zorg - this shows how the battle engine and rapid fire should work
Attacker 1
Weapons:+180% Shields:+180% Armour:+180%
Type B.Ship
Num 50.000
Weapon 2.800
Shields 560
Armour 16.800
Defender 1
Weapons:+180% Shields:+180% Armour:+180%
Type Battlecr
Num 25.000
Weapon 1.959
Shields 1.120
Armour 19.600
The attacking fleet fires 50.000 timeswith a total firepower of 140.000.000 at the defender.
The defending shields absorb 24.221.968 damage
In total, the defendind fleet fires 174.808 times with a total firepower of 342.622.967 at the attacker.
The attackers shields absorb 27.152.109 damag
this is how the opening of ALL battles should be FLEETS SHOULD FIRE INDIVIDUALLY NOT AS A STACK
after 4 rounds
Attacker 1
Destroyed
Defender 1
Type Battlecr
Num 13.257
Weapon 1.959
Shields 1.120
Armour 19.600
The defender has won the battle!
The attacker lost a total of 3.000.000.000 units.
The defender lost a total of 997.905.100 units.
At these space coordinates now float 1.561.321.080 metal and 731.761.440 crystal
add fodder light fighters to the same battle 100k on each side
Attacker 1
Weapons:+180% Shields:+180% Armour:+180%
Type L.Fighter B.Ship
Num 100.000 50.000
Weapon 140 2.800
Shields 28 560
Armour 1.120 16.800
Defender 1
Weapons:+180% Shields:+180% Armour:+180%
Type L.Fighter Battlecr
Num 100.000 25.000
Weapon 140 1.959
Shields 28 1.120
Armour 1.120 19.600
The attacking fleet fires 150.000 times with a total firepower of 154.000.000 at the defender.
The defending shields absorb 13.112.714 damage
In total, the defendind fleet fires 135.042 times with a total firepower of 82.681.449 at the attacker.
The attackers shields absorb 11.204.564 damage
after 6 rounds.........
Attacker 1
Type L.Fighter B.Ship
Num 10.023 44.964
Weapon 140 2.800
Shields 28 560
Armour 1.120 16.800
Defender 1
Type Battlecr
Num 33
Weapon 1.959
Shields 1.120
Armour 19.600
The battle ended in a draw, both fleets withdraw to their home planets.
The attacker lost a total of 662.072.840 units.
The defender lost a total of 2.522.232.400 units.
At these space coordinates now float 927.346.698 metal and 758.529.486 crystal.
1 Warning for big fonts //We can see regular font as well ~ Administrator
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#62Battle Engine version has been updated at 1.05
The new version fixes a bug that was preventing armor technology effects.
Changes have already been applied.
The new version fixes a bug that was preventing armor technology effects.
Changes have already been applied.
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#63I spent some time reading the latest post regarding firing.
The messages in Zorg Empire are descriptive and not specific. When our message reads "Attacker fleet fires for 3 times" it means that there were 2 extra attacks because of rapid fire. We find no reason to include the number of ships firing there. For us it has more meaning to see there the rapid fire shoots rather than the total of your ships. This does not mean that the ships have not shot individually. Same goes for damage and shield absorption.
We once opened a simulator we use for the beta testing for the game, for a few days. This simulator had more details than our current one and it was like 5 pages long for each battle. If someone would like to put all details on, every battle would be at least 50 pages long.
Rest assured that shooting takes place exactly as it should and nothing needs to be changed here.
The messages in Zorg Empire are descriptive and not specific. When our message reads "Attacker fleet fires for 3 times" it means that there were 2 extra attacks because of rapid fire. We find no reason to include the number of ships firing there. For us it has more meaning to see there the rapid fire shoots rather than the total of your ships. This does not mean that the ships have not shot individually. Same goes for damage and shield absorption.
We once opened a simulator we use for the beta testing for the game, for a few days. This simulator had more details than our current one and it was like 5 pages long for each battle. If someone would like to put all details on, every battle would be at least 50 pages long.
Rest assured that shooting takes place exactly as it should and nothing needs to be changed here.
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#64no i think something does need to be changed, it would be better to show us the individual firing too on the reports just so you know, also, you may have the ships FIRING individually but the proof is in your post that you dont have them RAPID FIRING individually
let me explain it, say you have 2 battlecruisers against 2 battleships, on your report the rapid fire would be decided and it would say, for example lets assume the battlecruisers rapid fire twice against the battleships, it would say the attacking fleet fires twice etc etc
what you need to have is the ships rapid firing individually, use the two battlecruisers as an example again, doing it individually, one of the bc could rapid fire twice against the bs and the other could rapid fire 5 times against the bs
scale this up to say 20k bc vs 40k bs, you should have 20 thousand individual battlecruisers selecting their rapid fire as single units not as a stack
change to this and the battle engine will work a LOT better, at the moment you may have improved it but get a bad rapid fire roll and thats it, your ships are lost, even though you should have easily won, there is too much chance involved and not enough strategy, making the ships select rapid fire individually and not as the stack selecting you have now will eliminate this chance and make the game a LOT better
let me explain it, say you have 2 battlecruisers against 2 battleships, on your report the rapid fire would be decided and it would say, for example lets assume the battlecruisers rapid fire twice against the battleships, it would say the attacking fleet fires twice etc etc
what you need to have is the ships rapid firing individually, use the two battlecruisers as an example again, doing it individually, one of the bc could rapid fire twice against the bs and the other could rapid fire 5 times against the bs
scale this up to say 20k bc vs 40k bs, you should have 20 thousand individual battlecruisers selecting their rapid fire as single units not as a stack
change to this and the battle engine will work a LOT better, at the moment you may have improved it but get a bad rapid fire roll and thats it, your ships are lost, even though you should have easily won, there is too much chance involved and not enough strategy, making the ships select rapid fire individually and not as the stack selecting you have now will eliminate this chance and make the game a LOT better
thanks for the awesome sig surrias <3
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#65i agree with all shandris said
ships definitely need to fire individually in a battle, it will improve the game dynamic massively
ships definitely need to fire individually in a battle, it will improve the game dynamic massively
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#66according to what the admin said they already do fire individually, it just isnt shown, what they need to do is rapid fire individually as well, which they obviously arentGRIMNIR wrote:i agree with all shandris said
ships definitely need to fire individually in a battle, it will improve the game dynamic massively
also, this cant be argued with that it would require too much computing power and drain the server, because if the admin is telling the truth about the ships already firing individually then making them rapid fire individually wouldnt take much more computing than already used
another thing that should change too is selecting targets individually, so say you have 1k death stars against 200k bs, 50k destroyers and 50k bc, each death star needs to select its own target, not all unload their firepower on a single ship stack like they do right now
thanks for the awesome sig surrias <3
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#67Shandris wrote:no i think something does need to be changed, it would be better to show us the individual firing too on the reports just so you know, also, you may have the ships FIRING individually but the proof is in your post that you dont have them RAPID FIRING individually
let me explain it, say you have 2 battlecruisers against 2 battleships, on your report the rapid fire would be decided and it would say, for example lets assume the battlecruisers rapid fire twice against the battleships, it would say the attacking fleet fires twice etc etc
what you need to have is the ships rapid firing individually, use the two battlecruisers as an example again, doing it individually, one of the bc could rapid fire twice against the bs and the other could rapid fire 5 times against the bs
scale this up to say 20k bc vs 40k bs, you should have 20 thousand individual battlecruisers selecting their rapid fire as single units not as a stack
change to this and the battle engine will work a LOT better, at the moment you may have improved it but get a bad rapid fire roll and thats it, your ships are lost, even though you should have easily won, there is too much chance involved and not enough strategy, making the ships select rapid fire individually and not as the stack selecting you have now will eliminate this chance and make the game a LOT better
Well said. i have noticed in the simulator that the DeathStars do target the same ship, and not individually. This should be changed.Shandris wrote:according to what the admin said they already do fire individually, it just isnt shown, what they need to do is rapid fire individually as well, which they obviously arent
also, this cant be argued with that it would require too much computing power and drain the server, because if the admin is telling the truth about the ships already firing individually then making them rapid fire individually wouldnt take much more computing than already used
another thing that should change too is selecting targets individually, so say you have 1k death stars against 200k bs, 50k destroyers and 50k bc, each death star needs to select its own target, not all unload their firepower on a single ship stack like they do right now
Forum Moderator: The Illiterate One
10 Gale Points FTW
10 Gale Points FTW
Zorg wrote:Ace is so much sexier than Acewoonder
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#68We are not fond of this idea. Here stand some keypoints, for you to understand our position on the matter:
Details:
RF selection happens as a stack but this little difference makes in a 6 round battle (If battles were lets say 3 rounds, the difference would be greater as it would be slighter if battles lasted 10 rounds). In fact, the results if you compare with a unit to unit RF selection are almost the same.
Differences:
The only real differences are two;
First, the battle ends sooner in current way (Like round 3 instead of round 5)
Secondly, the battles have a greater chance of ending with a suprising result -> Example: unit to unit RF will lead to same battle results in like 80% of the time while stack to stack RF will result in same battle results 69% of the time (these percentages are not entirely random but a quick rough average).
Still differences are slim but in our thinking, to the better.
Bonus reason:
We are trying to create something better than.. others, here. We want to differ in key spots that do improve gameplay and experience but above all strategies. So, by the time these two differences seem to work better, we are more fond to keep current way.
Developing insight:
Don't believe any developer that will tell you that has true RF roll unit to unit. The only realistic method for this is to use an rough estimation or else you would need to, lets say, roll a dice for every unit. No serious developer would do this. So true RF as you describe and some others claim to have (unit to unit) simply does not exists.
As always, we are open to suggestions and we won't entirely turn down a future change as there is always the possibility we are missing some key factor. It would be good to take in mind that you might be in the same position. This way we can always have fruitful assumptions that will lead in improvements.
Details:
RF selection happens as a stack but this little difference makes in a 6 round battle (If battles were lets say 3 rounds, the difference would be greater as it would be slighter if battles lasted 10 rounds). In fact, the results if you compare with a unit to unit RF selection are almost the same.
Differences:
The only real differences are two;
First, the battle ends sooner in current way (Like round 3 instead of round 5)
Secondly, the battles have a greater chance of ending with a suprising result -> Example: unit to unit RF will lead to same battle results in like 80% of the time while stack to stack RF will result in same battle results 69% of the time (these percentages are not entirely random but a quick rough average).
Still differences are slim but in our thinking, to the better.
Bonus reason:
We are trying to create something better than.. others, here. We want to differ in key spots that do improve gameplay and experience but above all strategies. So, by the time these two differences seem to work better, we are more fond to keep current way.
Developing insight:
Don't believe any developer that will tell you that has true RF roll unit to unit. The only realistic method for this is to use an rough estimation or else you would need to, lets say, roll a dice for every unit. No serious developer would do this. So true RF as you describe and some others claim to have (unit to unit) simply does not exists.
As always, we are open to suggestions and we won't entirely turn down a future change as there is always the possibility we are missing some key factor. It would be good to take in mind that you might be in the same position. This way we can always have fruitful assumptions that will lead in improvements.
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#69i understand zorg, its just slightly annoying that battle can be random sometimes and make you lose a lot more than you should have :\ but i guess i can live with it..
the only other thing i think you should have a look at, rapid fire itself, makes no difference at all to most of mine or other big fleeters battles, since the shields of ships refresh for each rapid fire shot
basically that means if you have enough shielding to 0 loss the first shot, it doesnt matter how many times you get rapid fired upon, you are never going to lose a unit
maybe consider looking into this and changing it so that the shields dont refresh with each shot? i know this would be a huge change in battle numbers and 0 losses would be a lot rare but it would make things a lot more interesting from a fleeter point of view, more tactical ship selection instead of pure numbers
the only other thing i think you should have a look at, rapid fire itself, makes no difference at all to most of mine or other big fleeters battles, since the shields of ships refresh for each rapid fire shot
basically that means if you have enough shielding to 0 loss the first shot, it doesnt matter how many times you get rapid fired upon, you are never going to lose a unit
maybe consider looking into this and changing it so that the shields dont refresh with each shot? i know this would be a huge change in battle numbers and 0 losses would be a lot rare but it would make things a lot more interesting from a fleeter point of view, more tactical ship selection instead of pure numbers
thanks for the awesome sig surrias <3
Re: Discuss new battle engine here
#70Or at least take a percentage of the shielding down per rapid fire shot. So instead of being 100%, 100%, 100%... It would be more like 100%, 94%, 86%... and so on. Just an idea.
