This will be introduced in the very near future.

At the end of combat and any other exit from combat, each "damaged" fleet unit (armour below maximum) can be lost with a probability equal to the value of the " damage" in percentage:
- no experience is awarded to anyone for these losses;
- only the appropriate percentage of these additional lost units will be sent for repair, not of all units killed, as now;
- if armour is less than 50%, the unit will be destroyed with debris;
- if more than 50% armour is left, the unit will be lost to star coordinates without debris drop (such units will be used in future new game mechanics);
- at 99% armour the chance of loss is 1%, at 49% armour the chance of loss is 51%, etc.;
- the simulator will display these additional losses.

666

Victoria, another great way to kill the game with another poor update that no one wanted

RNG, but imho we need something to make big fishes not completely lossless. Now throw in some meat to fight for.

Please stop making changes 🐻

Truly horrendous idea. Will have a chilling effect on flagship use and will result in massive overcompensation to avoid all damage which will increase costs of fighting greatly. Is your goal to make this game into FarmVille?

What idiot okayed this ? What if at all benefit is there in this ? Your prety much garanteeing that small point players are gonna be targets for this, Huge 1,000,000 + players are already targeting small players because they hold the tech and ship advantage on players below 500k, This is just gonna increass the chances of 1,000,000 point players target them more since they can't hit point players in there range even more now. Someone scuff's the hull of my ship and i have a 1% chance of loosing that ship is BS. People have fleets of thousands of ships in stacks, You can't and the game was not built around micro management, So we can find a ship being targeted and move it back out of the way, This is idiotic.. I'm about to quit this game, F this. That can be any ship, Flag ship that cost's a mil or 2 of each reso.. So f'ing stupid, The person who thought of that should be fired, They don't have a brain in there head.

EDIT: "Basically what this means is there saying any ship with less than 50% damage may be lost equal to the percentage of the damage its sustained. It will eventually be fixed and then returned to you at a later time or fixed and sent into the star with some unstated probability. They are not saying that every ship with less than 100% armour will be lost at a percentage equal to the damage sustained. They are saying it might need repairs to return home at this percentage, what percent of the damaged units that choose to return home when they are fixed has not been stated."

This statement has been proved to be 10% base, +10% for premium and +x% for the technology that is to say the probability of losing a ship pernament is essentially the percentage of the amount of armour the unit has at the end of the battle. Although this is technically 10% the range of recovery has been reduced to 10,000 ckm meaning 90+% of the battles you have no chance of recovery even if you got lucky and rolled for it to be recovered. Also the percentage is a threshold not a random number. That is to say if you lose 9 ships in this way you will recive 0!!! returned to you no matter what a minimum of 10 lost ships would be required to recieve even one ship returned to you. This means you cannot let the paint of a capital ship get scratched in combat or there is a very really possibility that it will be lost to you with absolutly nothing given in return. (unless you lose at least 10 capital ships by this new means.)



I assume that this means amitorization costs will be removed form the game as we obviously are no longer going to be maintaining ships, but instead just leaving them where they are whenever they are damaged.

The other concering thing is this just gave zerg units an immesurable power up compared to the other races as they are the only race that can bybass shields and have units that can regenerate. I expect a cost reduction of no less than 50% on all non zerg units would be needed to blance out this change so that it is fair for all players of all races.

Otherwise, yeah there is no point in playing this game anymore if you arent a zerg player.

What you could do instead, is create an equation that unbalances this equation so units that are heavily damaged are much more susecptible to this change, in a exponetial/logirithmic way. That is to say a death star with 99% could theoretically be unrecoverable after a battle but it needs to be 10 times less like than a ship at 98% which is 10 times less likely than a ship at 97% with a reasonable chance of the ship being lost at around 50% damage and a greater chance the higher the damage is. Your are trying to say that percentage of damaged armour is a not really armour its the structure of the ship and all critical componets. The problem with this they would stop shotting in the middle of battle if they were knocked out from operatibility or at the very least your implying that continuing operatibility will cause the units destruction by the end of the battle. We are the ones control our ships and commanders and if we already have an overwheleming victory forcing a unit to keep shotting when it could power down and be saved in a combat is much more logical. Your essentially enforing stupidity. Not to mention the percentages you suggest are, illogical, incomprehensible and have no direct parrell to reality in anyway shape or form. A tank thats 1% damaged is not 50 times more likely to be fixable after a battle than a tank at 50% damage. Its like infinitly more likely to be operational.

Anybody designing a tank that can be knocked out with only 1% damage needs to be taken out back and shot. These are war machines they are extencivly and excruititatiny designed to be functional for as long as possible under the worst possible conditions and your implying the best the designer of that object could come up with was a linear expression for its surviablity? not even the germans could make something that precise. Your proposed changes only make sense for zerg units as they are living organic entitiies.

Your basically saying a car accident that involves denting a vehicle could somehow make it inoperable. This is sound logic unless you realize that we design vehicles so that the important parts are protected even when damage occurs to the outside parts. Infact that is the very purpose of many of these parts and these are commercial vehicles not machines of war where we are paying much, much, more attention in the design to ensure functiuonality when damage is sustained.

A means of matinence in the form of amitorization configurable by the user and a technology that goes with it to make it so your better at avoiding such losses the higher ur matinence amitorization and the level of this tech. You also would need to reduce the chance of such failures happening from units that bypass shields. ( or at least give us a technology to reduce these losses)

Sometimes a tank or unit with only 1% armour or structure left can still be operational and recoverable; have you ever heard of the KV-1? IF ANYONE HAS PROVED THAT THIS IS THE CASE ITS THE FUCKING RUSSIANS!

I am not saying such a change would be good, but this is the only way it could be implemented to not break the game in its current form and cause mass exodus. Theres no way to hunt pirates for most players with this change.

At the very least you need to make these values based on comparing the current armour to the base armour the unit has. That is to say that the armour tech has at least succeeed in some way to be useful at protecting critical components for the ship to operate when taking damage or some form of nanite regeneration that would allow mechanical ships to repair themselves in some way like zerg units do, maybe to some preset maximum like 10% based on avalible materials.

Alternatively you could add or split the armour values for a unit into a structure and a armour value, allowing some zerg units to bypass shields and hit armour, but not structure directly, and make losing armour the priotiry in battle, but shifiting as the armour decrease to cause more damage to the structure percentage wise. This would allow it to make some sense with the real world. A damage value of 50% structure would be reasonble to not bother fixing a damaged ship and would align with the stated purpose of this change. It would also allow you to put the values more in line with reality and realistic outcome from battle damage to a ship.

In order to make this change fair, you would still need to make sure that terran is the most robust at resisting changes to the units structure, they need some kind of bonus is some way to make them more recoverable from damaged structure than protoss or zerg units. This is also in line with logic and reality, the zerg units may be able to regenrate minor wounds or even be able to continue fighting with massive injuries, but they are less likely to survive such a situation. Terran engneering is terribly deisgned compared to protoss construction making them much more likely to get by with a critically damaged structure. Where protoss units are very precise and perfectly tuned making it more difficult to recover the unit with the same level of structural damage to compenstae for this, protoss units have very advanced shields making it less likely they will incur structural damage. (with the exception of zerg damage dealt directly to armour)

Its much easier to put something back to functioning or maintain functioning if it is not very precise, in some ways these things are more difficult (though not nesscariliy less likely) to break and easier to fix than more precise counterparts. Think AK47 vs whatever the hell anyone else was using at the time.

I would also like to point out that this is very poorly worder in english.

Here is a summation of what it apperas to mean.

What this is basically saying is that a unit with more than 50% armour but less than 100% can eithier be functional at the end of the battle or not functional and recovered or not functional and unrecovered. if it is determined to be functional it will be status quo and usuable at the end of the battle. If it is determined to be not functional and it has more than 50% armour it will it will be eithier Recovered or lost by some percentage not stated to the stars cordinates in that system. If the unit has less than 50% armour, it will be destroyed at the end of battle and drop debris. Essentially as long as a ship has more than 50% armour at the end of the battle it will immediatly be repaired and returned to you or eventually be repaired and returned to you or repaired and not returned to you.



At least it most likely hasn't been stated, if they are stateing it they are implying that there is a percent equal to its damage that it will needs repairs and that the odds of it retuning home are also the same percentage. Say if a ship has 75% armour it would have a 25% of being lost in the battle and once it was repaired it would have a 25% chance of not returning to you and going to the star instead. This would mean a ship with 75% armour at the end of the battle would have a 75% chance of being returned to you immediatly; in the 25% chance that it is not, it will then have a 75% chance of returning to you eventually. For a total probability of 93.75% of a ship being returned to you immediatly or eventually and a 6.25% chance that the ship will be pernamently lost to you and be sent to the star in that system instead if its armour is at 75% at the end of the battle.

So... What your saying is don't build big expensive ships ? Just build small cheap ones you can replace because y'all wanted to get stupid ? Lol. Toss are really powerful.. Xerj or whatever are prety squishy.. But can regen and have huge numbers of suicide ships.. The Human's are balanced.. But why am i gonna build a Jugger ? Or Death Star ? If i can lose them cuase they took a little.. Hell even a lot of damage ? Hell it was you guy's who gave them hit points for a reason lol Now a ship not even destroyed can be lost lol. Like what ? Man suck's for guy's who don't use cash to keep replacing your fleets, I'm sure this is nothing to do with that though.. NOTHING AT ALL lol.

I think Megumin you are wrong about zerg. HP regen is not so great as you describe. It's 2.3 CRP tech with 0% base value and half effect on flagships. Compared to toss shield regen it's really crap. And zerg units have lowest shield values of all races making them susceptable to those losses more. What is strong about zerg is shield bypassing which now going to cause losses even when outnumbered. But zerg used to be like that with scourges. Now scourge is totally useless since dmg has been cut in half and gas prices went almost double.

I also do not understand all this crying about flagships. How is it different from other ships regarding the change? You basically loose % of hip value depending on %n of hp lost. It will be more small ships or less flagships. Expected value is same, just more variance

they dont want us to farm pirates

and they dont know how to do it

a silly thing more ............

just eliminate the pirate fleets if you have the guts

and get rid of nonsense

They did that while ago and reverted the change.

I understand, hahaha how difficult the balance of maintaining a number of players that makes things profitable but does not force you to spend more on the server

This system is now live!! Just lost my first Pancor. Sent 2 out and armor was 565/586 at the end of the battle. Lost one.

Killed 5 pirates since I logged in this morning. Didn't go well. Sent 3x the fleet points against all and losses in 4 of the 5 battles. Usually no losses with those numbers. Maybe have to try 4x or 5x?

Total losses were 810000 metal, 1350000 mineral, 202500 gas.
Total scraps were 1221970 metal, 728480 mineral.

This doesn't include the gas cost of sending the fleets out, so real big losses all around.

I have a small suggestion, please here me out before throwing meat!

It would be really nice to calculate zerg regen for the remaining rounds after combat finished and before applying extra destruction. It does not change any balance (at least not much) as I can already be sitting there and clicking my ships out of range untill they recover some hp and only let them finish off at the and of last round. But it's such a silly and annoying thing to have to do.
Other races do not care at all as regainied shields do not impact amount of losses. What's done in combat is done.

Also I really bellive that zerg got hit by this change the most in terms of fighting pirates (which is currently the biggest source of resource). I am not talking about fighting other people. This change does not affect it almost at all.

Not sure how the calculation work but something seems wrong...

https://xcraft.net/battle/index.php?battle_id=715b3248bdc6aaaebf3edabcb114a4f0

in this battle;
all other ships shield was 90% or more...
my destroyer shield was always 50% or more

the destroyers took some damage
initial armor : 3 259 201
armor at round 7: 3 152 556 (took value at round 7 as only overloards as enemy and they do 0 damage ...)
armor lost : 106 645

at the end of the battle report i lost 3 Destroyers (lost in space)
a Destroyer has 25 663 armor

for battle batlle cruiser :
initial armor : 1 649 431
armor at round 7: 1 624 951 (took value at round 7 as only overloards as enemy and they do 0 damage ...)
armor lost : 24 480
at the end of the battle report i lost 1 battle cruiser (lost in space)
a battle battles cruiser has 16 331 armor

same for science wessels

the damage is not spread acrosse the fleet ...
so since this change batles are like putting all your ships in one line only the first ship takes damage once it's killed the next ship start taking damage
ship1 > ship2 > ship3 > ship4 > ship5

this is called taking turn on executing the front ship of the enemy and not a strategic battle any more ...




this battle took place close to my planet if i undestand correctly 1000km is one solar system > so should be less than 10000 km...(i asume)
"Part of the destroyed fleet will be send to the closest object (besides asteroid, temple and planetary pirate station) with a shipyard (incubator, stargate) in a range upto 10 000 ckm for recovery. Fleet units need 72 hours if battle was at the object or at it high orbit; 144 hours if battle was in the object’s solar system, and 288 hours if battle was outside the solar system."

any body know how the chance of "Repair of fleet" works do you just wait 288 (12days for a flight that took me 15 min) and maybe some thing will show up in your ship yard ? or is there a way to know how many will apear in your shipyard ?



"- no experience is awarded to anyone for these losses;"
in the battle report we can see ☠ Swarm got "307 experience point(s)" ?

"- if more than 50% armour is left, the unit will be lost to star coordinates without debris drop (such units will be used in future new game mechanics);"
so
they are lost but acounter for so when "future mecanic" will be in place ? they will be taken in to consideration?
or
they are lost foever and not acounted? > so we should stop fighting and wait for the "future mecanic" to be inplace and decide if we should fight at that point in time?



I was previously more like a farmer thant a combatant christmas event motivated me to create a fleet and kill some pirate will return to my farming and see...

ps maybe add the ability to join recyclers or other (give recylers the ability to repair same speed as recycling) to the fleet and spend the remaining time or battle letting the "repair unit" repair the ship (consuming resource in hold for the repair equivalent to the damage that is repaired) and once battle ends apply your current calculation > that would make the game more realistic ...

This does not change battle between players ? Yes, Yes it does. a High point player will be looking now for soft targets, Not anything that can give him a fight, Or challenge them, I've been hit recently by players in the Mil's now 3 to 4 times, My point value was only in the low 200k, Then again in the mid 100k range. These players were 2mil, and above. I'm being scouted more by players in the Mil's because they obviously don't want to lose there ships and get easy reso.

This only encourages this behaviour, So to say it does not effect players much, Your wrong.

There was also someone asking why people are talking or crying i believe the word he used was, About Flag Ships being lost.. I don't know my friend, Maybe go out side take a breath and let something hit you. Flag Ships are big targets, They're gonna be the initial focus in battles with players, Not just Flag Ships, But any big ship, The biggest ship you have will be focused down, To obviously give the defender a fighting chance. With this games.. "Logic" They don't even need to destroy the Flag Ship, Or Big Ships that cost an arm and a leg and for you guys out there a testi, For women.. We'll we get the point.

Drop the cost of reserch, Ship cost then make this stupid change then, But at these prices, Now battles with pirates are going to be more costly, Battles with players are going to be so unballanced as hell, You need a counter weight to it, Otherwise this is just a stupid cash grabbing choice with no reason to be here.

Also i'm not quiting yet, YET.. So please don't message me about it, Thank you <l> ,.., <l> BD.

Also paying a Hydarian Crystal just to talk on a forum ? Is BS too, It's to any game i've played been free to do that..

Listen guys there were problems in this game before this change, and it is concievable that these changes were meant to address that problem. The fact that somone 1/4 your size could show up at you base with 30k defences and stomp it to oblivion without losing a single ship while barely fielding enough ships to exceed the defence in points. Thats a real issue, i have no defences on virtually all of my bases for this very reason. No resources are ever stored on a planet, they are stored in civil ships and they arent even sent to expedition off my bases because this would make them a target when i recall. (i know this to be true because i was the one making such hits and not just one or two, but hundreds of them)

We have in some sense reached a contradiction about whats best for PVE and PVP and the only way i can see to pernamently solve this problem is to de-couple them.

Changeing pirate aggression to increase as if they were 100k point players would be a brilliant solution to this problem and would fix many other aspects of the game!

Increaseing the percentage of dropped debris to compensate for the additional losses, lots of other solutions.

You take into consideration that players who are actually larger with better tech, and anytime you get caught with something worth stealing or blowing up and its instantly gone, with no penalty in anyway to the attacker. Some kind of change was needed. This change for PVP purposes makes alot of sense, the problem is 95%+ of the minerals and metal in this game comes from pirates and the aggression of these pirates inscreases as if they were 10k point players. This means aggression levels of 4000-6000 are a real possibility and when your doing 40-60 times the amount of damage per ship, well your making pirates no longer a viable options for the majority of players with this change. There are many solutions to this problem, introducing a structure stat to ships that is beneath the armour stat for these values. There is also a lack of understanding of the combat mechanics in this game by almost everyone, which really doesn't help.


Lets not give up completely just yet, this is a transitionary stage in the games development and while the changes effectivly make it impossible to fly for virtually all players right now, i think that the administration has at least heard this and can see it on the stats side of the server with virtually all players on expedition or mining comets only! They have tried to add a realistic factor of warfare in an unbalanced way, most people dont want to sit and watch their ships enter combat because they got better stuff to do. In the end this a game and it needs to be fun and enjoyable and that means progression and this clashes directly with what war is... No one wins in war everyone loses, just some more than others...

There are dozens of solutions to the problems from this change, lets do our best to be patient with the devolopers and hope that they can come to understand that the changes as they were implemented are a problem for the future of this game, there are 50 pages of such discussions on the russian forum; as well as votes in the senate. I am not saying an acceptable solution will be found that will allow you or me to continue to play this game, but i think we should give them some time to try and do so, without resorting to name calling or trashing them. Such behaviour helps no one and is not productive in anyway.

There is a small chance that hope is coming.