joshanddrew wrote:personally i like the old engine more...now with this one youve taken out any bit of sure-ity we have in a hit...now any thing can happen...and although thats more "realistic" this is a space game game realism shouldnt be what we aim for its consistency we NEED

There is randomness in our current engine. But still, there are strategies that allow extensive control over the results. While I can sit here and talk about them, I am not going to reveal them. However, I think Zorg has already posted insights on how battle engine works in Players Guide.

neoshagrath wrote:The engine will force almost everyone to have a mixed RIP-LG-BC/DD fleet. It is the hardest to take out without taking too much loss. The easiest way to take that out is to send one of pure RIP or LG or BC or DD depending on their fleet ratio.
Building a pure fleet(x) will make you highly vulnerable to your ships' weakness(z). So you build the other ship(y) as a counter.
You will still be vulnerable to this other ship(y) though it would be harder. So you build the third ship class too(z).
Now you will be like the rest.

If you are building like the rest. Then you would need to have a huge gap in points to profit from people like you. I mean massive gigantic colossal gap in points.

The hardest to crash is a fleet that equally branched out to xyz. But if you equally divided your ship to three, then your fleeting capability also gets divided by three.

The rest of the ships are just fodder. The complications of defenses are still unaccounted for.

You are almost there. Truth is that current engine enhances strategy a lot more than it used to be with the prior bugs. It also guarantees to be reliable as there are no operational flaws. I like your approach though because it shows prospect on how battles should be approached; with strategy and not click and win.

gallaorn wrote:Here a suggestion:

RF should not be higher than 5 on any given ship. Over that value results become way too unpredictable and this will lead to stagnant universes where nobody attack anyone which is a sure way to kill the game.

I am fine with RIP owning BC, LG owning RIP, BC owning LG (sort of). Its the level of ownage of RIP vs BC that is ridiculous which come from the rf 15 against them.

I suggest that all rf value be looked at with median result vs cost. If a median rf result allow one ship type to own more than 3 times the cost of another ship type reduce the rf value. Its just plain ridiculous that a ship type is able to own 40 times the cost of another ship type

That is a good suggestion in fact, as it will indeed limit the randomness but on the other hand, this happens already in most cases. You have anything other particular in mind instead of RIP vs BC ? Still, even if this is implemented, it won't be decisive. RF ratings should always be an open issue.

The majority of the feedback we got, was referring to BC becoming weaker with the upgraded engine. Truth is that this does not have to do much with the engine. I think we actually strengthened BC, I am unsure.
It is also truth that many players who own the tops spots in the various universes, have invested a lot in BC. This resulted in the particular feedback. However battle cruiser, being a so fast ship, should not be as powerful as it used to be prior to the changes. It was an imbalance which has been fixed in our eyes. The fact that it was so powerful it is proven by the high amount of players who invested in bc fleets and there is no doubt about this.

richtoven wrote:I feel an engine that allows massive defenders to routinely impose zero losses (not to mention always suffering 100% losses themselves) to be a bit fantastic.

There also has to be a question of its impact on game balance (big player runaway syndrome).

I can't understand your position. I would appreciate a breakdown in pieces.

If I had to respond, I would say that current engine makes the game more balanced. We are in a position to say this safely after this time since the changes just by looking at the fleets the players use. These fleets are mixed and incorporate specific strategies. We find this preferrable over the mono-stacks which used to command the whole scenery in the past. This is now a point where Zorg Empire is called strong at.

Blame wrote:This is what 1 of my teammates wrote:
"now thats the one thing i dont like about this game i put 5mill points of damage into the air and i didnt destroy one ship...

if i was a soldier and shot my 5million bullets into 8000 attacker soldiers i think i might actually kill 1 or 2"


I agree completely with him, I really would like this game to be more realistic.

This is what shields are for. I understand your point though and I agree to some extend. We would be open to hear ideas on how to achieve this.

neoshagrath wrote:I think the randomness of the battle should be reduced.

Each ship type should have a priority list of which to fire on. Maybe like starting with the ship with the highest threat to it's type.
The outcome would be much more predictable and players can work out their fleet composition better.
Smaller ship types would then more than just fodder.

Priority lists are a very good idea. Why don't you open a suggestion in the relative thread so we will be able to move this idea forward. I reckon it will need a lot of discussion in order to create these lists.

Although a good scenario would be to put this priority based on current RF ratings. This would also provide the needed agility for future ship type additions.

Nonetheless, definitely an idea that needs its own discussion thread.

SPY wrote:at the moment for battle engines there is an existing order of selecting targets to fire on. trust this is not desirable. the target selection needs to be randomized.

No, there is no existing order for targets right now, you are wrong. The target selection is completely random already.

After I have replied all posts regarding Battle Engine Version 1.1, currently live on Standard,Speed and X-treme, since our last intervention in this thread (by Zorg), here I introduce you our new MASSACRE battle engine.

The new MASSACRE engine will be used in the forthcoming MASSACRE universe. It is still in beta phase but we want you to test it. Since our Beta Members seem a bit unresponsive, we decided to give it to public for a sneak-peak , testing and above all feedback. Here is the post of Zorg as posted in the Beta Crew thread:

Zorg wrote:Hi,

We have the first version of the MASSACRE engine. It has been alpha tested for bugs and it needs to be beta tested, mostly for opinions.

The difference with the engine we are currently using, is that is uses SHIP TO SHIP Firing for RF instead of STACK TO STACK.

In practice,this results to the following:
-Greater affect of RF which results in greater losses (expected, thus the name of the universe)
-Less randomization which leads to more expected results (also expected, simulations will not be closer to the outcome most of the time - not much room for surprize)

We would like to hear extensive feedback. There is still time to reshape it, even completely if need arises.

You can test it at the BETA Simulator here:
http://beta.zorgempire.net/simulator.php

NOTE: BETA UNIVERSE DOES NOT USES IT IN ACTUAL BATTLES / ACS Simulator IS NOT UPDATED WITH IT.

By choice, we have chosen to maintain some RF randomization. The other randomization that exists in battle can be found in shields and armor ratings. We can reduce the RF randomization more though. Just let us know of your position.

Thank you

No one has felt any interest for the new massacre engine ?

Fixed a bug for MASSACRE engine. You can still beta test here:
http://beta.zorgempire.net/simulator.php