CPU Point tier system

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

  1. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    I agree, but you're covering a lot of topics besides just the "CPU System" . . .

    1. It DOES make sense that military ships would be rigged to blow. But given that, it ALSO makes sense from a gameplay standpoint for there to be "some way" for a clever and resourceful player to circumvent this mechanic and STILL manage to salvage even a military ship that was crippled.

    2. It DOES make sense that ALL DROPS despawn. Obviously, no one has a super computer and the possibility for stuff to stack up and cripple any machine running the app is there if drops do not despawn.
    A. In online mode, it makes sense for the duration until despawn to take into account the factors that impact server performance. Perfectly legit.

    B. In OFFLINE mode (singleplayer or COOP even) it DOES NOT MAKE sense to simply carry over the same despawn timer from the server settings.

    If I want to play my singleplayer game, or host my dedi server with despawn timers all set to 2 hours or whatever, that is SHOULD BE up to the user/admin.

    The problem here is one that has plagued this game throughout its development: designing to facilitate online multiplayer PVP "balance" and performance, and then using those mechanics and settings as a "One size fits all" to apply to ALL modes of running the app.

    It KILLS the potential of this game . . .
     
    #41
  2. tachyon

    tachyon Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    160
    Okay. I thought the whole thread was about the vanilla implementation and not the one in RG.
     
    #42
  3. Spoon

    Spoon Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2020
    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    619
    The thread is about the vanilla implementation of CPU Point Tier System in Empyrion mate. I did not add the RG part of you comment in my reply.
     
    #43
  4. stanley bourdon

    stanley bourdon Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    696
    I do not disagree with this statement, however, that is not what the current CPU scheme dose. The current CPU scheme just adds another hardcoded limit. You can still only have 15 solar panels on your base weather it is CPU tier 1, CPU tier 4, or with the advanced core you still only get to use 15 solar panels.

    It is a bit funny that the gist of your argument is that you want from CPU what most of us wanted from CPU. We did not get that. We got this poorly executed, poorly designed scheme. That they have, in my opinion, admitted is a failure by introducing the advanced core.

    I do not believe that we will ever get what most of us wanted from CPU ever. I enjoy the game less because of it, not enough less to stop playing but less.
     
    #44
    Kassonnade likes this.
  5. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    It seems we are in agreement that something like a CPU Limit is not an inherently bad idea, you simply feel that it is implemented badly in the present vanilla build. I don't think the vanilla system is "terrible," but I'm not out to defend it as perfect either. Honestly, I've only been back to playing the game for ~150 to 200 hours, and haven't made it past about Level 20, so the "end-game builds" with gigantic CPU demands haven't been on my radar yet.

    That said, the way @Vermillion has "modded" the CPU Limit functionality in his Reforged Galaxy sounds quite appealing. I've just started up a new singleplayer on that "Scenario" version of the arctic planet "Plumi" to check it out. Maybe that scenario might offer what you are looking for?

    Other perks for his mod/scenario which really made my ears perk up: you can build a flamethrower and deal with the Abominations formerly known as Nightmares as they deserve to be. Only played it for 15 minute so far, but loving it. The pistol actually shoots bullets instead of plastic nerf pellets! :p
     
    #45
  6. russak

    russak Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 10, 2020
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    42
    Hard device limits suck hind teat. Soft limits like CPU are way more satisfying and "plausible".

    This, I agree with. Both in your assessment, and as an approach by the developers to incorporate some challenge to the functional design of constructions.

    I agree with this too.

    There has been contention/assumption in the past that CPU is meant not only as an "in character" limit, but also as a game server load limiting mechanic. I would suggest that the CPU cost for inert blocks and the provision of the "Advanced Core" both support this position. Capping base/CV size using CPU is only partially eroded as a server load limiter by having very rare Advanced Cores that can support any amount of structure.
     
    #46
  7. sulferon

    sulferon Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2016
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    76
    You know, this is just an example of how the development may have taken a wrong turn at some point. Of course, it is easy to talk about this now, in hindsight.
    The example was that if the "shared structural integrity" system had been introduced, there would now be no performance problems, or processors per se. However, someone wanted "realism" in the form of blocks destroyed in battle, and now we get a tedious unnatural battle, processors, and a drop in performance, and other illogical solutions. Such is the turn of fate. One thing leads to another, and in the end we come to this situation.
    I am not saying that it was possible to introduce such a system. In fact, it probably wasn't possible. Right now, however, solving MP problems reminds me of feverishly plugging round holes with square plugs.
     
    #47
    stanley bourdon likes this.
  8. Brimstone

    Brimstone Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,875
    Likes Received:
    3,705
    I'll say it again... CPU isn't a bad idea, it's just incomplete and inconsistent. The tiers are spaced badly, and the stacking change from RG/RE is a step in the right direction for that issue.

    The rest of it is implementation. There's no way to manage CPU. At the very least, devices not powered should not consume CPU, and you should be able to sacrifice efficiency in one group to augment efficiency in another. Downgrade thrust to enhance turret accuracy, or the reverse, for example
     
    #48
  9. dichebach

    dichebach Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    847
    YES! If I turn off a device, the CPU load should drop.

    A related point: the way the power consumption functions in BA still seems very strange. In an early T1 or T2 base with only three constructors and maybe 2 or 4 container controllers (plus 6 or 8 extentions) and a small number of lights, turning off things like Shields (of which there ARE none) and lights (all 3 or 4 of them) suddenly causes "time left" on fuel to double!?

    They should expose more of these details in the end-user UI and perhaps even allow all devices to be dialed in-game to run at higher or lower speed/efficiency.
     
    #49
    stanley bourdon likes this.
  10. xerxes86

    xerxes86 Commander

    Joined:
    May 7, 2018
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    184
    By the time you might get an advance core as loot you won't need it. So it's basically a useless item.
     
    #50
    jmtc, dichebach and stanley bourdon like this.
  11. stanley bourdon

    stanley bourdon Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    696
    Based on the # of advanced cores found in the first several days of an MP server If you know where to look you can get in short order all the advanced cores you need/want. RNJesus smiles a lot if you know where to look. The server had intended for advanced cores to be unavailable that was fixed and everybody gave back their advanced cores.
     
    #51
    dichebach likes this.
  12. stanley bourdon

    stanley bourdon Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    696
    The current implementation of CPU Is a hard limit. You approach that hard limit gradually but it is a hard limit. There is much discussion about this from back in the time (before you joined the forum) of its introduction, to include math lessons explaining how it worked. You can try the search function to try to find it. (i find searching on here an exercise in frustration)
     
    #52
  13. Khazul

    Khazul Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,257
    Likes Received:
    1,782
    I see it (advanced core) as devs cant define a vision and stick with it.

    While I hate CPU in its current form, I think adding the advanced core is a mistake.

    Either they think its a good idea or they dont and they should act accordingly. The problem I suspect is there may have been a useful idea behind it at one time, but I wonder if any of the devs can actually state what that was? If they cant, they should get rid of it entirely.

    It it were a pure tech tiering system, then an advanced core, or an final extender would make sense. However it seems to be overloaded with far too many responsibilities and the advance core just seem to be a cheesy way to defeat whatever aims they may have had for CPU,, which I guess started life as an equivalent of SE's PCU before it got hacked for various other purposes.
     
    #53
    dichebach and stanley bourdon like this.
  14. Brimstone

    Brimstone Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,875
    Likes Received:
    3,705
    #54
    stanley bourdon likes this.

Share This Page