OGame.org and merges

  • new uni's are action packed but only for a couple of months, STOP making new uni's and STOP with the lifeforms, ogame is now all about money and until all countries pay the same for d/m which would make d/m fair. then players ie Turks who get 2 to 3 times more d/m for their money take over the top 10 spots in new unis. Lacerta is less that 2 weeks old and top 3 players have 30 mil points between them it takes the following 7 players to equal that, points paid for with d/m does not make a game. the game died when d/m started.

  • Clearly the current way of doing things is a slow death march, DM is the root of the problem. Shifting around the player base to new unis wont do much, its mainly the same people anyway! Get control of the multi accounting and tighten up the rules. The DM use -pay to play- will never leave, but introducing fairness and a RULES BASED non-game destroying way to play could help with player retention. Maybe a universe without DM, and tight rules for 1 account per IP address. Let it play out for a year and see. It would be a retro way to play for sure, but I think it would open your eyes to what people actually want. An old school version of Ogame.

  • Clearly the current way of doing things is a slow death march, DM is the root of the problem. Shifting around the player base to new unis wont do much, its mainly the same people anyway! Get control of the multi accounting and tighten up the rules. The DM use -pay to play- will never leave, but introducing fairness and a RULES BASED non-game destroying way to play could help with player retention. Maybe a universe without DM, and tight rules for 1 account per IP address. Let it play out for a year and see. It would be a retro way to play for sure, but I think it would open your eyes to what people actually want. An old school version of Ogame.

    sounds good tho, but how u pay for servers and staff and tight those rules with non paid community staff that we are currently runing with


    whole .org is run by mby tops 3 paid ppl if u lucky, rest go's sgo's mods global mobs etc are unpaid with DM vouchers.


    u cant have it both ways, u want accountable staff employed by company and no monetization options for company to sustain itself, how?


    if u make 1 non DM uni and everyone goes there then whos gona carry the game ?




    1 GF cant/wont remove lifeforms, gf probly spend alot of time money n effort on it, and it migh be pretty good - regardless its hyped expansion and its here to stay, and likelly to become permanent in all unis with time just like re-design came in.

    2 GF cant/wont remove DM - its literally paying for the game, we dont do montly subscriptions no mtx pacs no skins nothing else there is no pay to play so too speak, its pay to compete or pay to win but not pay to play.


    i dont know if fresh new unis are the solution or merger or joining all communities in one alot of ppl here have valid points, not sure if Prongs is driving this sugestion or is it GF incentive to ask, but as someone said earlier this is reaching mby 5% of players , alot abandoned boards ages ago and aint seen this post to have an opinion.


    Prongs can u arrange ingame message globally for link to this post so players voice can be heard??


    regards

    tag.png

  • I played before DM, as Roga in Uni 34, and the game was great. Hard math and timing was everything. Then DM was introduced and people saw this day coming...I remember the first Ogame survey asking us how to improve the way the game played... At the time I said that the game needed to be more than the math, there needed to be an element of randomness. Now I would say there is plenty of randomness, but too much reliance on money. The way things are going now the game will be completely dead sooner or later anyway, so why not try to save it? It is worth a try I think. They can always make money from ads. So I would humbly suggest you create a few unis, with the variety of speeds, for people who want the original experience. Let it play out and see if there is a improvement in player retention. After all I suspect that is the reason for this whole thread to begin with, to find a way to keep people playing.

  • For example, creating 4 new universes:

    - Universe A: eco 8x, fleet speed 1x, research 16x, DF 30%, etc

    - Universe B: eco 8x, fleet speed 3x, research 16x, DF 50%, etc

    - Universe C: eco 8x, fleet speed 5x, research 16x, DF 60%, etc

    - Universe D: eco 8x, fleet speed 6x, research 16x, DF 70%, etc

    For example, creating 4 new universes:

    - Universe A: eco 8x, fleet speed 1x, research 16x, DF 30%, etc

    - Universe B: eco 8x, fleet speed 2x, research 16x, DF 50%, etc

    - Universe C: eco 8x, fleet speed 4x, research 16x, DF 60%, etc

    - Universe D: eco 8x, fleet speed 6x, research 16x, DF 80%, etc

    Why does DF% increase with fleet speed? Those two are separate things and shouldn't be correlated to each other.

    High DF% always means the universe is very dead after a very short time. Please don't go higher than 50% for it. Plus, if everyone can merge to every target uni, those with high DF% will be very empty to begin with.


    Also, if you do new clean universes, make them have 6 galaxies at most. Old unis have very few active players, 9 galaxies are too much.

    2rabnrop.png

    Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.


    Developer of AntiGameReborn - Link to the AGR Discord

  • Prongs can u arrange ingame message globally for link to this post so players voice can be heard??

    Yes, some ingame messages to bring more players to give the opinion about it will be send and soon as possible. Right now we are still facing some issues on that matter (same issues that are preventing us from starting ingame setting change polls)




    Why does DF% increase with fleet speed? Those two are separate things and shouldn't be correlated to each other.

    That is just and example, same for the fleet speed used, just to give an idea about the new clean universes settings.

    The intention is to set a number of universes and settings based on the opinion of the majority.


    ---


    All the options are on the table, from my perspective in general economy and research will be with the max setting, 8x and 16x. Group wise I consider beneficial to have all the existent universes on the same group and provide a variety of fleet speed options as target. Keep in mind that every setting can be adjusted even after the merge finishes if the majority of the universe players vote for it.


    On a personal matter, as a player, for me the crucial part of decision on a target is mostly the fleet speed (I am a slow universes player and I'll always look to as less as possible fleet speed variations) and ACS. I think it will be easier to find a common ground if the fleet speed will be consider as one since the war/holding is what impacts mostly my choices and on a later phase vote for the different fleet speeds adjustment.

    But again, this is a very personal opinion as a player, everyone has his/her own opinion and play style.

    This topic is to help to find a better merge plan that fits a majority of OGame.org players. There will be a lot of compromising and some settings that won't fit everyone, but that needs to happen. It is either that or not merging at all. Everyone's opinion is valid and needs to be respected, but please move the topic towards a solution to its purpose.


    As conclusion:

    - settings of the new servers are open to discussion

    - groups are open to discussion

    - including Volans is out of discussion

    - merge between LF and non-LF is out of discussion

    - discussion for other ideas/problems please use another topic or the fitting system/platform


    So bring us the common ground, it might be or not your ideal plan, as long as as it will be majority orientated to the community in general it will be always a win-win, and I as a player will adjust myself on the universe that fits the most my play style.


    Cheers,

  • is global merge with other comunities ie .de .se etc out of discussion too? :D


    on the subject im game for this lets make it happen.


    u1 - 8x eco, 16x reserch, 1x war/hold/peacefull, ACS , 30% DF ,9galaxies, probe storage off, no didf, yes lifeforms - my vote

    u2 -

    u3 -

    u4 -

    tag.png

  • i got no issue with making some basic unis where everyone got to merge to with free choice but you got to keep a legacy server with all 1x so that you can enjoy playing general/disco class with a fair competing chance vs discoverer and for those that got a life and dont want to get up in the middle of the night to fly an attack / get up 5 times the night to safe ress or the storages overflows by 500trillion eco speed.


    on the other hand the graveyard/merging rules should be changed make it quite easy ... +/-10% or +/- 25% of top1 and you can merge to that uni ... no need to give the rank 1 in an uni a safe heaven, a 10-25% stronger aint a problem it doesnt throw the server out of wack ...a 50 times stronger does. and those ppl should go into an uni with all the super accounts high eco high fleetspeed as thats where those points came from.


    and when making different UNI´s and you want to limit it to 3-5 then, except the legacy one for everyone that doesnt like ultra eco speed, maybe same eco speed and just adjust the fleet speeds to get some choices at least, as 4x or 8x or 16x Eco doesnt matter anymore you get no sleep anyway.


    and for those high eco speed unis it really would be good to fix the exo speed boni on classes ... a 50% boni is already heavy forDiscoverer ... but an 8x eco x 50% 12 times more on eco 8 or 24 times more on eco 16 speed? thats just insane amount of ress , either give all classes the eco speed multiplier or take it off all classes its a difference of billions of ress a day ... else you could just get rid of the classes all at once as everyone got to play discoverer anyway to have equal chances.


    Unis:

    Dorado - all 1x settings (as mentioned above

    u1 - 8x eco, 16x reserch, 1x war/hold/peacefull, ACS , 30% DF ,9galaxies, probe storage off, no didf, yes lifeforms - my vote

    u2 - 8x eco, 2x war, 5x peace 30df%

    u3 - 8x eco, 2x war, 2x peace 30df%

    u4 - 8x eco, 5x fleet speed, ACS, x galaxies, for supersized accounts that doesnt meet the point difference criteria and anyone else that wants to go there

  • I'm glad the most logical thinker is going to make reasonable suggestions.


    But here's why I suggested a DF% increase alongside speed.


    2 examples:


    U1, 1x Fleet and 30% DF: If someone gets hit, they will take longer to recover compared to a player in a 4x or 6x universe since raids, expos, and attacks are slower. Meaning they would have a chance to catch up to whoever attacked them in the first place, vs. it being high DF ei: 80% DF then it makes it extremely hard for people to catch up and it puts a few people decades ahead in terms of progress.


    U6,6x Fleet and 80% DF: same logic, but now we have faster raids, faster attacks, faster expos, though the DF is high, the player who got hit can still catch up to the player that hit them.

    This is the thought process I went with, but if you want to give 70% DF to all universes then it'll throw things off balance.


    Tirnoch , here are the universes that are subject to the merge, excluding Volans.

    Mlf1eBc.png



    Don't let the game play you, instead of that Vmode fleetsave and play the game whenever you want.

    Edited once, last by MikeGrinder6 ().

  • Prongs Can you tell us which unis are subject to the merge? I'll try to make a reasonable suggestion based on that.

    The unis subject to merges are all the non LF universes except volans


    So:


    Uni1, Quantum, Oberon, Bellatrix, Dorado, Cetus, Dione, Earth, Ferdinand


    From that list we can make exodus, targets or keep unis out of merges but we can not add universes with LF enabled to the list.


    We could even merge LF universes between them , but we have Vega that's too older and then Halley, Isonoe etc that are too younger...

  • There is a discussion in .de community about this too...


    Interesting that they initially lead off with no 1x fleet unis at all and their COMA didn't offer it up until a couple of pages into the discussion.


    https://board.de.ogame.gamefor…ostID=3967586#post3967586


    As far as .org goes...I concur with Anjali regarding Dorado and uni 1, not sure about the other uni settings as I would never play in a uni with higher fleet speed settings so those players that do should have their voices heard regarding those.


    The other thing I would suggest to coincide with mergers is revisiting some of the rules that other communities have that .org doesn't...such as the pulling rule.


    As far as communicating with players since it's broken in-game (imagine that), maybe you shouldn't have shut down stomt without at least replacing it with something else first. A good marketing team would know how to use social platforms to communicate with their customers...but Game Forge doesn't have a good marketing team.


    Edit: now it’s clear what the intent is. This isn’t about helping out the community and making things better for the players…this is about merging all the non LF unis so there is less work for the devs to fix that fucking disaster. Less LF unis there are, the less work they have to do…

    Edited once, last by Cathedral ().

  • Classical merges with existing unis as targets will not improve the community. This should be obvious from the last merge.


    Half of those unis are dead by now.


    New blank unis seem like a great idea and a fair playing field for everyone. I would say no more than 3 target unis are needed.

  • The problem is the number of total players, as was beautifully illustrated earlier. 2-3-4, if if it is mostly the same people (and their alts) playing across the existing universes it will not matter. There is a reason the universes are all at roughly the same number of people, new folks get frustrated with the outstanding game play issues and only the most hardened stick around. Changing the way merges work is fixing a problem down stream from the real issues. This new way to handle merges will only appeal to the older established accounts (and their alts). It will not change the real problem Ogame has, poor player retention. The speed and df percentages, the number of new merge unis, lifeforms or no lifeforms, what does it matter if few people are playing? If this new way to merge is only meant to appeal to the old-player gods of Ogame so be it, we are all fish in a shrinking pool anyway.

  • So I gave this some thought and here is my proposal.


    wgqfxQ518D.png


    The underlying thoughts are as follows:


    (1) There needs to be trade-offs to give incentive to each play style to distribute among all unis. Miners (who make 90% of the players) shouldn't have one obvious best choice (like 8x peace, 1x war, 8x eco, 30% df and 150% deut consumption for example) as this would mean that only one uni will be full, and the rest empty. Normally, the main trade-off should be eco speed vs. fleet speed, i.e. only high eco with high fleet speed. That would mean if you want high eco, you also have to accept the increased risk of high fleet speed. Sadly, Gameforge decided to let people vote on uni settings, streamlining all unis to 8x eco with only few exceptions. Thus, I propose high peaceful speed as incentive for normally risk-adverse players to join high fleet speed unis, because high peaceful speed means more expeditions per day which results in more resources per day.


    (2) High fleet speed and high DF% means universes dying pretty quickly, as it makes planet farming even more lucrative, and allows too large gaps between tops. As such, I propose decreasing DF% with increasing war speed.


    (3) Low war speed means generally more fail launches, as such Deut consumption increases with war speed.


    (4) All universes start with 6 galaxies and have galaxies extended as needed.


    (5) Another possibility is to have Target 4 with 10x eco to have the trade-off described in point 1.

    2rabnrop.png

    Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.


    Developer of AntiGameReborn - Link to the AGR Discord

    Edited once, last by Tirnoch ().

  • Maybe add 10x Eco to target 4, so its a hyper expo uni for people interested in that

  • (3) Low war speed means generally more fail launches, as such Deut consumption increases with war speed.

    I have played low war speeds and high as a fleeter. My honest opinion is that you tend to attack less and study more your enemy with low speeds, I really don't think you spend more deut with failed attacks. It is in fact the opposite, specially now with many players using :censored:, and also many launches are done to targets with activity, thus more failed attacks happen on high speed unis and therefor should have lower deut consumption.


    Also on a low war speed uni you need more free time to execute an attack, so definitely you attack a lot less than high war speed uni. With a reasonable fleet on a high war speed uni you can launch at different targets at the same time.

    Edited 2 times, last by Rav3n ().