Posts by Tirnoch

  • Merges 2026 - discussion thread

    To answer your first question: no, I didn't look into a crystal ball. I’m looking at 20 years of playing OGame on and off, participating in multiple merges, and watching how high-speed servers behave over time.


    It’s not a presumption, it’s historical data and basic game theory. Here is the reality of how this merge will actually play out:


    1. Why the x5 Universe Will Have a Small Population

    Miners and peaceful players make up roughly 90% of the OGame player base. If Gameforge offers x10 Economy across the board, the x5 server (New B) isn't just competing against Universe 1—every other option is vastly more lucrative for that 90% majority.


    In fact, New C will likely be the most popular target overall. Why? Because it offers x4 Peaceful speed (meaning fast transports, fast deployments, and fast daily expedition runs) but only x2 War speed (making it incredibly safe from incoming attacks). When players can get the exact same x10 economy with high utility speed and low risk in New C, they will absolutely never choose the x5 war speed of New B. Because there are no trade-offs to incentivize them, New B will be left with only the dedicated fleeters.


    2. The Thuban "Real Estate" Issue

    I completely understand your frustration with finding Position 8 slots in Thuban right now. But you have to remember why Thuban is so uniquely cluttered: for a long time, it was the only x10 economy server available. That exclusivity made it wildly popular, drawing in a massive influx of players who all flocked there for the max economy.


    Combine that huge historical population with the fact that it's three years old and has already been a target for past merges, and you get a server choked with indefinitely v-moded, banned, and dead accounts taking up prime real estate. A brand-new target universe cleans a lot of this dead weight out (and spreads the farmable inactives across multiple targets). You won't be fighting years of legacy clutter for planet slots. Designing the size of an entire merged universe just because of Thuban's unique graveyard situation is terrible game design. You simply won't need 9 galaxies to find a Position 8 slot in a fresh target universe—especially one that only a small fraction of the merging population will even choose.


    3. Distance Doesn't Protect Anyone—Good Gameplay Does

    You argued that 9 galaxies are needed so high-ranked players don't constantly farm smaller players due to cheap deuterium costs. But "hiding" in deep space is not, and has never been, a viable strategy in OGame.


    High-ranked players generally don't fly out of their way to farm small players for pennies. If a smaller player is getting farmed repeatedly, it's not because they live too close to a top ranker; it's because they aren't fleetsaving correctly, are leaving resources sitting on planets, or don't have adequate defense to make the attack unprofitable.


    If you play correctly and fleetsave, you don't need to hide. If you don't empty your planets, distance won't save you—someone will eventually spend the deuterium to take your resources anyway. Expanding the universe to 9 galaxies to give "room to breathe" creates a false sense of security while actively punishing the remaining active fleeters by forcing them to navigate massive, empty dead zones.


    My goal isn't to "ruin" the game or make you quit; my goal is to advocate for a universe setup that doesn't completely die 6 months after the merge.

  • Merges 2026 - discussion thread

    Contents [Hide]

    Hi yohdh, thanks for continuing to iterate on this. Option E keeps the very important fleet speed spread intact (x1, x2, x3, x5), which is great.


    However, there is a massive glaring issue with this draft: 9 galaxies for almost every target universe is way too large, and it will completely kill the fleeter universes.


    Here is exactly what is going to happen with this setup, and why the galaxy counts need to be drastically reduced:

    • The Consequence of No Trade-Offs: Because players can get the exact same maximum reward (x10 Economy) in a low-risk universe (U1 or New C) as they can in a high-risk universe (New B), the vast majority of the community will flock to the safer options.
    • New B (x5 War) Will Have a Tiny Population: We absolutely still need New B to exist so x5 players have a proper home. But realistically, without trade-offs to incentivize miners to play there, it is going to have a very low population made up almost entirely of dedicated fleeters.
    • Dilution Ruins the Fleeter Experience: If you take a small, niche population of active fleeters and spread them across a massive 9-galaxy map, the universe will feel completely dead on arrival. Finding targets will be a nightmare, and the distance will kill the action. OGame thrives on player density. A fleeter universe with no density isn't a fleeter universe; it's a ghost town.

    The Fix

    To keep the game feeling alive post-merge, you need to force player density.

    • Slash the Galaxy Count for New B: The x5 universe should be 5 or 6 galaxies maximum (similar to what you correctly did for the ACS OFF New A). If the population is going to be small, force them to be close to each other.
    • Reduce the Others: Honestly, even New C and New D would benefit from being condensed to 7 galaxies. 9 galaxies spreads the modern OGame player base far too thin.

    Keeping the x5 option is crucial, but giving it 9 galaxies sets it up for failure. Shrink the map, increase the density, and let the fleeters actually reach each other.

  • Merges 2026 - discussion thread

    Hi yohdh, thanks for putting this together so quickly.


    Option C is a massive improvement. It fixes almost all the structural issues with the original poll. It provides a logical spread of war speeds (x1, x2, x3, and x5) so people can actually match a universe to their real-life schedules. Preserving Lacerta instead of wasting a target slot is exactly the right move.


    Also, the Debris Fields in Option C are much healthier. Having DFs at 70% or 80% is fundamentally unbalanced - it essentially means you absorb an enemy fleet almost completely. Capping them around 40-60% makes for a much more sustainable ecosystem.


    However, looking at the bigger picture, this whole situation highlights a fundamental flaw in how Gameforge handles server life cycles.


    If Gameforge wants to stop having these messy, controversial merge discussions every year, they need to start designing new servers with merges in mind. Right now, Gameforge releases universes with settings completely all over the place. When you launch servers with every conceivable, extreme combination of numbers, you are guaranteed to struggle when it's time to merge them 1 or 2 years later. Server settings need to be strictly streamlined into specific, balanced archetypes from day one, so that when a merge inevitably happens, the mapping is clean and expected.


    As a broader point on game design: while it is appreciated that Gameforge wants to "listen to the players" with these polls, relying on majority votes for server settings is a dangerous trap. As the old game dev saying goes, “given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” If you let players cherry-pick their settings via a majority vote, they will always vote for maximum reward (x10 eco) with minimum risk (low war speed, safe DFs). That is exactly how we end up with completely dead fleeter universes. Gameforge needs to step up and enforce actual game design - imposing real trade-offs and limits - rather than letting the community vote the game into a completely risk-free farming simulator.


    But for the immediate future, Option C is definitely the better path forward for this merge.

  • Merges 2026 - discussion thread

    Quote from threeflipskat3r

    I honestly didn't read all of it (Tirnoch), I stopped when you kept going on about how people should be forced to play in fleeter uni as that logic is very flawed, they will just quit instead (duh)

    It’s a fair concern that players might quit if they feel punished, but if you had read a bit further, you'd see the core point: nobody is forcing anyone into a fleeter universe.


    The argument is about introducing meaningful choices and trade-offs, which OGame currently lacks.


    If you want to play a safe, relaxed miner lifestyle, you absolutely still can! You simply pick the x1 War Speed universe. But in a balanced game design, the safest possible option shouldn't also hand you the absolute maximum x10 economy and massive expedition bonuses for free. That maximum reward should come with the risk of a higher fleet speed.


    Right now, the meta allows players to cherry-pick max rewards with zero risk. That’s exactly why fleeter universes are completely dead - the ecosystem is broken because there is no incentive to take risks.


    Giving players a choice between "great economy + ultimate safety" and "maximum economy + high risk" isn't forcing anyone to play in a fleeter uni. It’s just making sure choices actually matter.

  • Merges 2026 - discussion thread

    Contents [Hide]

    Hello everyone,


    While it's good that we are being asked for feedback, looking closely at the setup of this poll and the target universes reveals some deep structural flaws in how these merges are designed. We need to talk about why these options don't actually serve the diverse playstyles of our communities, and how they perpetuate the issue of dead universes.

    Here are a few core issues with the current proposal:


    1. The Illusion of a Poll

    Historically, OGame's player base has always been majority miners and peaceful players. When you present a poll with two options - where one heavily caters to miners/turtles (Option A: 30% DF, x2 War) and the other caters to fleeters (Option B: 50% DF, x4 War) - the miner option will inevitably win by sheer numbers. This isn't a true consensus; it's just the majority voting for self-preservation, which leaves the fleeter minority stranded.


    2. Fleet Speed is About Real Life, Not "Hardcore" vs "Casual"

    Option A winning means forcing players from x4 and x5 war-speed universes into an excruciatingly slow x2 speed. There is a misconception that slower speeds are inherently easier. In reality, players choose fleet speeds based on their real-life circumstances.

    • If you only have 2 solid hours to play in the evening, a high fleet speed allows you to actually find targets, launch, and recycle before logging off.
    • Conversely, x1 or x2 war speeds require you to be available throughout the day with a highly structured schedule to monitor long flights and returns.

      Instead of forcing x5 players into a x2 target, the merge targets should offer a logical spread: x1, x3, and x5 war speeds. Players from x4/x5 universes could migrate to the x5, while x2/x3 players could move to the x3.


    3. The "Cherry-Picking" Problem and Dead Universes

    OGame currently suffers from a massive lack of trade-offs. As it stands, players can cherry-pick the absolute safest, most lucrative settings for their playstyle without sacrificing anything.

    • A pure miner can pick x10 Economy, x1 War speed, and a low DF.
    • A Discoverer can pick x10 Economy, x6 Peaceful (for max daily expeditions), and x1 War speed.

    Because players naturally flock to the path of least resistance, fleeter universes are left completely dead because the majority of players simply choose not to play there. To create healthy, mixed-ecosystem universes, Gameforge needs to introduce real trade-offs. For example: Economy speed should be capped as a factor of War speed. If you want the massive profits of an x10 Economy, you should have to brave a higher war speed. This would naturally spread players out and breathe life back into the ecosystem.


    4. Wasting a Target on ACS OFF

    Finally, dedicating an entire target universe (New A) to the ACS OFF setting feels like a massive waste of limited merge space. ACS OFF is an incredibly niche playstyle. It is highly debatable whether it warrants sacrificing 25% of our target options. If preserving ACS OFF is strictly necessary, Gameforge should simply preserve the most active existing ACS OFF universe and use it as the target, rather than generating a brand-new one and limiting the options for everyone else.


    We need target universes that respect the time commitments players have already built their accounts around, not a one-size-fits-all compromise that downgrades half the servers involved.



    To address these issues, I propose the following two distinct merge plans:

    Plan 1: The "Healthy Ecosystem" Merge (With Trade-offs)

    This plan operates on a core philosophy: Safety costs production. If miners and explorers want the massive benefits of a high-speed economy or rapid peaceful fleets (for expeditions), they must accept the risk of a higher war speed and larger debris fields. This forces playstyles to mix, bringing "food" back into fleeter universes and preventing servers from dying out. All targets universes are available for all Exodus unis. You might want to add another target universe for the "newer" universes such as Grus, Hercules, Imai, Jishui, Keid, Lyra and Mars.


    Target Universe Eco War Speed Peaceful Speed DF % ACS Target Demographic
    Universe 1 x6 x1 x2 30% ON Low Risk, Low Reward. You get maximum safety (x1 war), but your economy and expedition frequency are strictly capped.
    New A x8 x3 x3 40% ON The Standard / Middle Ground. A step up in production and expedition speed, but players must manage a x3 war speed. A true "balanced" universe.
    New B x10 x5 x5 50% ON High Risk, Max Reward. For active fleeters and brave miners. You get the coveted x10 economy, but attacks land lightning-fast.
    [Existing ACS OFF] x8 x2 x4 40% OFF The Preserved Niche. Instead of wasting a new target, an existing ACS OFF server (like Lacerta) is used. Eco is capped at x8 to balance the inherent safety of solo-only combat.

    Plan 2: The "Gameforge Realistic" Merge (No Trade-offs, Better Speed Spread)

    Since Gameforge and the majority of the player base are heavily biased toward maximizing economy, this plan gives every target the coveted x10 Economy. However, it fixes the glaring issue in the current poll by offering a logical spread of x1, x3, and x5 War speeds. This allows players to choose a universe based on their real-life availability rather than being forced into an awkward x2 or x4 compromise. All targets universes are available for all Exodus unis. You might want to add another target universe for the "newer" universes such as Grus, Hercules, Imai, Jishui, Keid, Lyra and Mars.


    Target Universe Eco War Speed Peaceful Speed DF % ACS Target Demographic
    Universe 1 x10 x1 x2 30% ON The All-Day Planner. x1 war allows for long, safe fleetsaves, while x10 eco keeps progression fast.
    New A x10 x3 x3 40% ON The Working Professional. Bridges the gap for x2 and x4 Exodus players. x3 is fast enough to crash targets in a reasonable timeframe, but slow enough to fleetsave during a standard work shift.
    New B x10 x5 x5 50% ON The Evening Fleeter. For players from x5/x6 servers who only have a few dedicated hours to play at night. Fast war and peaceful speeds mean targets can be found, crashed, and recycled quickly.
    [Existing ACS OFF] x10 x2 x4 60% OFF The Solo Player. Upgrades an existing ACS OFF server to x10 eco to match the standard, keeping the DF at 60% so solo crashers still have viable profit margins.



    Key Improvements in Plan 2 over Gameforge's Poll:

    • Logical Fleet Speed Bins: Exodus players are no longer forced into a one-size-fits-all x2 or x4 war speed. They can round up or down to x1, x3, or x5 based on their daily routine.
    • No "Wasted" Slots: By utilizing an existing server for the ACS OFF niche, you free up the generated "New" universes to act as proper, distinct speed tiers for the wider player base.

  • Game Rules - Combat Calculation Question

    As has been pointed out, the combat tech difference is too high between attacker and defender. Meaning the defender would need to hit the same cruiser multiple times to destroy it. And with the large number discrepancy (50.000 vs 500) hitting the same Cruiser multiple times is just very unlikely. That result makes perfectly sense.


    Combat is actually probably the most logical thing in all of OGame.

  • Clarification needed

    I see where the confusion comes from. But in OGame, "units" does not and never meant "ships". Units means the total amount of resources that the fleet consists of. You can see this referenced in combat reports for example ("The attacker lost a total of x units").

  • Orbital Den

    I think you're confusing some things here.


    Orbital Den level 25 on one single planet gives you +100% on your protected amount. In your example that's +3,223,370 metal protected.

    Having Orbital Den level 25 on 15 planets gives you +1500% on your protected amount. In your example that's +48,350,550 metal protected, so 51,573,920 in total.

  • Orbital Den

    Quote from zajeb

    Have to ask xD. You are 100% sure on this? Tested yourself?

    Yes I am sure.


    Quote from zajeb

    So when you get to 130% which is relatively cheap you would basically be keeping safe 74,137,519 metal regardless that you produces those resources thru other buffs? Now im curious how high can you pump it before it becomes more expensive then worthi it. It feels like you wouldn't even have to FS at some point no? :fatgreengrin: Doesn't seem that well thought, especially considering it protects resources even if you are bandit/hp :unsure:

    That's not how it works. The base protected amount in your example is 3,223,370. +100% is 6,446,740 protected in total. So with Orbital Den providing a bonus of +130%, the total protected amount is 7,413,751 and not 74,137,519.

  • Orbital Den

    Quote from zajeb

    I believe you. I dont wanna waste time testing. But wait, did they also rework how it works? Becuase it worked only on flat production and not on any type of buffs (lf/plasma/admirals)

    The den doesn't care if the resources on your planet is from flat production or boosts like lf/plasma/officers. What you mean is that the calculation of the amount protected takes your flat mine production as base.


    So if like in your above example your Metal mine produces 32,233,704 metal per day then the base den protection is 3,223,370 metal. And the orbital den then increases this value, but the amount protected can exceed 32,233,704.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    Quote from Apostle
    Quote from Tirnoch
    Quote from Apostle

    I actually laughed hard on this, you made a good point! They (=who are they?) rather kill the spirit of the game over a feature that they (= who are they?) added to make money when that feature is the source of the problem.

    Once you figured out the answers to the questions I added into the quote above, you'll realize what the fundamental flaw in your logic is.

    Sorry I didn't know you don't know who: GameForge

    Do you think this problem would exist if they didn't add this feature? If they simply factor in as WHAT IF a few players happens to have a lot of money to blows it into the game, would it break? If yes then maybe they shouldn't add that "feature". Gameforge created a runaway train, and as a result non-paying players suffers by nerfing the parts of the game that doesn't involve paying while the paying players just get stronger. It should be the other way around, add something to the non-paying players something to make the problem.

    For the people who had the money, why they wouldn't exploit this method that Gameforge created?

    No worries — I do know who GameForge is 🙂 But the point of my questions was to highlight that the "they" you're referring to actually points to two completely separate groups.


    One “they” is the Game Team (volunteers) and the Community Manager, who worked on this rule change and enforced fixed trade rates.

    The other “they” is the Gameforge monetization/product team — the people who introduced features like metal packs, which you correctly identified as a major contributor to trade abuse.


    The two groups don’t overlap, and the people trying to close these loopholes with rules (the Game Team) aren’t the same people who added the monetization mechanics that enabled the abuse in the first place.


    So blaming “GameForge” as a single unified entity — for both creating the problem and then “killing the spirit of the game” with the fix — misses how the internal structure actually works. It also explains why some things (like rules) can be changed, while others (like monetization models) can’t, at least not from within the Game Team.


    And here’s the key:

    Metal packs didn’t create the problem — they just made it easier, faster, and more scalable.


    Trade abuse has existed long before metal packs.

    People used to buy accounts, scrap the fleet, and then trade the resulting resources to their main accounts using manipulated rates. Others funneled daily production from a network of alt accounts into their mains the same way — exploiting the gap between 2:1:1 and 3:2:1 just like they do today.


    The method hasn’t changed. Only the source of the resources has.

    Metal packs simply turbocharged the scale and frequency of abuse.


    That’s why the rule change targets the mechanism of trade manipulation itself — because that’s the part the Game Team actually has control over. They can’t touch monetization or premium features, but they can close the loopholes that let those systems be abused.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    Quote from Apostle

    I actually laughed hard on this, you made a good point! They (=who are they?) rather kill the spirit of the game over a feature that they (= who are they?) added to make money when that feature is the source of the problem.

    Once you figured out the answers to the questions I added into the quote above, you'll realize what the fundamental flaw in your logic is.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    Quote from Firestorm

    I think respectfully Tirnoch that this misses the point of most fleeter miner interaction. Of course players can get a better rate from the merchant, the selling player’s (usually the miner) main incentive to sell at a lower rate is protection from the buying fleeter, and the buying fleeter is incentivised by the lower rate than they can obtain from the merchant offer. If the buying fleeter no longer receives a preferential rate then there is no incentive to buy and no reason to reduce their targets. Nobody on any server I have ever played on trades at 3/2/1.


    My point is that this change removes the vast majority of the incentives for trading, and in doing so more or less bans trading. As you say, doing so may be a good thing to prevent abuse, but I think that the community and the top powers need to be clear eyed on the effect of this change and the impact it will have on player interaction

    I understand where you're coming from, and you're absolutely right that trade has historically served as a form of diplomacy — miners offering lower rates to avoid becoming targets, and fleeters providing “protection” in return. But we have to be honest: that model barely exists anymore, outside of a small circle of long-time, loyal trading relationships.


    In practice, most miners today don’t actively seek out deut buyers. As a fleeter, you usually have to chase them down, build up trust over weeks, and even then you’ll often only get the bare minimum — just enough so you don’t remove them from your contact list. The idea that miners routinely trade at a disadvantage for diplomatic reasons simply doesn’t reflect how the broader player base operates today.


    In fact, if anything, fixing the trade rate removes the incentive for fleeters to bash miners just to pressure them into selling deut — which was often the real reason miners needed “protection” in the first place. And let’s be honest: miners who fleetsave properly don’t need protection at all. This whole “miners offer deut, fleeters offer protection” dynamic is more nostalgia than reality.


    The same mechanics that once enabled miner–fleeter cooperation have, in recent years, been exploited at scale — not for diplomacy, but for coordinated pulling and pushing via group accounts, metal packs, and carefully manipulated trade ratios. This kind of abuse is extremely difficult to prove after the fact because it all looks like “just trade between consenting players.”


    And that’s exactly the issue: when both sides willingly engage in lopsided trades to create massive resource imbalances — often tied to real-world payments or tightly coordinated group advantages — it breaks the competitive integrity of the game.


    Yes, this change will affect some of the old dynamics between fleeters and miners. But those dynamics have already been reshaped by Lifeforms, General class, accelerated eco speeds, and premium mechanics. The game has moved on — and this rule change is part of acknowledging that reality.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    Quote from Firestorm

    Perhaps the range needs to be narrower, but I think you must have a range. If players are forced to trade at the highest level offered by the merchant then there is no reason to trade, unless perhaps you play a 0 DM game. This rule change essentially bans trades between players by proxy.

    I do really appreciate where you are coming from Tirnoch with the point about abuse, but making significant changes to many legitimate players’ gameplay to tackle a minority of aggressive abusers seems to be the wrong answer to me. I think there will be a range available which will allow players to still play their game but which will stymie the abuse you are targeting by making trades between players broadly even to that of the merchant. 3:2:1 is not the answer.

    I get where you're coming from, and I agree that for many players, fair and flexible trading has always been part of the game. But here's the thing: the whole appeal of fixed trade rates like 3:2:1 is that it removes ambiguity, which in turn:

    • Kills off trade-based pushing/pulling abuse,

    • Simplifies the job for an already overstretched Game Team, and

    • Levels the playing field for everyone.

    Even if the number of players abusing the system is relatively small, the impact they have is massive, because they're typically involved in top-tier account coordination, DM-fueled growth, or outright resource laundering. And they do it under the radar, because the range gave them cover. That’s what made enforcement so difficult.


    A "narrower range" may seem like a compromise, but it doesn’t solve the core problem — it just keeps enforcement complicated and subjective. That defeats the point of the change.


    And as for the concern that players won’t trade anymore because they could just use the merchant: 3:2:1 is already the best rate the merchant gives. If someone wants to save DM, they'll still trade. If someone doesn't care about DM, they’ll keep using the merchant like they already do.


    So in practice, the net impact is minimal for fair players — but a major win against abuse and for the Game Team's ability to enforce rules consistently.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    Quote from Song

    But you forget that both parties have agreed on those trades, either party can ask for maximum or deny it.Nobody is forcing anyone to trade on 2:1:1 ,if its damaging for one side that side agrees,if one side trades for maximum 3:2:1 thats the problem or not for the both trading parties involved in the trade. Simply neither one side is forcing anyone to trade on different ratios,its matter if choice or what they agree.Its what trading world is all about.

    You're absolutely right that normally, in a fair trade, both parties agree on the terms and no one is forced into anything. But that's not what this rule change is about.


    The issue isn't about regular, organic trading between players. It's about intentional loophole abuse, where both parties willingly cooperate to funnel resources in one direction — usually from a high economy/miner account to a main account — under the guise of "legal" trade.


    In many of these cases, there's real money involved. One player buys metal packs or otherwise accumulates resources and sells them off at skewed rates like 2:1:1 to another player, who then uses the merchant at 3:2:1. That margin is how the system is gamed. And because both parties are complicit, the Game Team has almost no way to prove it's pushing or pulling.


    So yes, consent exists — but it’s coordinated abuse, not normal player interaction. That’s why locking trade rates at 3:2:1 is necessary. It removes the ambiguity and closes a loophole that has undermined fair play for years.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    Quote from Song

    What kinda mind thought that killing trade between the players is good idea? Wasn't the best idea to put trade ratio on average ratio 2.5 1.5 1 that for years was the best and most fair, not to mention that most fleeters used those rates to trade,you are practically killing it basics of fleeters growth..or starting with every uni everyone should become first miners or just the most ideal way for GF buy themselves mines or possibly deut packs to actually fleet?Not to mention that in uni1 where deut is costly and df is low so you are practically already doomed..I m sincerely lost for words on what this community is becoming,how we have only those rules, merges without any care for players base..

    Fleeters using 2.5:1.5:1 in the past did so in lower eco, 30% DF universes, without General class, and without Lifeforms. The General class brought Attacker-Wreckfield and deut reduction. Lifeforms later added even more deut savings. And today, 8x economy is the standard. So we now have more deut, more savings, and more fleet recovery than ever before. Fleeters managed with less. They can absolutely manage with 3:2:1 trades now.


    Quote from Y0m1

    I think this will just kill trading between players. Why would you set up trades and have to find sellers when you can just merch it?

    Because merchant costs DM. Trading with players at 3:2:1 doesn't. It saves you DM and allows interaction with other players. The new rule doesn’t remove trading — it just removes the ability to abuse trade ratios for disguised resource transfers.


    Quote from Y0m1

    The true reason for its introduction is to reduce pulling (as tirnoch is describing), which only benefits GF and not the players anyway.

    The introduction to the original pulling rule was the same; the decision only considering GF's pockets.

    This is incorrect. Pulling (just like pushing) gives one player a huge advantage at the expense of others. That’s not about GF’s pockets — it’s about fairness. If someone uses their alt or a paid pack buyer to funnel resources through “legal” trades, that affects all other players in that universe. Preventing it helps keep a level playing field.


    Quote from Firestorm

    I can see the very sensible arguments for fixing the ratio between players but it does kill an element of the game that has been established along time, particularly if fixed at 3/2/1 (i.e., the best rate you get at the merchant). I would also like to see a range applied rather than a fixed rate - as others have suggested between 2.5/1.5/1 and 3/2/1 would be a fair base. This change as currently implemented will make it very hard for small to medium fleeters to play the game and fuel their ships. There should also be an incentive for interacting with other players to trade rather than just using the merchant imo, which a range would allow for.

    The issue is — we already had a range. Trades between 2:1:1 and 3:2:1 were technically allowed, and that range is exactly what enabled the abuse. Players used 2:1:1 rates to funnel resources under the guise of legal trading, making it nearly impossible to prove pushing or pulling.


    So proposing a new range doesn't actually fix anything — it just recreates the same loophole, only maybe slightly smaller. If you allow a range, you might as well not change the rule at all. That’s why the decision was made to lock it down: a fixed ratio removes ambiguity and makes enforcement possible.


    Also, again: players were fine running fleets on 2.5:1.5:1 long before we had:

    • General class (with Attacker-Wreckfield and deut reduction),
    • Lifeform techs (with even more deut reduction),
    • 8x eco (the norm today).

    There is simply more deut in circulation than ever before. 3:2:1 is not a burden — it’s just a step toward preventing abuse and making things fairer for everyone.

  • Feedback on the Updated Rule Clarifications

    First of all, thank you to the team for taking the time to revisit and update the rule clarifications. Clear and consistent rules are important for everyone’s experience, and it’s great to see that some outdated parts are finally being addressed. That said, after reviewing the changes, I’d like to offer some constructive feedback on a few points—some of them are purely about clarity, others touch on deeper game mechanics that I believe deserve more attention.


    Note: The main rules thread (link) still contains the old clarifications, some of which directly contradict the newly published ones. It would really help to update or remove the outdated info to avoid confusion.



    Lobby Credentials

    The new clarification under "1. Accounts" rightly emphasizes the importance of account security, stating:

    Quote

    Remember to NEVER: Share your login data with anyone

    However, it would be helpful if this also explicitly stated that sharing your lobby credentials with another person is not only discouraged but also forbidden under the rules and ToS. This kind of clarity would especially help newer players, who may not realize that even with trust, account sharing is a violation.



    Same Household Clarification

    This change is a positive one. Allowing players in the same household to play together (under the right conditions) is a step in the right direction. Restricting their trades to 3:2:1 is a sensible measure to prevent abuse, namely, the old "my wife/son/dog is playing this account" scenario.


    That said, one part of the clarification reads:

    "It is not allowed to log into each other’s accounts, on purpose or accidentally."

    The phrasing here is odd. An accident is, by definition, not intentional. Penalizing players for something done by accident, without malicious intent, seems harsh and confusing. If the intent is to discourage carelessness, maybe rephrase it to something like “It is the responsibility of each player to prevent accidental logins into other accounts.”



    Account Sitting

    The updated clarification outlines some of what a sitter can and cannot do, but it still leaves too many gray areas. There are many actions—like sending expeditions—that fall into neither the "allowed" nor "forbidden" lists.


    Rather than trying to list everything a sitter may or may not do, I think it would be clearer and more future-proof to simply define what they are allowed to do. Anything outside that scope would be automatically not permitted.



    Pushing/Pulling – The Core Problem

    This is where the current clarification still falls short.

    • First, I don’t think there’s a strong reason anymore to distinguish between pushing (lower to higher ranked) and pulling (higher to lower ranked). They are essentially two sides of the same coin and could be covered under a unified rule about resource transfer limits.

    • Second, I think the decision to still allow trades anywhere between 3:2:1 and 2:1:1 is outdated. We all have access to free merchants via expeditions, and getting 3:2:1 rates is no longer a limitation. The amount of resources floating around in the game is enormous, and 3:2:1 trades would not hurt anyone. Any fleeter claiming otherwise is—let’s be honest—just making excuses.


    The clarification also says:

    Quote

    It is forbidden to manipulate legal trade rates to give an unfair advantage to a higher-ranked player. Examples (not limited to):

    • Buying resources at high prices and selling them back at lower ones.
    • Selling a scrapped fleet or defense at unfavorable trade ratios.

    This feels outdated. The focus on scrap pushing shows that the team still views pushing in terms of practices that peaked years ago. Scrap pushing has largely disappeared—not because the rules are effective, but because metal pack pushing is easier and more effective. The abuse has evolved, and the rules need to reflect that.


    What we regularly see now is a pattern of players passing large volumes of resources through 2:1:1 trades that are later flipped via merchant at 3:2:1, which effectively nullifies the pushing/pulling restrictions. This happens especially when high-economy accounts acquire large amounts of metal and funnel it toward other players under the guise of legal trade.


    This happens all the time. The clarification technically says it’s forbidden to “manipulate legal trade rates,” but we all know that it’s practically unenforceable because the support tools can’t track or prove the abuse reliably.


    And here’s the solution that would fix 90% of the headache:

    Fix trade ratios to 3:2:1.


    It’s simple. It’s enforceable. It prevents most abuse. And it removes the gray zone that causes endless disputes and support tickets. I genuinely don’t understand why this hasn’t been implemented yet—it’s one of the most obvious ways to promote fair play.


    In fact, you’ve already applied 3:2:1 enforcement to same-household trades—which shows that you’re aware of how powerful (and abusable) unrestricted rates are. Why not extend that to all trades? It would:

    • Make the rules easier to enforce

    • Remove most of the ambiguity

    • Eliminate a major vector for abuse

    • Improve fairness across the board



    Again, I appreciate the effort the team put into updating the clarifications. But the game has changed, and the way rules are enforced needs to evolve with it. A bit more clarity, consistency, and alignment with how the game is actually played today would go a long way toward making things fairer and more transparent.