes this.
  11. Liang

    Liang Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    197
    The word "Size" appears no where in my post. So much for your hypothesis on my hypothesis...oh wait, you are the guy telling people if they need 2 XL thrusters then they are designing wrong and should remove stuff they dont need. You are not the voice of reason.

    The CPU change will divide the workshop and cause chaos that will end up harming the games reputation from the un-needed frustration it will cause as designers choose to make their designs CPU reliant or not.

    There is no arguing against this. If CPU is an option that has split the player-base it means there WILL be plenty of people making designs that are NOT compliant. Thus, it will happen.
     
    #31
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    Kronoss likes this.
  12. Kronoss

    Kronoss Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    547
    Thank you: You have finally described what "design specialization" means.... because I use both minimalist designs in the beginning and jack of all trades at the end of the game(they were all screwed). My designs are painstakingly made to look good and waste as little space as passable(armor skin over devices). I guess I should have went the "whimsical" rout and played it safe. I have always said they need to focus on specific tools for SP/MP/and PVP. That way everyone can be happy, it is just lazy IMO to "balance" all modes at once.
     
    #32
    Liang likes this.
  13. Kronoss

    Kronoss Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    547
    They have graciously "allowed" us to turn our old "obsolete" designs into POI's....(laughs)
     
    #33
    Liang likes this.
  14. Kronoss

    Kronoss Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    547
    Not allowing "payed open Beta" and using "close beta" if they wanted to do this would have been much better. They would not had made so many people, that are essentially "paying interns" upset. They are not "wise" to do this with so much "player content" already created, this late in development. All the "players" hard work should count for something too. This is not the first time they have done this, I have had to readjust my thrusters, fuel tanks, and generator 4-5 times already(a few years ago). This is just the biggest(by many factors) impact on design that has come to date.

    Beta in a "creation based" and "workshop" game is not the same as with other beta games(no player created content). Many will be divided because it effects the workshop heavily and and many detrimental ways. Many ships will not be able to be use until very late in the game(CV's mainly), even if they were geared toward starter vessels(specialized components).
     
    #34
  15. Supay

    Supay Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2019
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    409
    Closed beta would not get the testing open beta receives, on top of the fact it is experimental. You can not get any more optional than that at all. No offense but it is Alpha(Experimental at that too) and maybe it because I'm old skool, but i can not understand the out rage when you have the option to turn it off? Designs will else be adjusted or out dated, this is not new in alpha, but the fact that you can keep everything going with the cpu "Option" off is.

    Keep in mind I'm not happy about CPU and think they would be better off going a few other different ways with it. So many things need adjustment along with removed from certain blocks (Deco). Throwing building parts in random chaos is bad design also, but they are listening and trying to meet in the middle which is not a bad thing. Don't opt into experimental if you don't want to test the feature. They are more wise for doing now, than with major features going into Alpha 11 in my opinion.
     
    #35
  16. Furious Hellfire

    Furious Hellfire Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    2,917
    I would say allow for the carbon composite blocks to cost no cpu, they are useless as armour but can be used as internal deco.

    as for everything else, i could not care less, no time to get into the debate over the sense or nonsense of such features. I will adapt cos im a pro, simple.

    I don't think the devs should build their game around my existing workshop or my existing concept of building.

    It is my decision as a player to adapt to build around theirs !
    Screw the past and in with the new, thats the way of life for humans right ?
     
    #36
  17. Germanicus

    Germanicus Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    3,755
    Likes Received:
    7,321
    The way Shields are currently working... you could make ship hulls out of paper and it still would be protected. So, in a sense, all types (material wise) of blocks costs CPU.
    I adapted as far as possible already:
    Sky Fall_2019-11-09_08-11-37.png
     
    #37
  18. Kronoss

    Kronoss Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    547
    Yea people are making their craft out of "cardboard boxes" and surrounding them with "saran wrap".... storage containers extenders and shield. If you don't now, then you design is crap....(I don't really agree with this trend so much for my popularity..)
     
    #38
    Germanicus likes this.
  19. Kronoss

    Kronoss Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    547
    WTF is testing going to do if they refuse to listen to the "testers". You can't have "they gonna do what they want" and the "open beta" "experimental" branch argument at the same time. This is like 1984 level of arguments. Paying interns and the workshop, make them have at least some accountability, otherwise their reputation is going to eat some dirt.

    Never mind I will just forgo the CPU "feature", and hopefully the amount of community backlash will teach the devs some manners(doubtful). This means any person that makes CPU compliant designs just handed me more fuel storage space... they need to make a "CPU compliant" branch and a "non-CPU compliant" branch for the workshop...... this game won't ketch on though, because it is mostly for nerds.
     
    #39
  20. casta_03

    casta_03 Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    388
    Statement A: You are raging.
    Statement B: Nerds play this game
    Statement C: You play this game

    CPU might not be doing what everyone hoped, but at least now it's doing what it says on the tin- focusing early ships into specialized roles.
     
    #40
    Supay, Vermillion and Germanicus like this.

Share This Page