Page 1 of 1

Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:24 am
by Administrator
We would like to announce two issues about our Battle Engine

-=-=-=-=
FIRST ISSUE

Current Battle Engine is 1.06 and runs in all universes.

We will be replacing this engine with an improved version (we will skip straight to 1.1 for landmark reasons). This engine will be used in X-TREME, SPEED and Standard. There will be 1 fix in the new engine:

1)Shields regeneration in RF shooting will cease. This is a bug and it has to be addressed.
Example:

Code: Select all

Attacker Attacker [0:0:0]
Weapons: 100 % Armor: 100 % Shields: 100 %
Type	RIP
Number	1
Weapon	336.000
Shield	87.000
Armor	1.500.000

Defender Defender [0:0:0]
Weapons: 100 % Armor: 100 % Shields: 100 %
Type	L.Guardian
Number	8.000
Weapon	4.640
Shield	1.302
Armor	24.000
The attacking fleet fires 1 times for a total of 336.000 points of damage on the defender. The defender shields absord 336.000 points of damage.
The defensive fleet fires back 7 times for a total of 259.840.000 points of damage against the attacker. The attacker shields absorb 609.000 points of damage.
After this fix, the attacker shields in the example, will absorb 87k damage as supposed (In this example). It will mean no difference in such kind of battle but it will mean a lot of difference to most of other ocassions.

We will be implementing this FIX and NEW battle engine version in X-TREME universe today. Speed and Standard will follow within 24 hours. There will be in-game announcements when battle engine is updated.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


SECOND ISSUE

There has been a long talk and dispute in 2 further spots of the Battle Engine.
a)Stack/Individual firing
b)Shield regeneration after each round

Therefore we have decided that we will develop a new battle engine which will be named as Massacre Engine Version 1.0

The Massacre Engine will be different from the current engine in 2 areas:
a)Individual RF (Individual firing is already how current engine works but current engine uses Stack RF and this is the reason many would confuse how it works)
b)No shield regeneration ever (This will mostly affect RIPs but still affects won't be great, especially in big combats. Also, combats will end a lot sooner - fewer rounds.)

However both points will result in considerably different results from current engine.
Therefore:
-Massacre Engine will never be used in existing universes.
-Massacre Engine will be surely used in one universe at least and surely in the next Universe we will create (Which will be named Massacre after the engine name).
-There is no estimated time for the new engine or universe; it will depend on many factors, therefore we have no answer.

Any discussion about it, please use the existing thread at:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3065&start=90

For simple approve/dissaprove posts, you may reply here.

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:38 am
by Zorg
The 1.1 version is ready for implementation which is scheduled for later today. We are only delaying the implementation to let you have a look before hand (report any issues at viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3065&start=90 )

You can check it here:
http://beta.zorgempire.net/simulator.php (No login required)

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:22 pm
by Zorg
We have decided that leaving shields regeneration round after round will hinder true strategy in a battle. Therefore we are currently modifying the engine in order to address this issue as well.

All universes still run the 1.06 engine.
The 1.1 engine is currently under development.

The final differences when we are done will be:
1)Shield regeneration glitch fixed (Once shields are lost, won't be able to regenerate in the new round).
For shield loss transition into the new round, we will be using % as we want to keep the recalculation for shields on round by round.
2)Fixed glitch RF shooting/shields
3)Fixed specific ACS Attack issue with RF/Shields
4)Memory for armor losses in the Shield fashion above.

What will not be changed:
-Ships will still fight separately
-RF will still be picked as Stack (this is what will be changed on Massacre version)

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:53 pm
by IKICKAYOUWASSNOW
Ouch, wish I had my old fleet comp, this cripples about 5 million of my 7mil fleet points LOL. Better switch it up again with a new fleet comp lol. Can't wait for stack rf to finally be altered in massacre engine. I remember arguing this one out last year.

(Discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3065&start=90 )
~edited by Zorg

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:48 pm
by Zorg
The update is nearing. First universe that will be updated will be X-TREME.

When Standard and Speed also updates, then all universes will be running the same engine (calculators too - No ACS attack for Standard though).

This also means that the Defense upgrades for Plasma and Bombers as described here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3977&p=81848#p81848 will also be in effect in Speed and Standard.

We will also be updating the Moon Destruction mission so ACS Defend to be possible, as players suggested here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7344

There will also be a full guide in Players Guide following implementation which will describe exactly how 1.1 works and how to read reports.

Finally, here is a pre-summarize of the actual affects in battle with new engine:
-ACS Attack will become more powerful as a glitch that enabled extra firepower from defender has been fixed.
-Moon Destructions will become more defendable with ACS Defend.
-BIG ships vs Many small ships will no longer mean automatic win of BIG ships. For example, right now it is impossible to beat 1 cruiser with 50 light fighters as shields and armor regeneration prevents this. With new engine, it is possible and the battle will end in 2 rounds in favor of LFs (about 10-15 lf lost). In practise, this is mostly expected to hurt big RIP fleets (only a few in total across all universes) as RIPs have the biggest armor/shield values and profited the most out of this glitch.
-More casualties and probably less profit: With not a single damage point lost, the break point for no loss will be higher, which will result in more casualties.
-Much more strategy when building a fleet as small ships now have a meaning more than mere fodder.
-RF will work better now as it will inflict more damage due to the glitch with shield regeneration between rf rates.
-LGs may need a wimping (weakening) in the near future as they are expect to perform far better against RIPs. We will be evaluating this based on user reports after the summer.

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:05 am
by Zorg
X-TREME will be updated with Version 1.1 at around Sat Jun 18 09:00:00 Game Time
We will update the simulators first, then the engines.

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:01 pm
by Gozar
I do not know if this was your design or not but the new battle engine is ridiculously way out in my opinion. Numbers for you to check. Old version. 750 BC take out 1 Rip of equal techs. with no loss. New BE I now need 5000 BC to take out ONE rip with no loss..surly this is not correct. I simmed these numbers over 130 times in some cases I even lost a few ships sending 5k BC what has happened. Either BC have become weaker or rips have become far to strong again.. I now find my BC are almost useless for raids. All I ask is why have you change a BE that worked for this version that is now become so one sided. Sim your self please explain to me why is there such a big change...? In my opinion you have now made the game so much harder for all new players to develop any worth while fleet.. Or is it your desire to have just Miners.. Because without fleets there would be no need for turtles either..

Re: Forthcoming Battle Engine Changes

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:21 pm
by The
I've sent Zorg a PM few days ago about this problem.
He said: ''this is not an engine issue, but a ship issue. At any case, you need to open a suggestion.''

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7626

So I think the best thing to do is say what you have to say here, and hope they change it.