Affordable fleetsave in speedservers

    • Fleet, Defense and Combats

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

    • Affordable fleetsave in speedservers

      Note: this idea comes from a comment from @JJMonti, just to give credit :)

      TL;DR: create a new cargo ship that carries other ships inside (and not many resources), which has the same speed and consumption as a deathstar, and that will make fleetsaving simple by reducing the costs almost entirely, while maintaining the risks of fleetsaving (vs. v-mode).

      Hi again,

      As mentioned many times in threads like Bring back the power of moons or The fundamental problem of playing OGame (fleeters) fleetsaving is not human enough for speedservers, in particular after some years, when accounts and huge fleets are developed. And I believe it's one of the critical or key points where ogame is lacking right now; and one of the main reasons people need to play v-mode (at least from those related to how the game works).

      I've been defending that we need to make moons secure as they were in the past (i.e., around 8h of security to fleetsave securely) plus we need some way to implement an affordable fleetsave. In x1 servers there's the possibility to fleetsive to your own debris at very little deuterium consumption; but that's not possible in high speed universes.
      If you add the risk of being hit, with the cost of fleetsaving (impossible to maintain during days that one cannot farm), well, we get more v-moders.

      I had been thinking about how to implement a cheap fleetsave that will enable people to affordably keep playing, and even bring back those mixed players from the past, that had fleet just for a few weeks and then managed to fleetsave at reduced cost during months of not being so active. And one was proposed recently in the spanish community, so I bring something similar here.

      This is one proposal that has the objective to solve a general problem. In this thread each of them can be discussed, either discuss this proposal, add another proposals, or discuss the problem behind it.

      New ship, let's call it FREIGHTER (just for this thread, first hit searching for cargo ships in google)

      Now this new ship has not much cargo capacity, and very slow speed, and very small consumption, but can carry ships, or in a more technical way: Structural Integrity.
      This means that if one wants to fleetsave many many ships, he can fleetsave the freighters and load the rest of the ships inside. That way the only consumption it spends is just the freighters.

      Now just a first approach (these numbers are just to show how it works, and can be discussed). In a fleet of 100M points on an account, it's usual to have no more than 2-4M in cargos (e.g., 500k small cargos, and 150k large cargos for instance), so for this example I aim to have more or less the same cost spend in this freighters. Let's say that the freighters cost 100k metal + 100k crystal each (i.e., 20 small cargos), and can carry 10M of Structural Integrity (i.e., 10k points on an account) plus 10k of resources each. And they have the same speed and consumption of a deathstar.

      With that in mind, if a player with 100M points invested in ships, he would need 10.000 freighters to carry everything, and that means 2M points in freighters to carry 100M in ships (well, more technically in Structural Integrity, so a bit more points in ships). So if he wants to fleetsave he would select the 10k freighters, load them with the ships and a few resources (the freighters do not carry much, but at least there's room to carry some deuterium) and the fleetsave itself would be similar to that of fleetsaving 10k rips in cost and speed.

      This way, people will have more freedom to create ships since when they don't have time for being active fleeters, they could fleetsave them at a small cost (as is usual in x1 universes).

      Since the freighters do not have much space, making a second fleetsave with the cargos and the resources would be necessary, but I think that's affordable.

      I leave it for now. This opens to many many variables and discussions, but I'll leave those for the answers. For example, two questions, and my short opinion on them: why not make them also huge in resource capacity? (that will make them overpowered) What will happen if we attack someone with freighters loaded with other ships inside? (they will not be part of the battle, similar to when you attack with resources in the fleet)

      That's it. I hope this opens the discussion about affordable fleetsaving, and I particularly like this proposal.

      PS: I know I'm not good at transmitting new ideas in a clear and concise way, but I hope that, while it's a bad, the post covers most of what's important
      PS2: be cordial, please :)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Minion ().

    • 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 fleet once it returns, this is what draws people to the idea that it's better not to engage in any risks at all.

      Yes, the Moons can be lost, just as they can in x1, where it's also possible to lock a recalled fleet, where the main problem will not be even about destroying the Moon, but of having the capability to spot the exact moment when the fleet is going to be recalled as Phalanx scans can be spammed up to the level where there will be major lags aiding the defender to escape. That's what will present the real issue, not even tied to Universe's speed. Now add about 9 separate waves (and 3-4 on top, consisting of 1/2 of the whole amount of Recyclers, other half of which was dispatched within the main fleet waves), and try to count the probabilities all of those will get caught by the attackers. With a rough estimation, at least 50% of recalled fleet waves are going to be saved, add recovery from Space Dock and debris harvested by defender's Recyclers. :) So, it's an unfortunate saving method, you say? :)

      If the goal of your initial proposal stands for actually making the Moons stronger and their destructions more complicated, all which needs to be done is the introduction of Nanite Factories at those, after which all of the serious MD-focused operations will require the participation of at least 4 players, which is bulk of an effort. :) To make the long story short, you seem to be walking the way of over-complicating a solution which should be easier than explained in the above blueprint. :)

      The post was edited 9 times, last by Smoke Nightvogue ().

    • 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% (41:33:43), grounding from the regular, non-speed standards. Half of that value will be returned, so for 30% it translates into 2.163.643 Deuterium, or 2.1 millions.

      Now let's double the fleet from 22.100.078 to 44.200.156 points: the save will cost about 4.3 millions accounting 50% return rate - the sum which starts draining off a serious amount of what the mines on a fleeting account usually produce in one day. What we do next is try to double the fleet further, from 44.200.156 into 88.400.312 points, and that's where the issue becomes truly-notable, no matter which speed the Universe runs at.

      At the very least, saving such a fleet will require about 8.6 millions of deut (or approximately 3.1 billions a year), which is exceptionally-expansive even for top 1 economy account, the level of infrastructure the dedicated fleeters usually don't have the capacity investing into, due to the nature of their competition. Thus, as you can see, the problem indeed have its own noteworthy place, at the same time, I strongly believe there are way easier measures which would allow to address it in a timely manner, even in the process of releasing version 6.4 update, the only thing which needs to be amended is the amount of fuel returned back by Deployment saves (and possibly, including the same for its canceled form), from 50 to 75%, and the issue indicated above will be resolved even for 100 billion-worth fleets, regardless of speed specifics the play occurs at. :)

      The post was edited 11 times, last by Smoke Nightvogue ().