Posts by Astral_Codex

    First, the effect of temperature on the production of colonies is greatly overstated. In terms of MSU, the difference in mine production between the average slot 15 and the coldest slot 15 is on the order of 2-3%, and mine prod is a small fraction of total income for discoverers and generals anyways. So it's adding a new, unnecessary item that has little effect on the game. (Keep in mind most players are way, way further away from 2-3% from the "optimal" build.)


    More importantly in my opinion: This screws over all the accounts that spent a lot of time colonizing planets over and over to get cold temperatures, in pursuit of "true" optimality. Some people like hedgefundpoe or Asto Vidatu have spent hundreds or even thousands of colonies in order to get big planets with minimum temperatures. Others have relocated their planets several times each in pursuit of lower temperatures.


    I mean, to be clear, it's fully in line with screwing over people who optimize their accounts. (See hedgefundpoe's recent experiences with screwing over his "perfect" 30C max temp slot 8 account. Or halving the price of metal packs after adding the imbalanced slot 8 production bonus. Or combat expos. Or allowing people to relocate to slot 15 from anywhere in the first place.) But I'll oppose this item every single time it's brought up.

    Thanks for writing this up. I like the suggestion of adding the eco multiplier to general/collector, albeit with a much lower cap. It's quite creative! If I were to implement it, I would suggest capping it at the 25kk/50kk level, instead of adding two new levels for discoverer. This would alleviate the early game issues of collector/general without seriously affecting late game balance. I also obviously really like the ACS Def wreckfield (I've already posted a suggestion that made it to GF).


    The 20% Phalanx for general instead of discoverer also makes sense to me.


    That being said I disagree with most of the changes. I'd go so far as to say that I think implementing them would probably be bad.

    1. I don't think we should do tiny number changes like 20% -> 25%. Ditto for small speed speed buffs (50% is small when lifeforms lets you get +500% or more from drives + lf techs). Why change things for the sake of changing things?
    2. Unless the two new levels on discoverer are ridiculous (e.g. 10m for 10T+), your current changes make collector even more overpowered in the late game, since losing 1/3 of expo finds in exchange for increasing your prod by a factor of 1.5x is almost always going to be worth it. Disco is barely worth it late game compared to collector when collector gets no expo finds, how would it compete if collector gets 2/3 as much expo finds?
      1. I also oppose changes that lead primarily to number inflation without addressing balance. Servers can barely handle big hits these days. So I'd prefer to keep discoverer as is, slightly nerf collector late game, and give collector/general the eco multiplier but with a much lower max find cap.
    3. The cost reduction on general is too good: no other classes have **cost reduction**. Rock'tal (the only race with cost reduction) is by far the best for most players in large part because of its cost reduction. In general, I oppose all cost reduction changes for ships/mines/etc.
    4. In general, the General changes (2x fleet spots?? 75% loot on all actives) are probably too good late game, while not helping much early game. The fundamental problem is that Disco and Collector both get more income with little effort from the start, but OGame's dying population means that there's not many targets early. General's primary benefits of -25% deut and offensive WF also doesn't matter early game when fleets are small.

    I think this post comes from the perspective that all classes need to be equally balanced for ~all players. But instead, I think it's better to balance the classes so each has a distinct use and encourage players to swap between them as necessary.


    Currently, all three classes have a use. Collector is the choice of most players late game, discoverer early game. General is more niche, but it's indispensible late game to save deut on fleetsaves and offensive wreckfield. Most big fleets in older universes are general for a reason. (Also we might expect fewer players to pick General since more players are miners than fleeters.)


    I think my actual suggestions for class balance look like:

    1. General gets ACS Def Wreckfield. I outlined the arguments here.
    2. Give out more class change tokens in reward events (ideally at least one a month). This is good for new players in that they won't be screwed over if they picked the wrong class by accident. It's good for older players in that they can easily swap between classes as needed to make ships or adjust their time investment in the game. I'd rather give players more flexibility, than homogenize the classes in the name of balance.
    3. Update the class choice menu for new players. For example, simply stating "we recommend you pick discoverer, it grows the fastest" would help a lot. Or linking to a good guide/FAQ on basic game mechanics would help as well.
      1. This isn't just a complaint about classes, I have the same issues with Lifeforms, where people get tricked into picking Kaelesh because of the misleading description.

    All said, I intend to vote against this suggestion and encourage others to do the same.

    I notice you're using default OGame without plugins. On the default OGame fleet page 2, it's really easy to accidentally change the speed by just overing over the speed bar. And since the speedbar is between target selection and clicking confirm, it's super easy to hover over it by accident.

    Given that the GAs may not understand how "OR" interacts with "NOT", the rule as stated is clearly too complicated.


    I'd be in favor of a change, albeit not necessarily this one. Here's one that's even simpler and does most of what you'd want anyways:

    Rationale: clearly the extra condition added was to save GA/GO labour. But the top 20 eco condition is pretty much unnecessary, as the main abuse happens in old unis with massive accounts, or at the start of new unis. So just make a rule that cuts those off, that is simpler than the currently stated rule.


    Also, I think it's very important to make it clear when rules are conjunctive or disjunctive. I've tried to make that explicit in my phrasing.

    Thanks for the response!


    Is there a reason this wasn't this communicated before the merge like the other settings? While I doubt this would've changed anyone's decisions, it's still pretty bad for people not to know what the settings of the universe they're merging into will be.

    It's like this:

    This flowchart is wrong as written or at least ambiguous. If anything your flowchart makes the rule more ambiguous/confusing and not less.


    Assuming "/" means "OR" in the figure, then by the second set of arrows, someone has 2bn points they can't pull. But if at the same time, if they are rank 21 eco they can pull by the third set of arrows. NOT (X OR Y) =/= (NOT X) OR (NOT Y), but the flow chart separates out the cases as if the equality were true.


    If you read the wording of the rule, it explicitly says that accounts who are either rank 21+ in eco OR <2bn in points are exempt. So this suggests that someone with 2.1bn points but is rank 21 in eco should be exempt.

    Quote

    For all accounts below TOP 20 Economy OR less than 2bn points this rule does not apply, except on the start of a universe.

    I presume the intention is presumably to reduce the work of GOs in monitoring the universe. You'll have way more accounts if you have to look at the top 20 eco in all unis plus the hundreds of accounts in .org that are >2bn points, than if you only had to look at the top 20 eco people who were also >2bn points. In the second case you'd only have to consider 20 accounts per universe at most.


    Please clarify.

    That is actually a good suggestion. Only thing the original suggestion does is render mds impossible for anyone besides whales.
    I understand the op's intend, and I do agree that mds need to be nerfed given the recent state of the game, but for people who insta 100k rips daily, 300 rips or 2400 don't matter, it does to the rest of us trying to counter-play.

    You keep saying that this would make MDs impossible. But before we had lifeforms or even player classes, 300 rips were worth maybe 3000 if not 6000 rips today, and yet MDs still happened.


    Back when I was actively fleeting in that era, the standard was to do 5/6 waves of 10-20 RIP MDs. A few years before that, people were MD'ing with waves of 3-5 rips.


    MDs _should_ be expensive. You _should not_ be able to force pop a player who has only 50b fleet and profit. If you still want to MD them after the change, either RNG with your 10-20 rip waves (which would become 100-200 RIP waves in Thuban, where you are), or admit that you aren't in it for profit.

    Given how they botched the Vega vote, I would imagine they'd split this one too, which means you'll just get 10x eco and not the other two.

    I feel kind of bad for Prongs, because he's clearly not the person who made this shitty choice. Unfortunately, those actually responsible hide behind CoMAs like Prongs.

    This is a nice patch that doesn't fix the underlying issue. Still in favor though, MDs are way too cheap these days.


    To clarify: the main problem is that MDs are too fast. You can't sleep properly if you want to FS safely in higher speed unis. The suggestion from OP raises the costs a bit, but 1.5-2.5k RIPs is still nothing for people with hundreds of billions or trillions of fleet. You still can't sleep properly in faster universes as a fleeter. But at least it'll stop people from MD'ing miners for 20-30b profit.

    Alternative title: Gameforge Devs and the Terrible, Horrible, No good, Very Bad UI update.


    Version 11.15.0 just game out, and is probably -the worst- update in terms of player experience.


    Let's break the update down. Here's the list of changes introduced in version 11.15.0, where i've struck through all entries that are bugfixes:

    We can divide the updates into several categories:

    • Bugfixes. These are always welcome, I guess.
    • Downgrades to previously existing standard add-on or web UI functionality. All major add-ons are broken, and their functionality is at best replaced with a second-rate imitation (though most are simply missing,). For example, the new espionage interface tries to, mimic AGR's spy table, but for some godforesaken reason removes the expanded messages component entirely (and does not even give the user the option to turn it off). But there's a ton of add-on functionality that just doesn't exist in the game version. The <meta> tags are missing a lot of information that is necessary for add-ons to function in principle. The game depends on add-on developers, but this update shows so little respect for their work that I doubt any add-on developer will feel much desire to actually work on fixing their add-ons following this update.Of the updates, "Fixed several cases in which tooltips did not look correct." is a hilariously relevant comment to include here, given that the tooltips are generally made worse in this update.
    • Unnecessary graphics changes for the changes' sake. To put it simply: the new UI is terrible. Moons in galaxy look terrible. The new espionage messages obscure whether or not the target is a moon or a planet. The spy table looks terrible. The new buttons added to the game are all of ugly, unintuitive, and unreadable. Most impressively, all of these elements are downgrades to previously existing designs already in OGame, suggesting that there was an active decision to spen development effort on these graphical changes.


    I'm happy that the bugs are finally being fixed. But putting the necessary bugfixes aside, every other non-bugfix change makes the game worse. I don't have time to go into too much detail on all the examples, but anyone halfway competent can notice a bunch of issues while trying to play the Game. I'd recommend the devs try fleeting using v11.15.0 as opposed to an earlier version where AGR still worked. To a give a sense of how serious these problems are, this update has basically forced me to go into vacation mode in the near term, as the game is simply unplayable.


    Despite all of these issues being raised in feedback provided to Gameforge during the PTS, the update was still somehow pushed to all live servers. The natural conclusion is that this piece of feedback is also just going to be ignored.