Search Results

Would like to note beforehand that my suggestion above doesn't have a direct relation to the speed of Deathstar as a unit, it implies modifying the parameters of its specialty, which is Destroy mission that can be theoretically utilized to send any type of units, as long as at least 1 Deathstar is present within prepared-to-dispatch fleet.

The thoughts provided in the first post are making things way too complicated. There are much easier means to address Moons sustainability problem, such as capping Destroy mission's speed to remain 1x regardless of the server's ships flight settings, be it 1x, 2x or even 10x Universe. At the same time, research bonuses such as Hyperspace Drive 15 are still supposed to reflect on how quickly the mission reaches its target.

I'd choose the following adjustments to go with: - Rapidfire against Rocket Launcher: 25 - Rapidfire against Light Laser: 25 - Rapidfire against Heavy Laser: 12 - Rapidfire against Ion Cannon: 12 - Rapidfire against Gauss Cannon: 2 - Cargo capacity: 625 - Fuel consumption: 800 And then see how remarkably it affects combats on Live servers.

Quote from TGWo: “Some questions: 1) Is it automatic this moving of account, or player must decide if stay or move ? 2) Do you propose moving of account, live (in any moment, account could moved) or more similar at fusion (all account that is selected to be moved, will be moved in a special period) ? 3) What happen at account in "exodus" universe ? Account continue to play, or is blocked, or is directly deleted ? 4) What will be language of this new universe ? A global language in english, or ga…

My guess is that the amount of DM Gabby was referring to in the first post equals 350.000.

Because of all the difficulties occurring recently at the Retro Universe, I'd like to make a proposal of introducing an additional time span of 35 more inactivity days allowed prior account deletions here, resulting in a new 70 total allocated days prior the purging of inactives takes place. It should help to avoid problems linked with possible temporary Universe closures required to supply patch fixes and potential account losses due to inactivity or inability to login. There still should be en…

Why exactly there should be a possibility to become invisible on enriched Economical ladder at all? Perhaps, it makes sense for the Research, where engine levels can simply be excluded. At the same time, it seems reasonable to me if expanded Infrastructure ladder will list the highest levels of every building for all of the existing players and function just like the rest of available statistics does.

Their travel time already matches the speed settings of universes. Decreasing the minimal expedition duration will cause imbalance in how much DM the players are supposed to be bringing back from these in 1 day.

I'd say these could be divided into Economy and Research sub-sections similar to how it's already made for the Military highscore with 4 smaller (Built/Destroyed/Lost & Honor Points) buttons. Implementing such details-enriched ladder would be a very rational move since people have been tracking this kind of achievements through the forums as long ago as the times of the game's year 2003 launch.

Register in older Universes, for people, who as newcomers will not be aware of such particularities as suggested in the first place? I'm afraid it's not an encouragement at all, moreover, what points 2 and 3 are actually able to provide is an increased departure rate among the old-timers with a more or less retained interest in the project. Why so? Well, because this is a strategical, competitive game and not a nursery room in the kindergarten where complaisant Gameforge Fairy babysits those who…

I thought for a while of the suggestion expressed herein and acknowledge that the problem exists, and what's even more interesting is that in fact, it's not even tied to speeds of the Universes and is more of Deuterium consumption origin. Not considerably-reliant on the Universe's speed, it costs about 4.327.286 Deuterium to fleetsave ~ 22.100.078 points worth fleet from the 8th to the 9th position on 30% (13:51:21) with 19/17/15 engines, 4.201.422 at 20% (20:46:57) and 4.077.941 on 10% (41:33:4…

I'm not sure Destroyed Planets were ever intended to be utilized in that way, additionally, the possibility to do so spawns a lot of problems which should be given a fix in my strong belief. What also needs to be accounted is that even if one raids inactives with keen persistence, there still are days when about 70% of targets are not given a visit since the activity itself is somewhat tiring and there's not any significant lack of farming spots. If the goal of your suggestion is to aid the star…

The thing you're suggesting basically resembles "a uni full of inactives", just fuller than it now is: of course the starters will be happy to observe more targets they can send their SCs everyday to with the minimal effort, but what else despite that and the overall reduction of available colonizable space for the rest of active players does it give?

Why not to host the events where these planets are randomly created with system accounts instead? I'd actually prefer encountering fully-functional AI opponents which mimic common playing styles and behavior inherent to those when exercised by the real players.

Yes, TGWo, these are exactly the weak links I wanted to highlight: one does not simply walk into Mordor enter V-Mode to award the others with a top-notch push for no apparent reason.

From how I understood it, the main reason could be that I've provided a rather detailed scheme on how proficient account hijacking attempts are carried out in my reply. However, it did not contain any specific information, and therefore was absolutely harmless for the project and beneficent for the readers in terms more of them could have acquired a better understanding on how it can also be made, besides the ordinary way of sharing an account's password with a sitter. From what was written, it …

In relation to fleetsaving in speed Unis, it's not so problematic as it appears from your report, it's just so that one have to utilize about 9 Deploy waves where fleet is equally-divided or wait about 8 hours to perform Recalled Deploys which are invulnerable to Moon destructions at all, so the determinative factor of why many people tend to prefer VM save is not only due to possibility of losing multiple Moons, but also the general factor of the Universe's speed. It is easy to crash an idling …

Imagine someone sets a top 1 fleet account in the Uni for manual deletion, and 7 days later, the described thing happens... well, you get the point. To utilize something like that, the game must be able to differ intended deletions from the ones done after the reaching of 36 inactivity days, and even in that shape, the idea is more than likely to produce undesirable pushing effects by its essence.

The proper technique of maintaining a 100% reliable fleetsave in a speed Uni are Recalled Deploy saves made about 7-8 hours prior their cancellation, there are currently no other ways, except VMode, of securing a fleet surpassable by ACS in the Universes where Death Stars fly about 4-5 times faster. Despite of that fact, a simple way to address the Moon destruction issue exists and it consists of reverting one of the changes introduced many years ago in 0.78a update. What needs to be performed i…

That would basically mean all of the sims will have to account 4 technologies instead of 3, thus making combat / optimal fleet ratios calculations even more difficult, therefore, my opinion is that all concepts involving potential amendments of the existing unit properties should be handled with extreme care. In relation to the suggested modification, it appears to me that the Krakens/Detroids will practically diminish any significant gains such bonus is assumed to provide.