Zorg Empire

I think it is the time of the year to beat down some rumors. Here is all the TRUTH, just so you know so no one can mislead you.

-There are NO competitive administrator accounts in ANY universe.
-We have never done anything to favor a specific player or group. We only care for what is best for all in the long run.
-We have no personal interactions with any of the players.

-We want this game to progress.
-This game costs a lot to maintain as it uses powerful web servers and people who administrate it 24/7.
-This game always pays for advertising.
-We NEVER created a SINGLE artificial new account. All accounts you see are REAL players, and most of them come from ads.

-We own other games. Zorg Empire is among our priorities. It is the biggest web game we own.
-As proof, we never advertise any of them here while we advertise Zorg Empire to other games we own.

-The best marketing plan would require us to open a universe every three months in order to expand exponentially. We never did this. Because such plan shows no respect for veteteran players.
-We respect veteran players and the proof is that we are trying the impossible with X-TREME for a long time now; make a 6 year universe grow instead of decay.
-Our planning is the long run and so far, so good.

You may accuse us for bad planning, poor options or whatever. You may think you could do a better job. You might be right or wrong.

What you cannot accuse the administration of, is of not trying. We spend a lot of time to reply in all kind of queries. We have implemented dozens of user suggestions. We have never let a serious bug ruin the game. We are always puting profit at secondary fate by spending a large part of any profits back to advertising.

Trolls beware, bans are coming.

Respecting the veteran players is of course very important, but it's also important to give new players and players who have done well but started out later the tools for success and survival against enormous players... Here, I believe, is where more could be done.

One related concern: I see the new battle engine update, and I see that it weakens rapid fire, and that it has first been implemented only in ACS attack. This is by no means an accusation, but I would jut like to hear flat out from Zorg that this was not implemented because of recent complaints of the largest player on X about suicide ACS Attack RIP missions. If this was a large factor in the decision to implement this new battle engine, I believe it to be deeply concerning, as it potentially destroys (or at least diminishes) one of the few marginally successful options weaker players had for combating much stronger players. If this was not the case, and there are other reasons for the new battle engine implementation, this would be a good rumor to put to rest here. Thanks.

as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) but it has been known for a long time that the ACS attack b/e in Extreme had a glitch......was even a forum post saying it would be fixed in due course....this has now been done so I don't see the problem. The fact that certain people exploited a known glitch could be deemed more of a serious issue lol.....but fair enough to those that tried it whilst they could.....now all is fixed it would be more prudent to move on with suggestions for further improvements....like stopping any player who includes a probe ( zero attack capabilities) in an ACS attack from being awarded attack TD.......that doesn't make sense......and neither does ACS attacks that allow players from outside the alliance to join in.....ACS stands for Alliance Combat System.....not free for all to join....

Let's put it down one by one:

1)There was no glitch. Some players emailed us and told us that there is a glitch in the ACS attack engine. We explained them that this is how the MASSACRE engine works.

2)The MASSACRE engine was never meant to stay for so long in X-TREME and SPEED universes. It was a temporal solution. It only managed to stay that long because acs attacks were underused. Now that ACS attacks attacks are getting really used (for the first time in X-TREME history there is such activity) we had to update it. The main reason is that you cannot have different engines for different type of combats. It messes up everything.

3)The complaints of Gozar were justified to an extend. For two reasons. First reason is the reason I stated above; that you cannot have 2 different engines. Second reason is that it is completely unrealistic to have 1 RIP and 1 probe doing tons of damage. Now weight both reasons whereas 1 RIP and 1 probe do nothing in simple attack but they do in ACS attack and you will see that there is destabilizing game factor.

WE NEVER allowed any game destabilization in the game history. Any issue that threaten this was always been resolved in less than 24 hours. Why would we do such a thing now?

Give us 1 reason.

The new engine is obviously better but now that we have opened this issue we will not close it yet. As you will see in Battle Engine discussion,we now want 1 engine for all universes. 1 engine that will have no flaws at all and that it will produce reasonable results at all cases.

To give you a different side of a coin, when something does not work as intended it is either fixed or removed or forbidden.

We selected the first option. If we wanted to play it one side as some may accuse us, we could have take down the feature right away, till we have ready the engine.

In contrary,we did an easy fix; (as mentioned here) We made all ACS attacks with 1 participant to use the normal attack, as this is what it really was.

We did this to buy time and work on the update. Then, some people ultimately found this out and started launching acs attacks with 2 participants. Now, as administration, we could use the BUG EXPLOITATION rule as it was obvious that they were exploiting a weak part of the game which they should have reported before (luckily for them). However, we were aware of the case much time before. We just had not the time to launch the update.

Once this signaled that it might go out of hand, we issued the fix, right on time. Our hands are clean.

It is worth noting that if we had some quality ACS reports where the problem was obvious, earlier, then we would have the new version out earlier.

Well that makes things nice and clear, thanks Zorg....now we can all move on

What about the simulator? Does this mean that it is even more unreliable or was that updated also?

The simulator is updated. Usually, as we use it to test the engine, the simulator is updated first.