I fully expect this to be controversial, so let me start off by saying I do not recommend these changes for existing universes. This suggestion is aimed towards prolonging the life of newly created universes, and make older universes (started with this system) more appealing to join.
Secondly, don't tie me to any specifics / numbers here. I present this primarily as a thought experiment, with details to be determined, and I'm open to any suggestions for tweaks.
---
Universes have a well understood lifecycle, broadly described as:
1. Young Universes, freshly opened with lots of players scrambling to become #1
2. Middle Aged Universes, where there are fewer players, but enough for alliances to compete and have energy
3. Dying Universes, where minimal potential targets remain, and most players go into vmode, waiting for a merge to generate a Middle Aged Universe
I postulate that the primary reason universes transition to dying universes is that players give up. They decide it is effectively impossible for them to compete against the largest players, or they are being picked on by the largest players, and they would prefer to play in a new universe or give up the game entirely.
Assuming that is the case, the best way to sustain universes for longer is reduce the point distribution within the universe, and make the smaller players feel more competitive. However, this must be done carefully, so that the most dedicated players, who drive the game's health, feel they are being treated fairly.
One way to achieve this might be to give boons to smaller players, but this fails on two fronts. Firstly, it feels unjust to a dedicated player who has committed thousands of hours of gametime, that another player who just started can reach a similar level with significantly less effort. Secondly, it just makes the smaller players more juicy targets - the dedicated players can and will take advantage.
Another method would be to cap the maximum size of the largest players. This cannot be a hard cap - a dedicated player wants to keep going, and an artificial ceiling will be disappointing. Thus, I suggest the implementation of "degradation" mechanics that increase the effort necessary to sustain large fleets, increasing the maintenance of "untouchable" accounts.
The general idea is to apply a "tax" on ships and defense. Every day, or every flight, results in a small percentage of ships / defense becoming damaged and inoperable beyond repair (aka, lost). As the size of a fleet or turtle increases, the loss to this tax also increases, and players must earn more resources to sustain their fleets.
This could be implemented in a tiered system - up to a certain number of ships / defense, losses are at 0%, then up to a higher level, it increases to X%, then Y% beyond that.
This tax would also be applied through vacation mode - while your fleet might be safe from attack, it won't be safe from atrophy.
While I'm sure nobody will be excited to lose ships by default, it provides benefits to all levels of players:
- Less sophisticated players will have more appealing universe options, where they feel they won't immediately be dominated by a rank #1 with trillions of points.
- Dedicated players have even more reason to be active (and/or spend money), as by being more active they will be able to maintain a larger fleet than a less active player, who will be "capped" lower
- Turtles will naturally be whittled down and less effective, giving fleeters more targets
- More fleets of similar sizes will make alliance / ACS strategy significantly more important
I haven't thought these numbers through particularly well, but perhaps a starting point to work off of:
- 0 - 10kk points OR sum(ships + def) < 100k: 0% / day
- 10kk - 100kk points AND sum(ships + def) > 100k: 0.5% / day
- 100kk - 1kkk points AND sum(ships + def) > 100k: 1% / day
- 1kkk+ points AND sum(ships + def) > 100k: 1.5% / day
- 7+ day inactive: +1% / day to defense
Are you even playing ogame? What is this? 
