Posts by Sazr

I would rather keep the proposal as it is.

I agree with the comments, that the crystal bonuses on slot 1-3 aren't high enough. However, if the proposal is going to also include increased crystal bonuses on slot 1-3. I expect it will be less likely to be accepted by GameForge, as it goes from expanding existing balance to more slots, to also include re-balancing of the crystal bonuses. I would rather make a new thread to handle the crystal bonus issue.

At this point, it should be obvious to everyone that the system slots are not balanced. If you go through a couple of galaxies in any universe, it's very noticeable that almost everyone is going for slot 8. It's come to a point where it's difficult to find available slot 8 spots. I went through all of Thuban and was able to find no available slot 8 spots, but 23 destroyed planets. I went through galaxy 4 and 5 in Lacerta and was able to find no available slot 8 spots, but 3 destroyed planets. I don't believe it's as much of a problem in 9 galaxy universes (Uni 1 and Vega) yet, as they have 4.491 slot 8 planets as opposed to Thuban's 2.994 and Lacerta's 2.495. Give it a merge and an astro items or two, and 9 galaxy universes would be all out of slot 8 spots as well.

The game has sped up a lot in the passed few years with discoverer expeditions, lifeforms, metal packages and now astro items. This means people on average have more planets, and they all want all their planets in the best slot. When the inner-outer system was removed and slot 15 became the meta, this wasn't a problem. Not everyone paid to have their planets relocated, so there were available slot 15 planets. At the same time, a lot paid to relocate their slot 8 planets to slot 15, meaning there were also available slot 8 planets. This changed when Ogame added the metal bonuses. This made slot 8 not only provide the largest planets, but also the highest MSU production. Meaning both f2p- and p2w-players want to permanently be in slot 8, and not just create a planet in slot 8.

This has left the game in a state, where the people who has been on the server the longest, has taken all the best slotss. New players joining or merging into servers will have to make do with whatever they can find, if they can find anything at all. I would like to see GameForge rebalance the system slots to make most, if not all of the slots viable. I think solving this issue will require more time for balancing than GameForge is willing to give it at the moment. Therefore I think a short term solution to make more system slots viable while we wait, would be nice.

Adding galaxies would screw over fleeters, as they would have to relocate, and there would be further distances to fly as a result of it. Making only slot 8 worse, would screw over people who paid to have their planets relocated, in order to get the slot 8 bonus. Therefore I don't like either of these solutions.

Below is a simplified table of how colonization currently works.

Proposed changes:

Giving 35% bonus to slot 7 and 9 would triple the amount of viable system slots. Slot 7 would provide a bit less deuterium, and slot 9 would provide a bit more. In the grand scheme of things neither is significant. Slot 7 and 9 are also the second and third largest planets, therefore you won't lose many fields by colonizing those as opposed to slot 8. This way, nobody loses anything, some win, 3 times the amount of systems slots become viable, and it's super fast and easy for GameForge to implement.

You can say "Fuck you, I got mine. Lets conserve what we have". The way things are going, eventually you'll be in a situation to colonize a none ideal planet yourself. You can be against it, because a full system slot rebalance would be better. I agree, a full system rebalance would probably be better, but are we going to get it? And how long would it be before we get it. I would argue that it's better to have 3 times as many viable slots while we wait, as opposed to what we currently have.

TL;DR: Give 35% metal bonus to slot 7 and 9. Give 23% metal bonus to slot 5, 6, 10 and 11. Give 17% metal bonus to slot 4 and 12. This would make slot 7, 8 and 9 viable, thus tripling the amount of viable system slots in any universe.

If they give away an astro token with 1, 2 or even 4 weeks expiration date. Then most people won't be able to "naturally" obtain enough resources to get the even astro level done, and they'll miss out on an extra planet from the odd astro level. This will create a lot of FOMO and result in a lot of opened boxes. GameForge will be seen as generous for giving away such a good item.

I think this whole item expiration date thing was intended for this exact scenario. I think GameForge likes money, so my guess is we will see a short expiration date astro item.

Assuming all 47 would have voted the same way. Nothing would happen to x1 vs x2 or deuterium into debris. It could however have made a difference in the consumption vote. If all 47 voted against it and we remove them, 70% --> 50% consumption would have passed with 71,125% votes.

Quote from Neotinea

-Deut in DF ON/OFF

-Peaceful X8/X4

-Galaxies 7/5

Yes.

More discussion is only going to lead to more complaining about special x10 eco restraints against .org.

This seems like a reasonable suggestion.

Quote from SomeRandomGuy

Vote1: war x1/x2

Vote2: Deut in df yes(along with 60%) /no

Vote 3: consumption 0.7/0.5

I would add x10 eco, but I guess that's not allowed for .org.

I would assume so. Discoverer/general get 0.02% for every crawler, while collector can boost to 0.045%, and use 10% more crawlers if you have geologist. With every mine level, you get to use 8 crawlers, so it's going to be a bit hard to hit 50% without collector. If you plan on switching back to discoverer/general, then maybe it's worth it. Though you can't rebuild crawlers, switching classes is going to be expensive. You can wait for free class tokens, then you have a useless research for however long it will take.

The research is bad if you plan on staying collector, the mecha one is better.

You have already reached the 50% crawler production cap. As crawlers are capped at producing 50% of your mines output, this research will not increase your production, only decrease the crawler energy consumption.

Quote from IngloriusBastard

I dont mind that we add in pool

Peaceful x6

Peaceful x4 (current settings)

We went from x2 to x4 which was an easy transition, because 4 is divisible by 2. People just had to halve the percentage they were fleet saving at, and their fleet saves were the same. This is not the case with x6 speed, and it will likely mess a lot with peoples fleet saves. I suggest not going for x6, but for x8 as it's a much easier transition. x8 is again divisible by x4, therefore people can just halve their fleet speed.

I don't think the community should have to argue for who gets x10 eco and who doesn't.

It doesn't make sense to keep both Vega and Lacerta as target universes, their settings are too similar. Whoever decided that both universes should be targets again, must also have the power to decide what universes should be targets when the next merge happens. That person should pick either Vega or Lacerta to be kept as a target for the next merge, and the other as an exodus. Then you give an x10eco vote to the two target servers, uni 1 and Vega or Lacerta.

You'd have to pair peaceful speed and war speed into one option to increase both, or increase neither. There's multiple exodus with x1 war speed that most likely have chosen, or will choose Lacerta as their target. If speed changes are two options, then a war speed change will not pass. I don't know about a peaceful speed change, but I find it more likely to pass. If speed changes are paired, then it's probably not going to get 70% votes.

If you were to vote to decrease war speed (x2 war speed --> x1 war speed), then I say it's 50/50 if it gets 70% votes. It would be tyranny by the majority, and it would be VERY unpopular amongst a minority of the players.

Defense into debris is a waste of time, it will never pass. If it's an option It'll only make people more hostile towards changes, because they fear DiDF might happen.

I suggest these options:

- ACS OFF --> ON.

- Deuterium into debris OFF --> ON.

- Peaceful x4 --> x8 AND War/Hold x2 --> x3.

OR

- ACS OFF --> ON.

- Deuterium into debris OFF --> ON.

- Peaceful x4 --> x8 AND Consumption 60% --> 50%.

It's not a bug.

If you were to switch from human to another lifeform, you wouldn't lose the human building levels. They will be remembered in case you were to ever switch back. The same goes for lifeform researches. At one point, you upgraded envoys to level 1 on this planet, and later switched to catalyser technology. The game still remembers you have envoys level 1 in case you were to switch back. In this case it would again display you as having catalyser technology level 16, despite having envoys level 1 active.

If you're going to increase the speed from x4, then it'll be easier for people to adapt fleetsaves to x8 compared to x6. With x8 all you'd have to do to keep your current fleetsave would be to halve the speed percentage, for instance going from 40% at x4 to 20% at x8. With x6, you can't just lower the speed percentage, because all the deployment times will be different. I'm not a big fan of x6, but I'm fine with x8. You'll obviously also get even faster expeditions at x8.

I would like confirmation that I understand these changes correctly, it seems people interpret this in a few different ways.

The in-game message:

Restrictions:
For new universes, pulling is completely prohibited from the opening of the universe until the 3rd following Monday;

The maximum allowed pull is 500M resources (combined) per week (from Monday 00:00:00 to Sunday 23:59:59) for all pulls (for all players collectively, not per player).
The maximum allowed pull is the amount sent by a player, not the amount received by a player. In other words, a player can give only 500M per week, but a player can receive 500M from several players.

Exceptions:
Moon attempts from stronger accounts to weaker accounts are not subject to the PULL rule and can be carried out in addition to the donation;
Profit-sharing during a group attack/defense is not subject to the PULL rule after operator validation (API and sharing must be provided via ticket).
For all accounts below TOP 20 Economy or less than 2bn points this rule does not apply, except on the start of a universe.

"or less than 2bn points". Is this 2bn points total or 2bn eco points?

Assuming we are passed the first three Mondays of a server. This is what I understand:

A player with less than top 20 eco and less than 2bn points, can send more than 500m res to a single player or multiple players every week.

A player within top 20 eco, but less than 2bn points, can send more than 500m res to a single player or multiple players every week.

A player outside of top 20 eco, but more than 2bn points, can send more than 500m res to a single player or multiple players every week.

A player within top 20 eco and more than 2bn points, can at the most give away a combined 500m res once per week.

A lower ranked player can receive 500m res multiple times in a week, from different players. However, each of those players can at the most give 500m res in a week.

Quote from CZARAPUS

Energy Tech increases energy production on all planets by 5-10%%% with each level

Is this really needed? Energy already works with fusion reactor.

Quote from CZARAPUS

Laser Tech increases Small and Heavy Lasers attack strength by 5-10%%% with each level ..

Battlecruisers have laser cannons. Bombers use laser guided bombs. Do you want to increase their attack strengths as well?

With this change, heavy lasers could probably be pushed to have damage equal to, or more than one percent of a rips shield.

I don't like that laser tech is a dead research, but I'm not sure this suggestion is the solution.

Quote from Krumme

Obviously Im biased

I think that's a generous way of putting it.

I don't know how to put this nicely. This whole post comes off as "Make people to stay out of Vmode, so my friend can kill them. Otherwise they should be punished more".

Vmode is just a symptom, the root cause of the problem, is being able to stay safe. How else will people stay safe, while being able to sleep and work if not for vacation mode? Constant deploy recall and never using their fleet?

It's unfair to punish people for resulting to their only way of staying safe, while also being able to play the game. Do you think they enjoy only being able to play a few hours every 3 days? Why punish them further?

Would your friend stay out of Vmode if a 800bn point fleeter joined the uni? Personally, I doubt it.

Give people a way to stay safe, long enough for them to sleep. Then you'll see more people stop being Vmode worriors out of necessity.

x2 friendly --> x4 friendly seems popular. I wouldn't mind this one passing.

I'm not sure deuterium into debris will pass on it's own. Had it been combined with a lower overall debris size, then it probably would have.

I do not see 70% of the uni voting for 70% debris to be decreased to 60%. 60% was only suggested as a compromise for enabling deuterium into debris.

It's a shame deuterium into debris and debris size were split into two options instead of a combo.

While I appreciate GameForge attempting to improve the game, I would very much prefer if they could not break all the mods while doing so. The mod-less user interface is lacking so many features, that mods have almost become a requirement to play the game. It's as if GameForge took away a car and replaced it with a pony.

I support anything that removes randomness.

If moon destructions are the problem, then add a moon destruction specific fleet speed?

Friendly:?

Defend:?

Attack:?

Moon Destruction:?

It looks a bit ridiculous with so many different speeds. It would however allow some servers to slow moon destructions to x1, x2 or x3 speed, while normal attack with deathstars could be at x5 or x6. At the same time, other servers could stay the way they are now with fast moon destruction missions.

The way it is now, this 12 hour rule would just be punishing fleeters, that aren't brown nosing whoever purchased the largest fleet.