Posts by Nixian

Quote from Prongs

Quote from Cauchy

Please give us DM.. I made a new account and a top account gave me 60G of ressources but I am out of DM, everything takes forever but I cannot stay out of vmode to test things as someone will take those ressources from me while im building...

No DM is probably one of the main reasons no one is testing anymore, especially on the smaller scale

Its was requested by some players and was forward.

Not sure yet when it will happen but we will let you know in advance.

Out of curiosity, the low activity with this thread discussion is mainly because of lack of ways to test the Lifeforms extension after the last balance patch?

Cheers,

Display More

pushing a mobile app spreads the people willing to test thin as well

Quote from ajanga

Quote from Crvt

Quote

performance of server is still too low for me. Clicking lifeform tech tab takes 40-50 seconds, improving a tech or a building takes 20-30 seconds.

If that's the case even after reducing the levels...well, that's how it'd become on LIVE, too.

I am planning opening a thread after checking the game in a few days. I am in VM now.

Server performance issue was there while they were still reducing my levels while I was checking my account. I watched everything getting deleted

Now, it seems even lifeform techs were reduced.

I opened a new account and everything seems to be working in miliseconds.

We will see how my old modest big account behaves but I can say (while being in VM) that clicking something takes 10-20 seconds, clicking lifeform development tab takes 20-30 seconds.

After getting out of VM, I will check everything and update here

Display More

good reason not to get too attached to an account in the test server - might hurt to watch the deletion happen

Quote from ajanga

Quote from vovo

Quote from ajanga

An old player with 50 to 100 trillion mines to improve lifeforms can improve LF, HF, Cruiser, B.Cruiser, Battleship and Destroyer by around 15 % of the original strength.

Let's say attack strength of Destroyer is 2000. We have 25 weapons tech, and we get 50% enchancement from lifeform techs (200x25)+2000+(2000x50%)=8000

You can get way bigger numbers for other ships.

"General Overhaul (Cruiser)" level 21 costs only 51M/37M/17M, and my total is only 203. (also 59 levels total of "cruiser mkII")

left is without buildings improving technology bonus (letf: on moon, right: on planet)

Display More

This is why I mentioned level incremental issue before. Lifeform techs on different planets works together and this creates issues. 21 levels x 14 planets + bonus providing buildings + lifeform level gets you to over 200 %, 500 %, 900 % maybe even 10.000 %

Serious thinking and cut off on some numbers are needed.

Banning players without notice and giving excuse is somewhat not acceptible.

Yes we broke the server, but first you need to employ better programmers, better developers I think.

At least hire a mathematician before writing codes

Edit: Fuel usage just got my attention. "1" which means no fuel needed.

Maybe I had 1 fuel usage on my banned account but I havent checked fleet details in the last week while I was checking other bugs. I had over 3000 techs + 99 bonus buildings before getting banned.

Display More

Dude take a chill pill, your testing was paused so others can test without disruption. Once you no longer prevent others from testing by having a broken account, you will be allowed to test again.

Never said you shouldn't test the big account bugs obviously you should

But don't be surprised when you reach a "we broke it" number and devs going "okay, we now know this is the limit, let's just stop these guys from breaking the server until we have time to fix these big number bugs"

That is literally what the news post and ban was about. I hope that's not too hard to understand.

My interpretation of the ban of accounts news in bermuda was that accounts were being modified in size to ensure they didn't mess up the server

So once they have taking your 700.000.000 Deathstars + 500 million other ships and reduced them to 200.000.000 rips and 100 million other ships, you will get unbanned (random numbers chosen)

This shouldn't make you too mad, this is a test server, so they could tomorrow decide to wipe it all if they wanted to

never get attached to stuff in a test environment, it can be deleted tomorrow

Welcome Prongs , it can only get better from here so good luck with that

Looking for a miner account around 45-50m points

Universe or graveyard doesn't matter as long as it's not a volans account.

Got some graveyard (non-volans) accounts i can offer in return, hit me up if you have a miner account you're willing to part with

Quote from johocknut

Quote from Nixian

Quote from kewlness

Quote from Nixian

Quote from Sage

I have to disagree, i would rather have 2-3 unis merge with similar points rather than a rank 1 with 40 million points merging into a uni where rank 1 has 3billion.that just causes people in the smaller unis who have put time and DM into their accounts to just quit

merges should imho consider 2 things:
1. point spread (ie how far will merging players be from each other)

2. keeping the remaining target pool multipliers diverse (i.e. keep the 1x 1x speeds or the probe storage on uni)

if you fail on either of these, the merge is a failure

Then any merge is a failure.

Reason: It is impossible to keep the point spread close.

Why?

The point spreads are not even close in the universes so how are you going to keep them close in a merge?

Say the top 10 have to merge to one target and the rest have to go to another target?

This type of merge is just not possible with the given the merge system.

Display More

did I ever say we have had a succesful merge?

my point exactly is that the current merge system is extremely flawed because it can't live up to those 2 simple rules

Display More

ok, fair enough. But how do we even merge anything while keeping those two points in mind? You’d end up having only two or three or four unis merging total. “Fair” is a very difficult thing to quantify.

Display More

I don't expect gameforge to even consider making the mergers more fair, so it's a moot point to discuss it, I simply wanted to point out what a successful merger would look like so everyone can prepare to be disappointed. We have seen it 5-6 times already, and I expect to see the same this time.

Gameforge will do a merger, not consider anything but purely try to bundle things together, and then if we are lucky they were lucky to not completely butcher all the unis.

Even if players could pick the merge targets 50% or more of the players would be pissed because we can't even agree what is fair.

Quote from kewlness

Quote from Nixian

Quote from Sage

Quote from GaIactus

Quote from kewlness

Well, you are able to discuss it here.

What exactly is your dream merge?

For a merge like they did in .de i mean just one big group, a lot of exodus universe and few targets (maybe one for each fleetspeed?)

Quote from Sage

The .de merges are only good for higher ranked accounts in my opinion. Since an 8 month old uni with x1 ,x1 speed is being forced to merge into unis with billions of points where as the .it merges are more balanced

It's exactly the opposite lol

first of all, have a look on the rank 1 accounts of all ogame.org: most of them are above or close 3b of points, all of them are already huge.

On top of that, with more groups you will have much less choice and most probably if you won't lose the universe caratheristics that you like you'll be forced to go in a universe where you wouldn't go

Display More

I have to disagree, i would rather have 2-3 unis merge with similar points rather than a rank 1 with 40 million points merging into a uni where rank 1 has 3billion.that just causes people in the smaller unis who have put time and DM into their accounts to just quit

Display More

merges should imho consider 2 things:
1. point spread (ie how far will merging players be from each other)

2. keeping the remaining target pool multipliers diverse (i.e. keep the 1x 1x speeds or the probe storage on uni)

if you fail on either of these, the merge is a failure

Display More

Then any merge is a failure.

Reason: It is impossible to keep the point spread close.

Why?

The point spreads are not even close in the universes so how are you going to keep them close in a merge?

Say the top 10 have to merge to one target and the rest have to go to another target?

This type of merge is just not possible with the given the merge system.

Display More

did I ever say we have had a succesful merge?

my point exactly is that the current merge system is extremely flawed because it can't live up to those 2 simple rules

Quote from Sage

Quote from GaIactus

Quote from kewlness

Well, you are able to discuss it here.

What exactly is your dream merge?

For a merge like they did in .de i mean just one big group, a lot of exodus universe and few targets (maybe one for each fleetspeed?)

Quote from Sage

The .de merges are only good for higher ranked accounts in my opinion. Since an 8 month old uni with x1 ,x1 speed is being forced to merge into unis with billions of points where as the .it merges are more balanced

It's exactly the opposite lol

first of all, have a look on the rank 1 accounts of all ogame.org: most of them are above or close 3b of points, all of them are already huge.

On top of that, with more groups you will have much less choice and most probably if you won't lose the universe caratheristics that you like you'll be forced to go in a universe where you wouldn't go

Display More

I have to disagree, i would rather have 2-3 unis merge with similar points rather than a rank 1 with 40 million points merging into a uni where rank 1 has 3billion.that just causes people in the smaller unis who have put time and DM into their accounts to just quit

Display More

merges should imho consider 2 things:
1. point spread (ie how far will merging players be from each other)

2. keeping the remaining target pool multipliers diverse (i.e. keep the 1x 1x speeds or the probe storage on uni)

if you fail on either of these, the merge is a failure

Quote from Valeyard

Quote from kewlness

Quote from Cathedral

piink

In .de they put out a message about mergers that included this:

"The following universes will NOT be touched during the fusion round due to age and user feedback:"

How is GF collecting "user feedback" before mergers are announced here in .org so we can have a say? Because I really don't want to lose Dorado as it's the only true 1x legacy setting uni left on this server...

Display More

Your feedback has been noted and forwarded.

Display More

Can I add my feedback as well? There should always be at least 1 original setting uni on each major servers. .DE has 3, although one is closing. .EN has one. So Dorado should stay with legacy settings. Or at least if it is chosen as an exodus uni, a target uni with same settings should be available.

Display More

This! kewlness please remember to bring this feedback to gameforge

Quote from -Arcane-

It's very easy to find all the features of said applications.

I would err on the side that the majority of bots spend less, but the ones who spend...spend alot.

I would actively welcome a closed working group between selected players and gameforge (I would also happily sign another NDA as per the mod agreement) to work with gameforge on detection and associated actions. I think aswell the curation of this working group would need careful consideration so that it doesn't include bot users, who I'm sure we all know who they are.

I think aswell the another point gameforge should take away is a big majority of players would likely support less game development IF Gameforge devoted some time to updating the comatools platform.

Display More

The problem isn't detecting bots as a player or GO, but rather the verification on the GO side.

Due to (probably) legal reasons they need to be air tight in their evidence of botting, making it near impossible for GOs to "identify" bots.

This however won't change in any meaningful way, unless gameforge ease the verification process and makes it easier for GOs to push the bot ban button. You don't really need a taskforce for this, just a change in policy from gameforges side.

Quote from Alex!s

Only if you attack them several times until he run out of deut...

That's the only way i had catch one.

This, which can take ages and cost you more than you gain

The other option is attacking when it has too many resources and just enjoy the leftover resources it couldn't fleetsave

You are allowed to have multiple accounts, and the top players are all Chinese so they don't use the forum

Quote from LonestarX

So I've been looking at my data (thanks Nixian) and something's fishy about depletion. perhaps not enough sample size but still. My findings were this:
- 26 out of 40 dep1 expos had res, fleet DM or merchant, aka SOMEthing good not bad. that is 65%

- 122 dep0 out of 205 has something res, fleet, dm or merch.. that is 59%

- 2.5% of depletion 1 results had delay

- 6.8% of depletion 0 results had delay

Literally impossible to say anything with such low sample size

Nah servers usually launch around 14:00 German time

Quote from kewlness

Quote from pirate andy

Quote from kewlness

Quote from pirate andy

Quote from sernk

this is not a new rule it was already active in first years of ogame. However I think it was up to last 3 or 5 seconds of attacks. But in that time you could do FS in 5 seconds without a problem. And sending probes in last seconds to attacker is nothing more than bug using with creating additional lag. if a good ninja is setup spying 5 seconds prior to attack will not help especially today with this lag.

Strange that I was reporting a player for this exact bug-using 2 or 3 years ago and GA said that there is nothing wrong if you send 2 different attacks within 1 second (he was defending his moondestruction RIPs with 30k destroyers which definitely shouldn't be allowed so smaller players can at least defend themself) . However...GF...you are so slow that players will leave...and when all players leaves then you make a rule and all cheaters will leave to

This post essentially has no concept of what fleeting is or how it’s done. And that’s the problem, the rules are made by people who don’t understand that side of the game… same as a good chunk of the community

Actually, it is made by people who both understand and play the game but also understand the difficult circumstances in which they as well as the community are placed.

There are those who have already figured out how to lock down fleets so they are guaranteed a fleet crash.

Part of that is because of the current state of the game and implemented strategies which may or may not work as intended.

Another part is those who will use any advantage they can to get ahead.

Something needed to be done and this band-aid was chosen as it is easy to implement.

Code changes are not.

So, as I have said, this is a reflection of the current state of the game and its code.

I do hope it is temporary and fixes are pushed out soon so this can go back to the clarification of old.

However, until that happens, this is the clarification to which everybody will need to adhere.

I know a lot of people do not like it and I get it.

I really do.

Just understand there are real reasons behind this change and one of the real reasons why I am pushing to get this fixed.

Display More

I have to disagree and re-emphasise my previous point. Who leaves there fleet there until the last 20 seconds other than idiots or bots? The scenarios that this is essentially trying to stop are meaningless and fleetingly rare.

if a fleet is locked on return, it’s not going to matter if you probe at 20 or 6.

it’s especially infuriating when real bug-use, I.e. payment bans are essentially semi-legal as your token month ban can save years worth of work. And instead of sorting out that crock of s*** they decide to penalise active fleeters because of their own coding incompetence. Or should I say, poor outsourcing choices and lack of care in previous coding.

Display More

Your reiteration has come through loud and clear.

What you are missing is it is possible to lock any fleet down so it cannot escape.

It does not matter if the fleet is in flight or if it is just sitting.

This affects EVERY fleet and can be done to ANY fleet.

Even yours.

People have already been using this and locking down fleets for several minutes.

This is the issue which is being addressed - and it is a real problem.

I am not saying the complaints are not legitimate.

I am not saying the issues are not self-inflicted.

I am not saying this is the best possible band-aid which could ever be used.

I just want you and others to realize it is meant to not make your lives more difficult but is meant to also protect your fleets as well.

I assure you, if an honest player's fleet gets locked down and that player cannot do anything about it because of this, they will rightfully put in a ticket.

Any one of you could be a victim of this issue and this rule change is an attempt to protect your accounts too.

You guys see the effects of the rule change, but you do not see the reason or the reality which caused it to be put into effect.

Honestly, I hope none of you experience why this had to be done.

Display More

Once again, what are non ACS uni players supposed to do?

Quote from kewlness

If you are safety probing, slow your fleet.

This should steer you clear of getting ninja'd and a bug using violation.

As for why this was decided the way it was is due to a couple of cases where fleets were locked.

When I timed it, it took about 3-4 seconds to do a combat calculation which completely locks the fleet.

Add in the fact it takes an average of 8 seconds to send a fleet (more if lag is involved) and you are already at 12 seconds to send a fleet after being probed.

To be honest, I hope this is a band-aid (as bad a band-aid as it is, mind you) and the issues are fixed soon.

The clarification is a reflection of the current state of the game.

Display More

What about those in non ACS unis? I usually probe 10-15s before hit

Quote from kewlness

Quote from Nixian

who do you contact if the + field size is wrong in a non-english community? (specifically the Romanian .ro community)

I would point it out to somebody on the game/board team.

I am sure somebody can fix it.

Well if anyone sees this, the new .ro is missing the +30 modifier

who do you contact if the + field size is wrong in a non-english community? (specifically the Romanian .ro community)