Terrible idea...we'd just pack to get to a point where people can't probe us except for other whales and the F2p or casual spenders are left out to dry.
Any ideas that get presented here really need a litmus test that incorporates how they're impacted by sheer brute force packing and be presented with a thought about how they're either circumvented with packing or make them more OP'd "munchkin" by exploiting the advantage with packing.
Posts by Cathedral
-
-
Dang nice hit and good profit! Not like those MDML garbage bashing hits a certain duo likes to do occasionally...
GLORD -
Nice to see you making an appearance again...
Congrats on the profits.
GLORD -
Always nice to see the OGs making the rounds.
Congrats.
GLORD -
Mars has been taking it on the chin quite a bit lately...two weeks ago he got hit for 140nbn in profit and wound up making an impulse buy of a 7D 30% metal booster for around 78bn in the auctioneer.
GLORD
Congrats on the profit Rya. -
I just keep remembering Isaac of old from Andro and how much of a beast he was back then...it's odd seeing Isaac on so many wrong side of the HoF these last few years.
Might be time to ride off into the sunset if the heart isn't in it anymore.
Congrats on the profit Rya. -
Box 3
Uni 1; PAGAN -
Another idea would be that with each lvl in gravitational tec you get 2 more slots for moon destruction missions. that way the tech gets a fix and the amount of simultanious moon destruction missions that you can launch gets limited.
i think this is a very nice option to fix all issues
You'd still have packing in the equation as we'd just spend ridiculous amounts on sats and boosters just to spam grav tech for those slots.
-
It is a little hokey that the speed of a ship is affected by the type of mission it's flying...it should be the same speed for all missions regardless.
And while I like the idea of having NANs on moons...it still doesn't remove the "pack" from the equation and the ability to overwhelm opponents with sheer overspending, still not fair to the F2P or casual DM spenders.
And if they're trying to keep the RIP canon and aligned with the Death Star...then maybe apply similar functionality that the goofy Hamill Manoeuvre is restricted to where only one LF is used in the odds. So in an MD attempt...you can only use one RIP and then from there, revisit how that % to pop a moon is calculated based on different research levels like grav, laser, or whatever. -
Prongs was this in PTS for such a short time to just see if the functionality works or did PTS actually put it through the paces to make sure it made sense?
Something definitely needed to be done...just not sure it was this. At least they didn't make RIPs stationary again.
My suggestion would include letting us have more than one moon per planet...
And it's not a war game, at most it's a pirate game. We loot, we pillage, we steal, we destroy some stuff...and we leave.
If it were a war game, we'd take over and occupy our rivals' planets. Make their mining and manufacturing our own, learn new technologies from their labs, put their kids to work in the mines (the children yearn for the mines), etc. Heck, we can't even colonize existing, abandoned (inactive) planets that are already fully developed... -
Display MoreBlocked systems doesn't = cheating, but that is not my main concern right now 🙂.
My main one is that the date and time stamp is, if i read the thread right, overdue by several hours and no change to the mechanics of MD.
Relocation event is on for just today from what i can gather and i wouldn't want to start relocate and figure out that everything is been postponed.
Any updates about the new MD time flights would be much appreciated, the sooner the better.
Not necessarily happy about this change but at least dirty FS is the best safe economical choice now if you don't want 2 planets of yours next to each other and not playing as general class.
We just need to adapt with dirty FS is the best as long as you are on before a potential slow MD 🙂
It's not in the live servers yet...it's for the PTS test server first to iron out the bugs (or make them worse, lol).
-
What makes you think they're cheating by having inactive system blockers?
Just because the names are similar?
It's not a coincidence to see a low-ranked account acting as a system blocker for high-ranked accounts.
It's not all that hard to have someone build up a system blocker account and get a decent astro going, even with the trade rules in effect. Or they get an account that someone stops playing and they either use the remaining free relos or they just abandon planets and colo empty ones in the safe systems.
Most players and/or alliances set up an agreement with players/alliances from other universes or communities to manage system blockers on a quid pro quo basis, managing one another's system blockers for them.
We've been doing this for 20 plus years...
If you suspect cheating, then report it. If nothing happens, then whoever is managing that system blocker for them is doing it legally regardless of what you think is happening.
Having been a GO for this game, I can tell you that most people who think other players are cheating don't really understand how the rules and mechanics of the game work, and what you can and cannot actually do. -
Universe 1 is a closed universe and therefore cannot be considered as an Exodus universe in any future merge scenario.
I understand the idea, but for now it seems to be set in stone
yohdh why? I think that would help people to understand why Game Forge is being so close-minded about uni 1.
I could understand if it was a legacy uni like uni1.de, or if it was actually the first uni in oGame, but it's not and as soon as the settings were changed...it just became another uni. I'm perfectly content there, but there are a lot of players who would rather move their accounts to a uni with different settings and they're rotting away in vmode and not going to the GY either.
Why not just make a carbon copy of uni 1 as a target uni, so you can make the existing uni 1 an exodus uni? You're already doing that for the other unis (basically). -
Display More
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.
I think for your proposals to offer "meaningful choices and trade-offs" Game Forge will need to come off of their uni 1 "Hotel California" mentality.
-
The only thing unique about uni 1 is its name; shut it down and make another option for a new 1x uni. That way the players in uni 1 who want to leave for a faster fleet speed uni may do so.
-
-
-
Galilean moons...
-
To be honest i am also tired of looking "give away" just to see someone is trading
. Did i missunderstood "recruitment" tag or are you suggesting a tag that would imply "we" can give you the account but it has to stay in alliance because i don't think that could work simply because you wouldn't know to whom exactly are you giving that account in the end, if it was a random person ofcourse Altough i don't consider it of high importance i would still vote yes.
On the other note did you ever try DMing people who are looking for accounts and actually giving the account away?
I doubt an alliance would give someone the keys to an account without doing some due diligence first...there would undoubtedly be an interview to learn about a candidate's experience level and motivations.
But it would be nice to have a "recruitment" option and a place to say, "Hey, we have some vacant accounts for people to play...apply within." Sure, we could post that in the uni's "Galactic Hub" sub-section. But again, very few people use forums...and fewer still are gonna go to each individual uni's sub-section.
And yeah, we DM some people...it's just a little sketchy and flags go up when they have a new board profile with 2 posts and a Discord profile they made yesterday. -
The account trading section is long overdue for an overhaul.
The description reads: "Here you can trade, give away or search Accounts."
But if you create a new thread, you can only choose between "Give Away" or "Search"...there is no actual "trade" option. Most people just pick one of the aforementioned and put it in the title when trying to trade accounts, just clean it up already and add that third tag.
In addition to adding a "Trade account" option, I also request that you add a "Recruitment" option (or tag or whatever).
A lot of alliances across different unis have spare accounts rotting away... it would be nice if there was a "recruitment" option. And I know we used to have it in the individual unis a long time ago, but very few people read the forums as it is...let alone the individual uni sections, so I suggest putting it in with the account trading section, in a centralized location.
Also, since forums are dead, add an account trading/recruitment section to Discord as well.
