Greatings to ya all
I set out to test the gamelogic behind the Ogame and decided to make a test using only one planet, and see what limitations it would present and what suggestions for gamelogic improvements it might yield.
It took me less than a week to hit the first limitation: no more fields on the main planet.
By now I have used the standard terraforming to level 8 and the logic would be to pay an additional 12,8 mio crystal, 25,6 mio deuterium and use 256.000 energy units from my Gravition research.
In addition to be very expensive it is also a limited solution, because the extra five planet fields would be used in no time. The next step would then be to invest in an additional 256.000 energy units (plus the additional resources), and that is where the gamelogic ends on my part.
When a new player enters the universe, the planet should at least have a sufficient size to provide a LONG PERIOD OF GAMETIME before fields becomes an issue. And since it is possible to find bigger planets by colonization, it would be the only gamelogic, that the MAIN planet is of maximum size.
Furthermore research options are needed for players to keep wanting to play Ogame, where the limitation in planetsize will end up making some new players leave the game.
Proposal for changing the gamelogic would be:
a) the main planet must be of the maximum size available to find during colonization
b) every level of Energy technology researched above level 12 will add additional fields to every level of Terraformer build (could be one or more extra fields)
Gamelogic buildings (planet)
The cost of a building should reflect the value it adds to the account, and not simply a progressive cost as it is for each level build now.
Buildings NOT adding to additional value beside basic value should be continued as it is now, but buildings as e.g. Missile Silo and Terraformer should be the same cost per level, because new levels do not add value to the account as such (same number of rockets and planet fields per level ought to be same basic cost per building level).
Alliance Depot is a dead-end feature and should be removed from the gamedesign (userinterface) or adding value to the account and be placed in orbit like the Space Dock.
Gamelogic buildings (moon)
The creation of a moon comes form the debris field (DF), which should REDUCE the debris field by the same amount, that the moon is made out of. Hence reducing the DF when a moon is made or leaving the DF as maximum DF when no moon is created.
The DF should likewise be reduced by the % of ships in the wreckage salvageable by the Space Dock (e.g. The DF should be reduced by the percentage of each level build in the Space Dock before the DF is used for the construction of the moon - it makes no sense, that the DF can result in a moon, salvage of destroyed ships AND a maximum amount of debris collected by the recyclers).
The moon buildings for storage adds no value to the game and should NOT be possible to build on a moon, whereas Nanite Factory makes good sense to ADD to the moon buildings).
As the gamelogic mentioned for planetary fields, the same missing logic can apply to the moon. Each level of Lunar Base should cost the same.
Old accounts have an advantage that makes every universe a dead-end programming, because there are no limitations build-in in the game.
In the real world mines are depleted and an upkeep for maintenance is required. This should be adapted to the gamelogic, so an universe never becomes obsolete and increasing the chance for new accounts to battle for top positions.
As inspiration for improvement in gamelogic.
A) mines have a basic waste that can be reduced by a new mine research optimizing the mine-output
b) a mine loses production output over
time forcing the players to build new mines and/or abandoned the
planet in search of new production on new planets
c) mines must have a basic cost for maintenance, which can be reduced by a new research which also in turn can add to automated repair functionality for the buildings on the planet (automated maintenance feature).
Maintenance costs should apply to all types of buildings, fleet and defenses.
When scrapping fleet and defenses the option of using the Scrap Merchant is available, but when deconstructing buildings this is done at a cost minus 4% costreduction achieved through each level of Ion Technology researched.
This makes no sense and the gamelogic must be aligned to comply to both deconstruction (scrap) of buildings, fleet and defenses.
As for resources the game handles own production plus raids from other planets. Here the gamelogic is inconsistent to, because a fleet can fill its cargo in an instant, when attacking a planet or moon.
The loading and unloading of resources should be timeconsuming, hence adding time to the total flight. This would also make the game more interesting, because the fleet can be attached while loading/unloading.
Fuelconsumption should be recalculated when and if a fleet is recalled, returning unused deuterium to storage (deuterium consumption should be calculated as deuterium per time unit - time left after recall of a fleet yields the deuterium returned to storage).
An random factor could also be used to increase the tactical aspects of the gamelogic, which could be a random on espionage giving not the exact values but a randomized approximately value. Same basic randomfactor could be applied to "battle time", which would make a battle between ships and/or defenses take a random period of time, as it is also applying to the expeditions, sometimes resulting in longer flight and late arrival of the fleet.
Well I think that's just about it. It was a different way of playing Ogame and I guess there is a reason for players having more than one planet