Search Results

Honor points were a great idea, but it's stuck, they need a fine tuning. They don't represent real “honor” when attacking (there are certain situations in which attackers can get huge amounts of positive honor points while being shitty players in that “honor” sense, and in the same sense, loosing honor when a battle is actually honourable, e.g., and example I know personally top 1 and top 3 militar against “real” enemy top 2, and they lost quite a big number). I believe the original idea was to …

@Shole What exactly could be illegal in an offline tool? I mean, I can't really imagine what can it be... it's like using Excel or using a calculator, and those can't be illegal. Just asking out of curiosity, nothing more. @Lilith I don't think that method is perfect for calculating the optimal way of upgrading mines (or plasma / astrophysics), there's more room for optimization. But I don't know where could we have a place where it could be discussed among the community (hopefully only people t…

I've seen the newsletter, and well depending of what “merchandise” is it. I think a figurine would be nice for some special events. I mean if a t-shirt is sent... well, it doesn't have the value of a token. If only they did not speak obscuring and were straightforward in the answers during the interview I feel like the merchandise comes at a wrong hour personally, the game is dying, they do not seem to be concerned and everything keeps the same flow it has had the last 15 years, there's not a ch…

I saw this in the Q&A sessions: NBbybAO.png Well, when I saw it first it remembered me of the things I've heard Youtube gives to people when they get more than a certain amount of followers, those shiny buttons. It could be that GameForge sent certain rewards to people that have somehow made great contributions to the game, whether a script —I would give Francolino one for sure if he was still around here, for his huge contribution with AntiGame—, a guide, helping the game in some way, etc. and …

You mean like me? The same way they made it attractive the redesign, and the idea of relocations and double clicking and much more. They just made the change. But preferably better. This could be reasonable and if explained well it could be accepted by the minds of the players. You get a universe in which you can keep playing there's not too much to play, comparing to an x5 developed universe, but you basically “secure” your account. Then you can restart with another account and play another uni…

I think I read about this some time ago, but can't find it now. Sorry if it's a dupe. Right now older universes are growing a lot, there are huge accounts. And the game is dying in some sense at those stages, and we usually survive for some extra months thanks to some mergers. But what if the “final destiny” of accounts was not of get huge and play forever. We could make an incentive so that people will eventually “forget” about older accounts and understand that the fun is in the beginnings (th…

Nothing? May be it's not priority, or even AntiGame is not priority to develop. But may be a "read" mark on this one would be great. Or someone else that might be able to reproduce it? I can chat in IRC to show how it works.

It was proposed some time ago to change the flying cost of battleships a bit, so that it also balances battleship vs. battlecruiser. I liked that proposal.

I mean that the cost of the space dock is impossible above level 7 or 9, while not in the case of the alliance depot. If the suggestion was to make alliance depot not take spaces in the planet, that's okey. But if the proposal is to include the alliance depot behaviour into the space dock, then we are limiting some freedom because we wouldn't have the freedom to build bigger alliance depot. May be if the quantity of deuterium that one can give through alliance was recalculated that would be enou…

I think adding is nice, that's more information available. I think the columns you suggest to remove are useful, so I would try to may be reduce the number size and shorten the numbers making the exact value through a tooltip. That said, another useful thing in every info page would be to make some space reserved to show equations: cost, and production, and energy consumption of mines, fusion plant, energy plant, sollar satellites, flight time in the research motors, etc. Similar to what's alrea…

Or, if this is a stunt move hoping that people will see that and decide to buy geologist, etc. At least you could paint those numbers gray so that it's clear that it's not part of actual production. The energy shown in the tooltip (Above, in the resources of the planet) shows decimal digits, by the way

Quote from aliendestroyer: “- Crystal being too valuable a resource. Since the introduction of astro (and the usage of BCs) the need for crystal has exploded and most of the time metal is given away for "free" and crystal is traded at 1-1 for deut. That imo is a major issue as deut is supposed to be the "valuable" resource and main shortage in the "food chain". (This ties into my next point) ” I don't know why, but communities diverged (I would expect the rules to be similar in all communities, …

That would mean that by having space dock level 7 we would have something like alliance depot at level 7? That would be nice. But that would also mean that having anything beyond level 9 would be impossible to have. At this moment that limitation doesn't happen with alliance depot. What could we do with that? For the moment I'm against this change.

What I think we need is to get back an affordable and secure fleetsave as it was before doubleclicking and relocating in x1 universes; but scalable to all speeds, so everyone can fleetsave around 8h cheap and with total security. As TGWo says, the base of this game is organization. But the situation now makes it quite hard to organize. We need to have room for people to get organized; the game has to allow it. Like many here, I don't like that “auto escaping of fleets”.

Any news about this bug?

@JoKy, yes, I know that a balance is necessary. However I do not see the benefit there regarding the password. And when I mention 2017 I mean that it's a behaviour that we can see almost everywhere (in every common webs and apps), so if someone forgets, I think it's reasonable to expect them to use the forgot the password. In any case, we can assume that when one registers, the game takes that password, and sends it through mail (this is a security flaw) and after that it's secured (hashed and a…

It's not about a DPA what I was talking about. It's that an usual robust way (and acceptable in 2017) wouldn't have that possibility. Having passwords stored raw is a security problem. That couldn't even be a possibility if the process was correct. That's what hashing and all those things are for.

Not a bug, but a general complain. When someone registers to OGame, the user and password is sent through an e-mail. That is not a modern and secure handling of passwords. Ideally it should not be possible to GameForge to access any raw password. Are there plans of implementing a more up to date system about security/privacy in this case? I think it could be good. And one would expect it to be implemented by 2017

I'm using Opera, and haven tested in any other browser. And this is not full information to exactly reproduce the bug. But it's some info. AntiGame seems to use the penultimate information about cargos in a planet when using collect mission. See an example: Say you have 600 cargos in a planet. And you have 20 million resources. You take 400 large cargos and transport 10M to a moon. This leaves you (and AntiGame) with the info that only 200 cargos are in that planet. The thing is that if you want…

If this does not step in the way of implementing a new system (or altering the game) to stabilize the protection that a moon provides, I like it too. I think it's a cool idea. And no harm to anyone. But again, if it doesn't step in the toes of developing something to ensure moons are as safe as before all these recent changes that came after redesign.