Posts by kwinse

Guess who else escaped?

New Game Rules - valid from 17.9.2012

Quote from Game Rules

4. Bashing

It is not allowed to attack any given planet or moon, owned by an active player, more than 6 times in a 24 hour period. This rule also applies to moon destruction missions. Probe attacks and interplanetary missile attacks do not count towards the bashing rule.

In specially-designed universes announced on the forum (http://board.en.ogame.gameforge.com/) the bashing rule can be modified or abolished.

Bashing is only allowed when your alliance is at war with another alliance. The war must be announced on the relevant OGame board, in the correct forum and must comply with the board's specific rules.

Clarifications

Attacking fleets that are completely destroyed do not count towards bashing.
All Moon Destruction missions count towards bashing, regardless of the battle or moon destruction outcome.

There is NO special Bashing Limits for ALL Special Universes.

Display More

There is no such thing as waves under the current bashing rules. Every attack counts towards the limit, unless it meets one of the exceptions quoted above.

Individual bans cannot be discussed in public.

Not redirecting hostile fleets makes sense- what if there's a massive turtle shell on the planet that your fleets cannot take on, but you can still pop the moon?

The flash player shouldn't interfere with login.

Can you login through the form on the board portal?

Quote from MikeGrinder6

they don't see the actual issue in this game... they're just trying to buy our trust with this universe...

And here is yet more proof that even if Gameforge does EXACTLY what players DEMANDED for years, they're still completely wrong, at least according to this community.

You don't like Gameforge or ANY of its decisions. We get it. It got very old years ago. Give it a rest.

As far as I understand it, each a:b:c will always have the same planet graphics in any universe, but not necessarily the same picture as a:d:c, or x:y:c.

Planet temperatures and fields are not in any way, shape, or form tied to the planet graphics. The only thing that affects the ranges they randomly pick from is the planet slot (the :c).

Quote from Sneikku

But who asked for this?

The players. That version 6 is a message system update was decided directly from an ogame-wide poll of the players (granted that poll was years ago, but that Gameforge isn't a fast development company shouldn't come as a surprise by now). Many of the features were long-time suggestions from the players. There have been changes to how things have been done in the update based on feedback from the players.

It's not perfect, no, but I dare you to put out a major release with feature-breaking changes of a popular program and have 100% support.

Oh hey this isn't dead. I pushed an update earlier that removed dens, since dens are removed in v6.

EDIT: Whoops this post isn't needed.

From the Formula Thread...

Quote

Construction times:
Buildings, in hours:
(Metal + Crystal) / (2'500 * MAX(4 - level / 2, 1) * (1 + (level Robotics Factory)) * (2 ^ (level Nanite Factory)))

There's a time reduction for the first few levels.

With the given universe speed of 5, a robotics factory level 4 (not 6 as reported) and with a conversion to seconds...
(1'000 + 500) / (2'500 * MAX(4 - 1 / 2, 1) * (1 + 4) * 5) * 3600
= 1'500 / (2'500 * 3.5 * 5 * 5) * 3600
= 24.686, rounds to 24 seconds.
(2000 + 1000) / (2500 * MAX(4 -2 / 2, 1) * 5 * 5) * 3600 = 57.6 => 57 seconds
2000 / (2500 * 3.5 * 5 * 5) * 3600 = 32.914... => 32 seconds
4000 / (2500 * 3 * 5 * 5) * 3600 = 76.8 => 76 seconds

Well aside from 56 vs 57 seconds, looks to be accurate to me. Not sure why the difference is there, whether typo or misremembered on your part, or slightly inaccurate formula on my part.

Not all communities picked their top 3 suggestions by community vote, iirc.

Nobody said that Gameforge would only pick from the top results from each community. Just that the top results would get coupons (which they did afaik). And just to try to head off future complaints, nobody ever said that Gameforge 100% will actually implement any of the suggestions, top results or no. They're very likely to do something since they went to all this trouble, but just saying.

EDIT: Rereading the original post I can definitely see the confusion. "We will make a poll then to find the best 3 proposals. Those 3 proposals will be forwarded to the Product Team. They will choose the best 3 proposals from all communities" could very easily be read both ways, that they would only pick from top winners, and that they would pick from all suggestions.

Unread message counter is known to be bugged.

Quote from Dark Depresion

But at least it was designed for the player foremost

No, it was a hobby project foremost. Number of clicks is not the absolute measure of usability and you know it.

A bunch of Antigame's features should be external. If it's a feature only some people would want, if there's multiple ways to implement a feature, if there's tons of confusing customization options, if it crowds the screen just to implement it, it should be the realm of a tool.

The only thing really wrong IMO about the redesign was the lag, and they've already largely addressed that. A bunch of stuff was an improvement (such as not needing to scroll and scroll and scroll just to see the level of a building or build a ship).

If multiple people are having trouble understanding what you meant, then it is quite likely that your original point wasn't clear. That is a basic rule of communication. You can't just blame them for not understanding you, you have to endeavor to be understood, if being understood still matters to you.

Is your "contradiction" thinking it unrealistic that a damaged ship could explode even from a shot not breaching the shields? One could argue that the shield generators redirect some force into the structure, which results in destruction of the ship due to weakened structure. Or one could not bother, since OGame does not need to be realistic to be an enjoyable game.

I do apologize for confusion in my posts about whether the bounce rule triggers chance to explode. I should have said 50 shots, not 500, since 500 would mean at least some bounced.

Where is the contradiction? IMNVS/Kelder's post does not talk about chance to explode. At all. It only talks about how damage to the shields is rounded to whole percents of the shield's strength (the actual source of the bouncing/ineffectualness rule) and how combat can and will end early when neither side can destroy anything due to shields. So, if you want to understand chance to explode, ignore that post.

Chance to explode will be triggered when a) a unit is fired at, and b) it has less than 70% hull remaining after the shot. Neither shield strength remaining nor whatever damage that shot actually did matters with regards to the chance to explode, except maybe if the shot bounces off the shield (which I can definitely understand being confused about; I'm not 100% sure either).

If it needs to be said, hull damage is not repaired during combat. Shields replenish fully after each round.

If I'm reading Speedsim offline's source code correctly, it sims it where bounced shots still trigger the chance to explode. Also, chance to explode kicks in when current hull is less than or equal to 70% of original hull strength, not just less than (so my example ship would have a 30% chance to explode at 70 / 100 hull according to Speedsim). Disclaimer, this is a third party sim, and may not be accurate to the game. Additionally, I am just a volunteer moderator, I don't have access to the source code so I rely on the same sources you have access to.

If a target gets hit, after all the shot damage is calculated it has a chance to explode. It doesn't matter the strength of the shields before or after the shot. The only thing that matters for chance to explode is how much of the hull is remaining. If the target has less than 70%, then it has a chance to explode of 100% - remaining hull% (aka % damage).

Say we have a ship with high shields but low hull. Shot hits a target, it's at 60 / 100 hull. This means it has a 40% chance to explode after that shot. If next round it gets hit by 500 other shots, each failing to break the shield, it still has a 40% chance to explode after each and every shot, making it likely to not survive.

The 90% in IMNVS's post is strength of the shield, not hull. No shots ever penetrated the dome's shield to damage its hull, so it never has any chance to explode.

I am uncertain of the very specifics, like if that ship was at 70 / 100 hull it has 30% chance to explode or if you need strictly less than 70% before chance kicks in (69 / 100 == 31% chance).

Combat is unrealistically simplified, yes. But if you try to make it more in depth, remember that the server has to actually be able to calculate combat with fleets of millions of ships.

EDIT: Whoops had some bad info here due to faulty memory.

As far as anyone knows, the moonchance code only cares about how much debris was generated during a single attack. If the amount is the same (or similar with respect to how the formula works), then the moonchance will always be the same. It doesn't matter if the debris came from light fighters, plasma turrets, or a mix of everything.

As has been overwhelmingly said, you've just been unlucky.

When I was playing uni 35, I built a meager defense on my moon. The one time I had to leave resources behind for want of cargo capacity, someone tried to cargo raid without noticing the defense. Too bad they got they got the debris before I got back on.

Nice to see someone linking our Cumulative Cost.

Unfortunately, as far as I know there's no tool that calculates how long it will take to build up ...buildings, taking into account multiple planets, time to mine the resources, change in production from the higher levels, and construction time. It's theoretically possible, just not so simple since it has to know what order to build things.