Merge 2024 - ORG community - reactions & questions

  • Hello guys !


    This topic has been created to allow you to react to the merger of our community.

    You can also ask questions here, but don't forget the FAQ!


    -Please remain respectful in your comments-

    b1L8C8d.png

    Edited once, last by Neotinea ().

  • Perseus and Quadrantids - made for last years merges. Surprise, surprise you ungrateful "players" , these are exodus unis now :confused:

    Unis already standing as 9 galaxies are being targets to unis that are getting extended to 9 galaxies for the purpose of merge? Logic? None :thumbsup:

    Special uni x10 eco is being target uni? I can only imagine what's gonna happen there.

    Dead Lacerta uni - NON ACS - getting 9 galaxies :thumbsup:

    11813-sign1-jpg

  • Merging Gaspra instead of using it as the target is kinda sad as the top 100 is still quite active and using Uni 1 as the only choice for x1 fleet is a joke as this is a death zone for anyone, top 100 players got a minimum of 1bn points and even if you got 200-300milion points you not going higher than top 300 really.
    Even Lacenta which you clearly try to resurrect with merge should at least have ACS enabled as you expand it to 9galaxies

    Thuban: 5x Fleet, 10x Eco, 20x Research, 6 -> 9 Galaxies, 50% DF, +25 -> 30 bonus fields, 50% Deut (1233 players)
    Universe 1: 1x Fleet, 8x Eco, 16x Research, 9 Galaxies, 30% DF, +30 bonus fields (3451 players)

    Lacerta: 2x War, 4x Peaceful, 2x Holding, 8x Eco, 16x Research, 5 -> 9 Galaxies, 60% DF, +25 -> 30 bonus fields, 60% Deut, Probe Raids ON, NO ACS (663 players)

    Vega: 2x Fleet, 8x Eco, 16x Research, 9 Galaxies, 70% DF, +30 bonus fields, 70% Deut (2336 players)

    I agree with question, would GF reconsider choices?

    L6ZAkiq.png

    Edited once, last by wanard ().

  • Any chance to get another 1X war speed uni as target besides uni1?

    For most players the speed is important, so changing that is not good imo...

    -Drink my blood to taste my love-



    Uni4 Erabus[TSE]
    Uni35 Erabus[-][-]

  • Can we have a poll to change the settings of Lacerta.
    If you want to revive it lets change the war speed down to x1 and turn on ACS so we have an alternative miner target.

    tIEu4T3.png

  • Purgatory not on the list of targets. Did they forget to add Volans?


    I'm may be biased, but in my opinion. Lacerta is just an inferior Perseus.

  • Can we have a poll to change the settings of Lacerta.
    If you want to revive it lets change the war speed down to x1 and turn on ACS so we have an alternative miner target.

    This ^^


    Why GF would choose Lacerta and not change ACS is beyond me...but then honestly you need to give the guys in Lacerta the choice to merge elsewhere too because just changing their settings without consultation just isn't fair either - so maybe create a new 1x uni for this purpose.


    Either way, WTF. Currently I have no other thoughts....


  • Looking at above, Lacerta should be in the poll for Exodus unis, considering number of accounts there - with only 30/40 active players not exceeding 10 being online at any time. No deut in DF and so on...

    11813-sign1-jpg

  • God, we just had a vote on Gaspra to enable Deu to DF that is a sad sad moment.
    But yeah, I agree with the END comment. We are either going to unis where most active players got 1 billion points+ which is very bad for people well below or to uni with so many limitations that it is kinda disappointing as hell. I am not going to mention that hellhole 5x war

    L6ZAkiq.png

  • turn on ACS so we have an alternative miner target

    I am surprised so many people liekd this.

    A miner target surely runs better with acs on :rofl:


    expand it to 9galaxies

    We talk about .en right?

    The Exodus Universes got ~1000 active people combined (1065 according to MMORPGSTAT).


    Adding the Targets we get to ~2000 active (1946).


    The current plan is 4 Universes, with 9 Galaxies each.

    1/4 Of the Players is already in one of the targets (u1).

    So basically its 1500 Players on 4 Universes. In the end its about ~350 active people per Universe. Looking at the current numbers we know that most people won't be very normally distributed.


    But lets keep it at 350 players. At 9 Galaxies there's space for every of these 350 Players to get 12 Planets on position 8. Not all players desire that and we got about 60.000 free positions (assuming 16 Planets per player).


    I am not sure who thinks that is a great idea to make so empty universes. But please do us all a favor and cut down galaxies.


    No need for 9 Galaxies in Thuban.

    The Universes 4+ Speed Plus have the lowest population in this group. As pointed out several times here, fleet speed is a determining factor in the choice.

    There wont be a filled universe and it doesn't make sense to bring out a stillbirth.


    Personally I would prefer a higher DF to thuban since its 10x Eco (as a balance to fleeters <=> Miners balances)


    I think overall you should shrink the number of galaxies. Maybe even the number of targets, considering the kinda low amount of people merging. Cut away lacerta e.g. since its already the smallest target.

    Otherwise you will have at least one, maybe two, universes that are dead from the beginning, simply judging by the numbers.


    Sadly GF didn't work on player retention enough that there's justification for such a big target group

  • We talk about .en right?

    The Exodus Universes got ~1000 active people combined (1065 according to MMORPGSTAT).

    Apologies, yes I meant .EN
    Gaspra is just slightly ahead of Lacerta in activity. (Gaspra 107 active, Lacerta -> 99, Vega -> 160, Thuban -> 110, Uni1 -> 512)
    Gaspra.en: 1x War, 2x Peaceful, 1x Holding, 8x Eco, 16x Research, 6 Galaxies, 40% DF (569 players)
    I am unsure as to why Lacerta was chosen as a target instead of Exodus.
    Most Exodus unis got ~70-80 active players while Perseus got 194 active.
    Thuban is a calmer version of Vela and has fewer active players too.

    Players per server seem to not matter and slot 8 is not the biggest problem but server settings.
    Shrinking number of targets can have bad reflection overall due to point differences. Why not just drop everyone to Uni1 as per your point of view?

    I think overall you should shrink the number of galaxies. Maybe even the number of targets, considering the kinda low amount of people merging. Cut away lacerta e.g. since its already the smallest target.

    Otherwise you will have at least one, maybe two, universes that are dead from the beginning, simply judging by the numbers.

    I am considering Lacerta as a target as there are not that many multibillion-point players there and there are plenty of big shots who will be merging from seemingly alive universes which are being cut for seemingly no reason.

    L6ZAkiq.png

  • Players per server seem to not matter and slot 8 is not the biggest problem but server settings.
    Shrinking number of targets can have bad reflection overall due to point differences. Why not just drop everyone to Uni1 as per your point of view?

    Players per server does matter for the player experience.

    What fun is it to be in a dead universe?

    To adress your last point:
    As mentioned here

    fleet speed is a determining factor in the choice.

    In general people chose their unvierse with different reasons.

    Considering that nearly all universes vote for 8x eco (or above) and GF even allows that kind of monotomy its clearly not the eco factor.

    So its probably the fleet speed and DF factors.


    Hope that answers your question.


    A stillbirth doesn't help anyone. Neither the players who are trapped in an empty endless space without targets, leading to more irrational cannibalising actions (like defense bashing) and less fun, nor Gameforge that doesn't earn too much if there isn't a competition.


    I am considering Lacerta

    I assume you can make a case for all universes.

    But Lacerta is the only No-ACS universe in .en

    I assume that itself tells already that most people won't like it. Considering its overall number of accounts I think its confirmed.

    But I might be wrong and its worth changing up the targets, but I am sure its not worth keeping 4 targets either way.

  • I am considering Lacerta

    I assume you can make a case for all universes.

    But Lacerta is the only No-ACS universe in .en

    I assume that itself tells already that most people won't like it. Considering its overall number of accounts I think its confirmed.

    But I might be wrong and its worth changing up the targets, but I am sure its not worth keeping 4 targets either way.

    I mean from 4 choices, Uni 1 is endless Deathzone with players so far ahead that you cannot even hope to compete and Thuban is a 5x War Hell where you either sit on your account 24/7 or you don't exist anymore 5min raid in the same system is a nightmare.
    The only choices most of us are left is either join whales from exodus on Thuban and give up on the game or try to live on Vega/Lacerta.
    ACS disabled removes a lot of tactics on the server as you cannot slow down your fleet to defend against another player trying to defend the target, jointly attack a common enemy or even help your teammate defend from enemy attack.

    I agree with the below:

    Merger options are so bad it feels like it was made up by an AI trying to maximize player negativity.

    L6ZAkiq.png