CPU Point tier system

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Spoon, Jul 27, 2020.

  1. tachyon

    tachyon Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    160
    The cores just stack. You need higher tiers to stack more but you don’t lose a whole tier of one core is lost. Each gives about 6500 CPU and losing one will just let loose you those 6500.
     
    #21
  2. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    Look here: it is a SURVIVAL action game. Player character has to eat. PC has tolerable limits of environmental conditions. PC has hit points and can die . . . it makes sense that there are some real world physics that limit the mechanical elements of the game over which player can exert some control:
    . . . ammo runs out, it isn't infinite
    . . . components run out, you have to go mine more stuff
    . . . energy runs out . . .
    . . . stuff is heavy, you run out of 'strength' to lift and move it . . .
    . . . space runs out, you need more storage to keep it . . .
    . . . gravity never sleeps, if you fall from high enough proportional to the local gravity it gonna hurt . . .
    . . . flight: see gravity . . .
    . . . complex machines need computing power, CPU runs out . . .

    In my view, ALL of these systems (or some semblance of them) are absolutely ESSENTIAL for a game like this. If it were Space Invaders, no so much.
     
    #22
  3. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    The point is more that with proper balance and function of all previous features, CPU would not have been required at all, limitations already were there intrinsically, like the generator overload changing color of usage % - this shows that the game "knew" and could have applied the "problems" right then. Same for mass regarding handling. And physics for flight design.
     
    #23
    jmtc, Cleff, sulferon and 1 other person like this.
  4. tachyon

    tachyon Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    160
    Then why do you play this game in the first place?
     
    #24
  5. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    Something wrong ?
     
    #25
  6. stanley bourdon

    stanley bourdon Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    696
    I would happily say either. I do not think we need an additional limit on builds mass, energy, and hard device limits would be sufficient. My understanding is that the original CPU proposals were to remove the hard device limits and replace those with CPU limits. CPU in the role of removing hard device limits has promise. Whatever the reason for CPU in its current form, I do not believe the official reasons, it is completely negated by the availability of the advanced core. If RNJesus smiles upon you you can build as big as you want with only mass, energy, and hard device limits providing any limitations That is just how it would be if CPU did not exist. Thus the presence of the advanced core is an admission by the developers that CPU is not needed for any real game reason.
     
    #26
    jmtc and Kassonnade like this.
  7. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    IMHO, something like "CPU limits" is far better than ANY "hard device limits." There should be no "hard device limits" AT ALL EVER.

    If a player wants to build a base with 500 solar panels, fine: ONLY reason to restrict that are bad ones, i.e., PVP servers, or stupid development ethos.

    Now on the other hand, IF there are functionalities in the game that make it "too costly" to "manage" that many solar panels, great. Maybe it is the size of the "front serial bus" (some sort of bottleneck that imposes an inherent limit on how much energy can be handled from solar panels). Maybe it is the "processing power," aka "CPU Limit;" whatever.

    CPU limit is a far, FAR better mechanic that "hard device limit." Hard device limit is elementary school level.
     
    #27
    tachyon likes this.
  8. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    Not the point : if mass, power usage and physics (including structural integrity) were all adequatly made to work with each other in a sensible manner, then limits would appear naturally. Just like in real life. Compare what the CPU is with "real world" computing capacities, and see how they diverge, to compensate for the other mechanics beeing too far off.
     
    #28
    jmtc, Cleff, stanley bourdon and 2 others like this.
  9. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    You are just plain wrong :D
     
    #29
  10. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    No, and I even have friends to prove it !
     
    #30
  11. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    Look here: computers handle information by manipulating electrons. While electrons do carry charge and have mass, it is exceedingly paltry relative to things like concrete blocks, pastrami sandwiches and beer.

    Energy and Mass alone would not limit how much "processing" a constructs computers could handle; for that, something else is needed, aka "CPU Limits."

    I'm just about to fire up Reforged Galaxies scenario and have a go at that on Akua or one of the other girl's pant's legs planet starts (I've been beating my head against the glaciers on Ningues for too long now . . . as pretty as it is, and as much fun as it is once you actually get past the "Oh shit I'm freezing to death!" stage, I've had enough for now . . .). It SOUNDS LIKE the "fix" that @Vermillion has included in that Scenario is "Just the Ticket." Get rid of the "Tiers" entirely. Just have "CPU Device" blocks that you keep adding to a base . . . each one adding a set amount to the base . . . The fact there are "higher Tier" versions which require more exotic ores is maybe fine too (not sure if that is still in his scenario or not) and the bene of those would be: they offer X*Y (where Y is at least positive number >1.1 ish) CPU, i.e., "more" than the Tier 1 version. It is the ridiculous "You can only place ONE of these blocks on your construct" restriction which ultimately makes the CPU system cumbersome and annoying. That rule applies just fine to the "Core." It serves game play well even though, in truth, there might well be a "backup control center" on most such constructs too . . . But putting "hard device limits" on ANY other block in the game was IMHO, the WORST design decision this team made . . . well, apart from carrying over rules and mechanics devised for balancing PVP over into PVE mode, but the two are related foibles of design.

    I have HUGE respect for these folks and the fact it achieves even half of what it achieves is remarkable in itself. Game is well worth it. But these stupid design muzzles they have imposed on their thing have frankly done far more harm than good.

    Look at Minecraft. WHY is that so wildly popular? Cause you can basically do whatever you want, NOT because you can only have X number of furnaces, or Z number of crafting benches, etc.
     
    #31
    stanley bourdon and Kassonnade like this.
  12. Spoon

    Spoon Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2020
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    619
    Not what I've seen mate. If you put a core and tier 4 cores in, (leaving out the extender & tier 3 cores) you still get the full tier 4 CPU points.
     
    #32
  13. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    I can't blame you for not being there when the whole CPU fire was raging, but just see how it doesn't fit "computing logic" to attribute CPU points to concrete blocks and doors... and even to "autonomous devices" that require only an on/off switch.

    The real goal of CPU was to limit size of build and amount of devices, all categories, to relieve stress on servers.

    Too many devices or blocks : ships can't move, suck too much power, hull deforms and breaks, etc. Also think about thruster balancing and power in/out, to add to the other systems working together to impose sensible limits naturally.

    I'm not the only one saying this, some guys made real tough maths on the forums at that time to prove the point.
     
    #33
    jmtc, stanley bourdon and sulferon like this.
  14. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    I do not doubt that that was the primary reason that the dynamic was included in the game. But it also makes sense from a "survival game" standpoint. The issue of "blocks" is a straw man. The whole CPU system could be ONE block and it honestly wouldn't matter. The point is: there need to be limits on how many things a player can add to a construct, something which somewhat resembles reality. Energy consumption is one good mechanic, but given that these constructs clearly require computers to function, computing power limits of some sort also make sense.

    The two mechanics complement one another.

    In any event, anyone can turn it off or find a server where it IS turned off, so IMHO, arguments "against the system" in general are an enormous waste of time. Arguing for a better version of the "CPU Limit" system seems completely reasonable, but simply arguing "it is a failure," or "It is bad waaaaa," etc., is just childish. Don't like i? TURN IT OFF!
     
    #34
  15. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    No adressing the rest, as many of us have gone through all this once, no need to repeat. Just be more precise on this one please.
     
    #35
  16. sulferon

    sulferon Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    76
    I remember somewhere there was a thread regarding the fact that it is not necessary to calculate in battle each cube of the ship. That you can introduce the concept of a whole HP for the entire ship, as a General structural integrity.

    Then it occurred to me that fighting in Empyrion for this very reason is terribly boring, tedious and ridiculous.
    Judge for yourselves. To win, it is not enough to remove the shields. It is necessary to break up half of the ship, so that it has at least some effect on the internal devices. Hitting the body as a whole does not affect the structural integrity - the other blocks simply "don't know" anything about it. This is unrealistic, and involves long, tedious and protracted battles with an incomprehensible result - a ship with broken engines can simply disappear. Or too short - suddenly suddenly die, just because a well-aimed shot hit him in the "computer" - core. Which in reality, of course, would have no effect on a real warship.
    In the end, the overall HP for the ship, rather than for individual blocks, would reduce the time of the battle, and make it much more fun and predictable.
     
    #36
  17. tachyon

    tachyon Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    160
    Then there is something wrong. It shouldn’t be like that. You can also have a look at the RG thread in the hangar bay. Vermillion explains the CPU overhaul.
     
    #37
  18. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    The CPU Limit system could involve "no blocks at all" other than the core, and it might well be better. Just have a UI when you interact with the core. Have slots in there. You craft "CPU chips" or modules, or whatever, and plop them into the core . . .
     
    #38
  19. Spoon

    Spoon Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2020
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    619
    And this is the reason for the thread and why I asked the question.
    I thought it might be along the lines of the 'no blocks are allowed in front of thrusters' but they haven't got round to sorting that yet.
     
    #39
  20. Kassonnade

    Kassonnade Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    5,109
    Likes Received:
    7,168
    Are you referring to this thread ? And more specifically, Rexxus post #145 ?

    https://empyriononline.com/threads/...-for-ships-but-not-like-you-think.9938/page-8

    Obviously you missed the party. This has all been said, proposed, begged for... Lots of players left the game, many great builders too, because of structural blocks also had CPU points, for no logical "in game" reason. But the reason was more related to finding a way to limit builds sizes and slow things down for servers.

    This rendered thousands of "workshop" ships useless. I don't use the workshop, just telling you what happened here.
     
    #40
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2020
    jmtc, stanley bourdon and sulferon like this.

Share This Page