Search Results

Same opinion as @kfg. When accounts are big (and even in small accounts) saving resources by deconstructing mines is a life saver. I wouldn't like to see it removed. Couldn't you think of a better workaround? I use it even in small accounts with just 20M points and can survive with 8.000 cargos in the whole account. That's just a choice, but when accounts get bigger... this wouldn't help at all a 300M+ account that needs to save 6.000M resources to put a mine.

Name - Info : Advance a fixed number of systems on galaxy page with a button - Author : Me - Website : No - Support : Here (I do need help) - Download : I put the code here [spoiler=Code] Source Code (9 lines)[/spoiler] [spoiler=Old code]Source Code (9 lines)[/spoiler] - Screenshot : [spoiler=Image]cRlawm5.png[/spoiler] - Browser : Tested on Firefox with Greasemonkey - Languages : — [spoiler=Description] The idea is that I want to advance ten solar systems with a button. I mean, if I'm on 1:1 I …

There's a weird behaviour if the first battle is not won by the attacker: the subsequent raids don't appear. Which is not a rare case, for instance a battle that ends even with a few RIPs alive and then they get destroyed in subsequent raids. I'm not sure what should be done. A clear thing is that the next raids should appear. But may be even the next battles (in a small font or special compact format, for instance, or even full size) should appear until the first one that the attacker wins? But…

I like this. I proposed the same in Spanish forum. Even, why not the old behaviour that still exists in alliance? It definitely is more practical and gives more info. This was a clear step back for no reason, in my opinion.

Nitpicking again. (Not related with the subject of this thread.) If the defender has no fleet nothing appears, just both rules one after the another. May be add a keyword, similar to Destroyed when a whole fleet is destroyed, like, e.g., No fleet. (Halfway related with this thread.) If one changes the Report skin to es-default, “Combat start, initial fleets” is automatically disabled. But if the default language is ES (ogotcha.universeview.be/es) then the option es-default is enabled but “Combat…

I think there's a bug, or a non intended behaviour. If the fleet is destroyed it should be shown, but it only shows destroyed. It shows something like this Attacker UniverseView [UV-TEST] ________________________________________________ Destroyed! while it should show at least the fleet, and display the losses, or may be with special treatment for instance hiding the losses and just putting a zero, or a word Destroyed. Attacker UniverseView [UV-TEST] _____________________________________________…

Well, thanks again Warsaalk because you are doing a great job, and seem very active I put the word “discussion” on the subject of this thread because this is not intended as a suggestion by itself but —hopefully— the start of a discussion (if other people is interested in adding ideas) that would change OGotcha to the better. If this is not the place, or you prefer to open a discussion thread yourself, well, that's up to you. I think it would be great if the formatting of the battle (colors, inf…

This is just a crazy idea I just had, just to write it here in case someone wants to drink from it to create a better suggestion (or may be people like this one). One of the biggest problems that we face is that playing an account in an x1 is too slow to get to “decent” account sizes. An universe that has two years might not have an account of more than 20 or 30M points: as of today that's not much, and probably the reason Gameforge needs to keep launching speed unis. On the other side, it's mor…

That removes most of the burden, and is clearly simple. It has a downside, though: if someone has twin planets all the area covered is now divided into two different areas (while I would like it to be the same area, the fact that I raid from two planets is just to have less resources acumulated). In any case, I think that would be better than the current G1-G9 separation. Still, a manual choice with 15 areas at most would be great (of course, I don't know about space in the database, etc. this i…

That's true; I didn't really think of how. May be let us define areas? Define new area: 〈name〉 Begin: 〈coords〉 End: 〈coords〉 and let us have say 20 areas max. And another list which lets you mark "Show this areas". G1-G9 are defined areas by default. That' wouldn't be difficult to write, right?

Hello, This compactor is pretty good, complete, and with some interesting configurations. In any case, we in Spain used to have different output that let us see the whole battle in one view (the fleets and the looses all together). Here are some examples board.es.ogame.gameforge.com/b…bvspeterimperatumsnogard/ board.es.ogame.gameforge.com/b…aramankfkvssyzigyamoroso/ board.es.ogame.gameforge.com/b…iendsvsmeteorblackiceorb/ It would be nice to have options to get that output (or similar). The most…

A suggestion: don't separate/classify CRs by galaxy but by planet (or at least offer both :D). Some times G1 is not enough information if you have a planet in 1:100:8 and another in 1:300:8. It would be good to separate between 1:100 area and 1:300 area to see the statistics. Thanks for the script

In case an useful implementation of Spiohelper for v6 is possible, here's a feature request: Instead of sorting the spionages by loot (the resources to be stolen), I think it would be useful to take in account (or at least have the option) the ratio used in the preferences of AntiGame. That way, if one says ratio 2.5:1.5:1, then Spiohelper would show, e.g., (1) Spionage with 1.000.000 deut, (2) spionage with 1.400.000 crystal, (3) spionage with 2.200.000 metal. Right now (well, in version 5) the…

@Valent That's where I'm headed. Right now there's no strategy aspects to be considered here (objectively, those positions don't offer anything). So that's the proposition: “Change the size of those planets somehow, in a way that people could consider them as possible to be colonized”. Now, the discussion about what's “acceptable” is a different one, and I don't plan to discuss on that, but I think that the two options considered in this post are great: (1) any possible size with a ridiculous pr…

That, in my opinion, would convert those positions even more acceptable. Which I'm not sure is desired. I still want 1 2 3 14 15 16 to be mostly non colonized. My —much more higher— price, 180 fields as the maximum size, or even less (with 165 I will be partially happy), would ensure that they are still special positions, and they are mostly free positions. I'm not sure how to explain. I would like to be able to colonize there, so, first thing, whatever makes that possible is welcome; however, I…

The truth is... there's not too much to discuss, since the only thing that GameForge could take from this suggestion is “Think about it” or “Reconsider it”. I think the “price” to pay for those positions is unacceptable (and that's obvious, I think there's nothing to discuss there). As an example, no one ever places its planet on those extreme positions. So, the suggestion is “Please, GameForge, could you take a look again and make that price acceptable?”. Now about what's acceptable, that's ano…

I wanted to put this in suggestions, but I guess it ended up in the 6.0 subforum, it was not intended. @topic My point is that “you have to pay a price” should be reconsidered. Right now it's an impossible price (an example of it is that NO ONE, not even a single player, in the top 100 in many universes have a planet in those places, which means that no one is willing to pay that price). For instance, I think that 163 fields is an “acceptable price”. Where you can still develop a planet semi-cor…

Hello, At this moment, a full system is a system with positions 4–12 occupied, and 1–3, 13–15 empty. Why? Because positions 1–3 and 13–15 (from now on: “extreme positions”) never have an acceptable size. The suggestion is “easy”: change the maximum size of the planets that can be found in the extreme positions, even if the probability of obtaining them is too small. For me, an acceptable number of fields would be at least the same as the main planet, 163. But of course more would be great (for i…