OGame.org and merges

The last thing I want is more merges. I play several unis and every time there is a merge I have to give up one or more of them so that the number I play is dwindling and will continue every time it happens. OGame has always been a game that requires time to develop things, so it's frustrating to have to keep giving that up and either be expected to start a new uni from scratch or just play less.

They won't make a 10x target uni. Such uni will be a brand new one.

Tirnoch there is just one stumbling block to your suggestion. We already have Uni 1 that fits the profile of 1x speed uni. Players from U1 will make an uproar if you even mention the possibility of it being an exodus.

But it also can't be the target because it does not give a fair playing ground (established accounts/alliances spread out, solar systems closed with green multi, excuse me, friends accounts etc).

whats with less galaxies anyhow, idea is to increase player count in unis, therefore bringing 10x universes into 4distinctions and therefore increasing the player count per universe.

with optimal slots being 8 and 15, limiting the universe to 6galaxies while increasing player count doesn't sound good to me.

especially after adding galaxies 7 8 9 later on if there isn't enough space and charging me 240k dm to relocate? how would that work in the long run

there are mobile colonies for a reason and ppl will DM relocate in sys anyway if they want to,

i dont think amount of galaxies in uni is the reason why unis are dying ... but that my opinion alone i might not agree with 6galaxies but if it makes sense to majority i will adapt ofc

peace

Merging old unis sounds promising!

Whales initially fuel expansion, but eventually they cannibalize the unis. Whales essentially pay to play as the NPC. When the small fish die out, so do the predators. I'd love to see a uni with only whales. You'd see a huge increase in DM purchases as whales try to ninja each other.

As for the logistics, I suggest we do a real merge. If both unis have 5 galaxies, the merged uni should have 10 galaxies. This way each player maintains their planet slots and relative distances

Dorado and uni 1 should be target universes so people have a 1x uni with 1x mines and 1x tech or a 1x uni with fast mines and techs. Then make speed unis for people that like that kind of thing.

Quote from Tirnoch

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

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.

Display More

Mostly agree on every thought but i would put some changes on the settings you proposed:

- Universe A: eco 8x, all speed 1x, research 16x, DF 30%, deu cons 0.5 (6 galaxies)

- Universe B: eco 8x, all speed 2x, research 16x, DF 70%, deu cons 0.8 (6 galaxies)

- Universe C: eco 10x, all speed 4x, research 20x, DF 50%, deu cons 0.6 (6 galaxies)

- Universe D: eco 8x, all speed 6x, research 16x, DF 50%, deu cons 0.6 (6 galaxies)

Quote from Mortis

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.

They tried that...it failed miserably.

vote - option A

Option A look nice, i'd vote for that as well.

Quote from Prongs

Quote from Tirnoch

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

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.

Display More

That is a valid suggestion, same as some of the points raised on another replies.

Having a 10x as target might redirect most of the transfers to it and influence the other options.

What about your thoughts regarding the following option:

Option A: Considering only one group and all the selected exodus with the same targets

Option B: 2 groups - Group B with all Group A targets plus a target specific to this group to have the option to avoid whales ([teasing]for the more cautious ones that are afraid of a good challenge[/teasing])

Both options using universe 1 as a 1x war target.
New LF universes (Gaspra, Halley, Kerberos and Lacerta) out from the merge as well as Vega (old universe with LF) and Volans (chaos).

Would those examples be a good starting point for the discussion and suggestions?

Display More

a mix of that

More equal for me would be the settings of the new servers of the option B, but like in option A all the universes should be able to choose any target

Quote from Prongs

Quote from Tirnoch

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

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.

Display More

That is a valid suggestion, same as some of the points raised on another replies.

Having a 10x as target might redirect most of the transfers to it and influence the other options.

What about your thoughts regarding the following option:

Option A: Considering only one group and all the selected exodus with the same targets

Option B: 2 groups - Group B with all Group A targets plus a target specific to this group to have the option to avoid whales ([teasing]for the more cautious ones that are afraid of a good challenge[/teasing])

Both options using universe 1 as a 1x war target.
New LF universes (Gaspra, Halley, Kerberos and Lacerta) out from the merge as well as Vega (old universe with LF) and Volans (chaos).

Would those examples be a good starting point for the discussion and suggestions?

Display More

so we’re completely throwing out the possibility of Uni 1 being an exedus Uni? I like the idea of being exedus and at least having the option of moving without having to wait 50 days. Or am I misinterpreting the options presented?

I'd like to discuss if we really need 4 targets universes of it could be enough (and better) to get only 3 of them.

We will get 2106 active players of 9 universes involved on the merge.

If we get 4 targets, we will get an average of 526 players per server

If we get 3 targets, we will get an average of 702 players per server. I find this way much more attractive to get active servers, also, if we look on the warspeeds, we only have 1 exodus as x2 and 1 exodus as x3, so it seems that might be better to unify those speeds on one target.

So, targets would be x1, x2 and x5. (it is also possible to change x2 to x3, but I put x2 so they would fit with a future merge with Vega when LF are released on all universes).

johocknut

It is technically possible but we would like to keep it as it's the initial server of the community.

Quote from Danimanza

It is technically possible but we would like to keep it as it's the initial server of the community.

If i'm not mistaken Danimanza, I think he's asking if U1 players can also be part of the merge by merging to a different universe? Like can U1 player got to the 2x universe during merge or are they simply a target universe?

I like your idea better, just 3 targets universes 1x, 2x and 4x/5x.

Quote from Prongs

That is a valid suggestion, same as some of the points raised on another replies.

I see you completely discounted all the replies about a legacy uni with all 1x settings again even though a number of people asked to keep Dorado a target uni...I guess we're all screwed in Dorado and won't be able to play oGame anymore because the majority of us there played that uni specifically for its legacy settings and won't play in a speed uni. Thanks a lot for not listening, as usual, typical BS; GF has already made up its mind and could care less what the players actually want. That's why GF is too afraid to open polls on the forums or figure out how to send an ingame message to get people involved (unless it's a sales message of course about DM and buying things, those messages seem to work just fine still).

Quote from Danimanza

We will get 2106 active players of 9 universes involved on the merge.

If we get 4 targets, we will get an average of 526 players per server

You can't seriously think that you will see those numbers do you? Just because they're active now do you really think they're going to be active in unis where they aren't competitive or the server settings aren't what they want?

Quote from Danimanza

I'd like to discuss if we really need 4 targets universes of it could be enough (and better) to get only 3 of them.

We will get 2106 active players of 9 universes involved on the merge.

If we get 4 targets, we will get an average of 526 players per server

If we get 3 targets, we will get an average of 702 players per server. I find this way much more attractive to get active servers, also, if we look on the warspeeds, we only have 1 exodus as x2 and 1 exodus as x3, so it seems that might be better to unify those speeds on one target.

So, targets would be x1, x2 and x5. (it is also possible to change x2 to x3, but I put x2 so they would fit with a future merge with Vega when LF are released on all universes).

johocknut

It is technically possible but we would like to keep it as it's the initial server of the community.

Display More

I think you have to. Otherwise you end up with a lot of players in settings they don’t want.

So why the switch from having every server as exedus in Prongs initial post to now? Yes, the history in Uni 1 should be preserved. But it’s hardly fair to players in Uni 1 and this has been brought up the last 3 or 4 merges at least.

Quote from Danimanza

I'd like to discuss if we really need 4 targets universes of it could be enough (and better) to get only 3 of them.

We will get 2106 active players of 9 universes involved on the merge.

If we get 4 targets, we will get an average of 526 players per server

If we get 3 targets, we will get an average of 702 players per server. I find this way much more attractive to get active servers, also, if we look on the warspeeds, we only have 1 exodus as x2 and 1 exodus as x3, so it seems that might be better to unify those speeds on one target.

So, targets would be x1, x2 and x5. (it is also possible to change x2 to x3, but I put x2 so they would fit with a future merge with Vega when LF are released on all universes).

Display More

I would suggest x1 / x3 / x5 to have it spread evenly.

x 1 & x2 are both low speed

x 3 is medium

If there is no x3, then there is just low and hi speed option.

when theres no 1x everything uni anymore in .org will we at least be permitted to merge into uni 1.de (1x everything) even though our biggest ally member would hit currently rank 4 in uni1.de without crashing the fleet into a wall but this shouldnt be a problem really, its not like we have a trillion points more then uni1de players and a proper acs would easily eradicate even our highest ally member with ease.

would be really nice to get an answer on that.

Quote from Anjali

when theres no 1x everything uni anymore in .org will we at least be permitted to merge into uni 1.de (1x everything) even though our biggest ally member would hit currently rank 4 in uni1.de without crashing the fleet into a wall but this shouldnt be a problem really, its not like we have a trillion points more then uni1de players and a proper acs would easily eradicate even our highest ally member with ease.

would be really nice to get an answer on that.

This...if our community is going to cast us out, at least let us move to a community with legacy settings like we have now.

You let 1.7bn+ whales move into Dorado.org so I can't see how letting a 340KK account into uni 1 .de would be a problem.

Those numbers for total players, do you account for how many are playing across servers and will be lost? Do you track that? And sure it looks great to have 900 active players, but that number is likely to drop down to the current levels before long, for a variety of reasons already stated. Then what? Introduce LFs to uni 1 and the others, and do this process one more time? Merge Vega and the other LF unis into whatever you are creating now, I would guess. Whats the end game here?