Planet Size

    • Declined

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Ok maybe it was too tricky to understand.

      Why is the +25 field bonus takesn so often?
      Just because you will always take the bonus if you have the chance to do so. So it´s not the reason, that the Redesign field formular is not "suitable".

      LG

      So if you still don´t get it, it´s a NOPE
      Being a QA is sort of like being a goal keeper. People only talk about you when you’ve screwed up. We are the silent guardians of game development, and they will never have to thank us.
    • The funny thing is that they tried to make people use more dark matter by making people spend more fields in things like the containers (which now are required to be higher that they were in the past at the smaller levels) or the current planet sizes, with the idea that people would buy more extra fields with dark matter, apart from ensure a few extra relocations from positions 8 to 12 for instance, etc.

      Now people are struggling (which, in my opinion, is due to the lack of thought put into the game by the standard players) and they are giving extra fields as a part of the universe characteristics.

      It looks a bit like Whack-A-Mole game, also other areas in the game suffer from the same thing.

      Now, personally I would leave the extra fields out, and make people struggle and try to find a solution, and not having tons of space for free, which reduces the power that strategy gives. But it won't probably go this way :D
    • JoKy wrote:

      Ok maybe it was too tricky to understand.

      Why is the +25 field bonus takesn so often?
      Just because you will always take the bonus if you have the chance to do so. So it´s not the reason, that the Redesign field formular is not "suitable".

      LG

      So if you still don´t get it, it´s a NOPE
      This means the same sh*t is going to happen to deuterium consumption things? :D

      Well I got what you meant, but it's because we both are german. Wanted to keep it understandable for everyone here.

      We already had an adaption at the field size formula. Hoped that we can finally make ogame great again :P
    • For why it is, might be for say a mid-point development interest across a broader spectrum, than say having less or too much, especially against nothing at all.
      Sounds like what is called to perhaps sustain more than maintain on anything attained, rather to retain or not of course.

      But I don't know, they may have more players playing across the difference Universes also. If so then say the rates would be the only difference and say inbetween the developments between any utilization would place what isn't a difference. Given, like a Universe of Light Fighters, Universe of Heavy Fighters and so on, but where worth of time probably holds a regards to the contrast.

      Over the years it would make some sense, realizing pulling that off once year is probably not long enough for it to work out.

      So, at this time against other years has been the difference rather of the participatable to such or not, but from such still of course.

      But I don't know, but I've picked up on the samething how numbers are used more than once to say.


      Thanks,

      Kellogen
    • i made a suggestion long ago to add field bonus for servers annually, lets say +3 fields for every year,

      or, another idea, as terraformer is working with energy, the yield from it may increase with certain energy tech levels, instead of giving fields from terraformer stable number of fields, it can be related to energy tech from start of the game,

      energy tech level 4 - 2 free spaces,
      energy tech level 9 - 3 free spaces,
      energy tech level 16 - 4 free spaces,
      energy tech level 25 - 5 free spaces and so on