Search Results

Additionally, the way this feature exists at the moment is rather overpowered as to what the defender is able to recover after the battle and basically allows to restore 1/3 of the initial fleet where balance-wise that amount should only be 1/4 or 20% less than it now is.

Well, the problem with anything of the above origin is that it'll require adjusting the code to ensure entire inability to recall any kind of dispatched fleet orders through variety of means. In addition to that, accounting what TGWo has mentioned, I tend to believe option as such isn't essential-enough to advocate the efforts of its development. Furthermore, your version of it utilizes some kind of awkward player-penalizing scheme which doesn't seem to present a list of non-severe, yet thorough…

Hi there. Your suggestion looks attractive and reasonable enough, although I'd actually recommend the example research to last 180 days instead of 124 with the newly-provided formula in order to uphold the balance.

To make a small clarification on what I exactly meant: "Vacation mode lasts a minimum of 48 hours and can only be deactivated 2 times within 7 days. Only after these limits expire will you be able to turn it off". That's the thing I personally envision being the easiest code-wise and properly-balanced solution. As for involving user's IP addresses, e-mails and further associated details into this scheme, these measures are simply not something efficient due to above-mentioned workarounds and the…

Quote from RadioSweetHeart: “Notes: (e.) This in turn will control the v mode abuse and create a much more balanced gameplay ” For someone who resides in V-Mode due to absence of time, or the notion is that it somehow prevents V-Mode fleeters from over-extensively applying this feature in situations where a long fleet save is anticipated? I'll tell you what such a fleeter will do in an old Universe, when he runs out of these 52 sessions on the account. He'll simply grab another one from a long l…

I've recently taken a look at the newly-implemented bonus for the starters to catch up with players who progressed from the very first day of Universe's creation, did comparison of summed up colony costs along with building in Bermuda for a bit, and from these tests, some feedback arose in regards to slight modification of the prices and other offered rewards. I'll publish the updated list below, and will then comment on each option as of why: Day 1: 44k of metal and 13k of crystal. Day 2: Items…

It's a bit strange that being a top 10 fleeter you still don't comprehend why he/she does that and how the problem could be solved. It's about that exact player's self-defensive habits, and trust me, even if there was 5 days minimal V-Mode restriction in place, the chances you'd manage to catch that fleet with described tactics are less than 20%. I lack enough time to get personally involved in your story, however, the thing I'd recommend is asking one of your friends, preferably without an asso…

The question wasn't addressed to me, however, the answer is obvious enough to be provided nevertheless. At first, I would have gone researching Astrophysics level 21, and once it's done, I'd allocate 3 colonies to be permanent mobiles which are moved across the Universe, depending on interest in certain targets throughout multiple galaxies. If there are only 100 active players around, the waiting time until the Jump Gates are made shouldn't be an issue (especially since those can be accelerated …

It's not 24 hours now, was recently changed to 48. In any case, whenever it comes to inconvenient user limitations or something they're compelled to follow, none of such things gain my personal favor or support, even if I'm trying to do my best to actually polish those. Restrictions as such are simply in discrepancy with how I envision game design overall.

Quote from tarikmeister: “V mode has a lot of benefits now, your building queue gets paused, your research gets paused, I think all of theese benefits should be stripped away, I have to work too and lots of other things and yet, I was in V mode for 2 days only for the whole year. ” Yeah, I agree: remove everything the volunteers crafted there for about 5 years in relation to the subject, so that it'll all simply turn into collecting more purchases of DM: for speeding-up the researches, buildings…

A little boost to account's production looks like an appealing modification. Speaking of more accurate numbers for reassessment, I'd suggest fitting those within the span of 1.5%/1%/0.5% for each level.

Quote from Minion: “@vakus and @Smoke Nightvogue: what do you think about the concept of limiting the amount of times someone can disable v-mode per month? ” I think we had a similar discussion many years ago within the specified thread: if there's anything to be amended in how V-Mode functions in the existing form, I personally would have tried to follow the outlines provided by Kwinse, with brought-in simplification that time required to be spent in V-Mode trivially increases by 24 hours each …

Yeah, the "scrapped due to general discomfort & the lack of desire to continue playing a fleeter" option will achieve much more, and that's what my predicted outcome of the suggested scheme is. I really don't understand why someone stands under the impression she's able introducing surefire assumptions of how often do I enter V-Mode or visit a v-modded account to acquire economy boosters, which I'm doing on about 4 of those "blued out" ones on a constant basis (about 250+ days a year), moving ou…

If they're playing like that, they're obviously doing it for a reason, which is most-likely the lack of time to meet the returning fleetsaves everyday. I simply don't see a proper reason of driving a players group of certain age (30+) out of the game because someone feels like those are ought to fleetsave day-by-day. No, they're not: this is the game and everyone develops his/her play style according to own busyness and convenience.

I have a better idea: leave everything associated with V-Mode alone and not involve the Dev Team into delivering another needless V-Mode-affecting feature (such as the inability to monitor the Galaxy) which will, in the end, decrease the number of active fleetrunners in aging Universes. The only outcome I can foresee from the expressed is less thrilling battles, and less action overall.

And still, more than a year later, I'm interested in everyone's opinion on the matter, especially of those among the game's development team. Do you think something like that might be worth adding as you'll be approaching version 7.0?

Quote from iguypouf: “Like creating a real war module, for which players are waiting for more years than the previous point?” You've made a very good point! In the Russian OGame, we've been waiting for the addition of such feature for almost 8 years, especially when my alliance used to be engaged in 6 years long war which started in 2006 and concluded only in 2012, by the first Universes merge. The archived thread is still out there, with bunches of collected data such as total damage the allian…

I was wondering for a long time if it's possible to modify the current scheme where the bought Dark Matter is always spent first to the pattern where DM obtained through expeditions and other gift-awarding events is always debited first from the account instead? The reason for rearrangement of the scheme is that some players, including myself, are accustomed to utilizing the bought DM as a guaranteed mean of protection against account deletion in case of extended inactivity and associated Vacati…

Is that only me who's having difficulties reading that text even on a 23-inch display? Anyway, to get closer to the topic: there's no product which can be perfect at the exact 100 out of 100% rate, unfortunately, and OGame isn't an exception. Also, there's absolutely no need to have more than 4-5 people involved behind key design decisions, if these are professional enough and comprehend what they're doing, assumed they're staying in touch with what the players are discussing on boards and maint…

I knew someone was going to create that thread. To me, it looks like a bad idea: getting rid of the already-implemented features, even if they aren't directly-associated with inner functionality of the game. It'll be more than enough to have the link removed from the bottom references menu whilst saving up the ability to reach out the contents of /game/pranger.php page if desired, at least on my sight.