Login is closed for Retro server

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

    • it's so easy,

      if the server comeback it will surely comeback like
      last afterdown with all mv

      if u decide to remove that it's all up to u
      also the lowest can start a mines and all the rest on def

      it's useless have an attack ban, ther's forced VM

      just a nonsense who ask attack ban, and i'm miner here
      if u r not able to safe the rss it's equal farmer take u XD

    • Sorcy wrote:

      What I am against is specifically non attack ban after player leave protection (vacation mode) to help to those who profited in the time of downtime to utilize accumulated resources easier.
      Yes, that would be a huge gift for us (miners) to combine ceasefire and some weeks of accumulated production, quite unfair. Hence my suggested combination of Extended Ceasefire (3 to 5 days) + No MV + No Production. It still slightly disadvantage raiders as they cannot harvest farmers while farmers can normally harvest resources for a few days, but they would unleash their fleets over those who missed the end of the state of peace... :saint:

    • Sorry, I'm trying to focus this diatribe.

      Display Spoiler
      Suppose the lack of backup near the server's fall and the resulting abundance of resources.

      1) Sorcy points out that top miners will benefit more from this situation than the top fleeters and there are no doubts about this. He also says that this advantage is unfair, and that is true too.
      2) Rusiak's example, however complicated by his hatred for present banking management (more or less in tune in whole world), highlights this difference is less clear than what it seems to be: even those who have fleet (and an profit's optimized strategy) has a good half of its points in mines, so we can reasonably believe that he has a two to three levels less than the miner with a similar score. He will also benefit from this situation, but if we see it in relation to the miners he will be disadvantaged, we put for simplicity (even abundant) that he gets a 20% less;
      3) At this point, the injustice complained by Sorcy becomes more or less a 20% net profit of the miners on the comparable fleeters, but still remains an injustice;
      4) Sorcy then says: the storages are full, the miners may not be able to empty them speedly, they may be off so they can not move the resources or put defenses (or fleet) into production to do fallen the attack: If both occur, the fleeter can make up for this 20% difference than the miners;
      [But this presupposes that he attacks the same miners who obtained the aforementioned profit, and here is where theory crumbles]
      5) Canarefr points out that (save exceptions) the fleter will not be able to take this profit from the top miners, in fact their production is very low in proportion to their spending capacity (see cost / production models for mines). Indeed, they use to take long time to accumulate resources to develop a next level, so now they will only spend almost everything at once and if something goes ahead they will send it to fleetsave (have a moon). So they will not be the top miners paying this 20% difference, To whom do Sorcy turn?
      6) the average rankings miners, but especially the small and new players (which are not yet miners or fleeters), as Canarefr notes, they have a much higher proportion of production compared to their developable levels of mines and also haven't moons, (Wiz clearly refers to these: cit. "so, we may catch up by farming the players who will not be able to organize and move the res or that recklessly come out from v-mode thinking that no one can farm them" ).
      They will not be able to dispose of everything in one day, but not even in 3 or 4, seeing that they will have to wait for to finish a building to start another, and in meantime they will end up under attack; If they are on, will order defenses, if they are off will suffer the blow;
      7) small players compared to tops (miner or no) have already been disadvantaged because in the downtime they would have developed their mines frequently and gained the additional production of progressively developed levels (what Rusiak would call in finance "composite interest" ). In fact the small ones have an increase closer to the power function (exp>1), the top ones have a quasi-linear, while the bug has flattened all on the straight line), these (the smaller) have been disadvantaged compared to the top more than the top fleters compared top miners.
      8)And about the cargoes: assume that a small one has his most expensive building in the amount of "x" in resources, the cargoes it possesses will have a capacity in the order of magnitude [later "om"] of "x", (and less of them he ordinarily needs, the more he has drawn profit from the rest). According to which "imaginative" genial strategy should he have cargoes for om[10x] capacity?
      Because of this Sorcy can say: "So no attack ban here as suggestion to help and make it easier for those who advantaged from this downtime the most already anyway? (ie. miners without enough of cargo capacity)". But are you sure the top miners do not have enough cargoes? The little ones, already disadvantaged by downtime, do not.


      In summary:
      Both the pros-ban and the cons-ban of attacks arguments are equally valid theoretically, but this is not a philosophical speculation, and we have to take care of the facts that will really occur without ban:
      1) Top Miners will benefit more than top fleters,
      2) The fleters will perhaps recover the disadvantage, but not from the top miners, but the small ones,
      3) small are 3 times cheated: no power progression, no targets (all inactive and many others small like them in V-mod), farmed from top fleeter;
      4) Questions: On Whom will the smaller get own back? What did they hurt for deserving all the weight over them?

      To fix the ideas:
      Wanting to resume the financial Rusiak's example(and simplifying it to the maximum):

      Display Spoiler

      A1)With bug:
      The fleeter produced 5, the miner produced 7, the small produced 2,
      The ideal of which Sorcy is inspired is: fleeter 6, miner 6, small 2,
      The result which leads to reasoning: fleeter7, miner 7, small 0.
      (Let's say (as we are in the election period) the difference between politics and administration).

      B1)Without the bug (still simple):
      Miner (almost linear): 7 + om(10exp-1)
      Fleeter (depending on activity): range [5,8]
      Small (non-linear): 3

      differences:
      A2)with ban: miner (-om(10exp-1)), fleeter (-3, -1), small (-1) (which is much comparable its points).
      B2) without ban: miner (-om(10exp-1)), fleeter (-3, +?), Small [-3, -1] (depending on his disgrace).


      I understand, Sorcy(and many others) your matter, but the solution does not seem so simple.

      That said, we are quiet, if GF can not make a backup one or two days after the fall, but which attack's ban?!?!?!
      If the universe reopens, there will be no attack's ban.
      and Sorcy, and Wiz and other excellent fleeters will be able to try to raid the farms,
      especially at night.

      But if you believe to make this thing look justice, you're wrong.
      Lack of backup, lack of atack's ban, are the same lack of GF presence in this world.

      Friendly. Do not misunderstand me: I like to argue hard, but jokingly.
      Thank you for your attention.
      (I do not know english well, I've been 2 hours to translate, I write a lot to do exercise, forgive mistakes or gaffe, and lenghtiness.
      Also I do not know the game, I game for five months, I just tried to use the few knowledges I have.).

    • Thanks @Cano great job! I could understand your text very well.

      Actually I wanted to summarize this whole discussion, too and make a conclusion.

      First part was done by @Cano.

      Now my part.

      Conclusion: This whole discussion about an attack ban is next to useless.

      Why?
      1. We are not the people in power. The GF decides what they want to do. If they want to know how the community think about it, they can read this discussion with arguments for both sides. Or start a poll (I don't think that a poll is a good idea, too few active user).
      2. I still assume, that attack ban is not implemented or is bugged here (else they probably used one during an earlier downtime)
      3. We can continue this discussion, but I think that no one really is willing to change his/her mind.
      4. IMHO the best solution is to use the backup they used the last times. Or maybe one which is a little bit younger. There were many down times after this backup because of DDOS etc and many suffered from that (i didn't, right the opposite actually). So the fairest solution for all is too use an older backup. Additional advantage of this approach: We get a whole lot of deleted accounts back and if a suggestion from the other thread (Prolonging accounts cleanup time frame on the Retro Server) is used, these accounts will not be deleted right away again. So maybe some people will come back :)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Jango ().

    • Sorcy wrote:

      [
      And then bug occour. I am not allowed to use it to multiply my resources, my profit. I still need to earn my profit with fleeting.

      so you've built up your fleet with 0 mines. i see... care to explain this feat to me?

      edit: holy bajebus, i should've read page 2.
      also everybody should've read sorcy: "i am not allowed..." and "i can't..." imply absence which is simply put: not true. whilst it being less (i am glad somebody understood me) it sill is. "it" being his profit from mines.
      03-11-05 17:16:47 Allianz [reTOS] Mitgliedschaft in Allianz [reTOS] beendet
      Spieler Sanguinius hat die Allianz [reTOS] aufgelöst.
      Sie und alle anderen Spieler können sich nun neu bewerben
      R.I.P, baby

    • Cano your logic have some flaws :)

      There's a lot of talking about those smaller, newer players as potential victims because of too much resources.

      Many of you forget one important detail. Small, newer players, etc... won't need days to transport stuff among planets to build something.

      In one week each planet produce enough of resources to upgrade mine on every single planet and there may left even some extra to upgrade defence or build some ship.

      -> So to solve problem with too much of resources is like what? Coming out of VM in a suitable time, few clicks on mine upgrade at every planet with the rest spending on a defence (or ships). And then business as usually.

      The ones who need time to collect and redistribute resources the most are actually bigger miners with mines expensive enough (see cost / production of mines) to be forced to collect resources from several planets to upgrade one single mine.
      Those are also more tasty targets for us, few fleeters, which still struggle.

      Because now we come to another for this server very specific fact: there's not a lot of sharks in the water. From raiding point this server is extremely inactive, poor. Really small players are not natural victims of biggest fleeters. With server ageing they are more or less out of our interest. Middle sized fleets and millions at unattended moons are way more appealing targets than peanuts one can take from smallest guys. Personally I almost don't spy planets anymore. And from what I saw it's not much different with other bigger fleeters. We (those few fleets who are still there) are killing each other while miners mostly live their own life.

      ---
      Quick edit:
      This part "The ideal of which Sorcy is inspired is: fleeter 6, miner 6, small 2" is also wrong.
      Ideal when server is down is: fleeter 0, miner 0, small 0. Because simple fact: game is down, players can't play it. No one should advantage with that against anyone.

      That's just few points in hurry after my quick check of this excellent huge text above. I will read it more carefully a bit later.

      ---
      Rusiak, you completely missed the whole point ignoring real argument. As usually.
      ex #1st ranked uni14 .org
      ex #1st ranked uni1 .us
      ex #1st ranked andromeda .si

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Sorcy ().

    • Sorcy wrote:

      Really small players are not natural victims of biggest fleeters.

      True. They are the victims of smaller fleeters, or guys who have some ships and use them. There aren't many either but there are some.

      For small players we need to think in other dimensions, a lose of 100k res can mean a lot to them, and if they have about 1-2kk res on the planet, but need only 200k to build the next mine. They will usually need more than a day to get everything to safety.

      I read a lot of first-person perspective here. Think outside the box, folks.

    • Really is that a true problem? I think nope, especially when we look at history of this universe, when many good players just give up playing here because of cheaters, when we have at the moment 3rd shut down the server because of bugusing and finally when we dont know what be in the future, what next etc. The one option is that we will back to play to the empty server because of all things were happen - this is the real problem, not resources at mines account or none of resources at fleeters account. I wonder if will be any sense to come back here, because of less players.

      I came here to play because of old version of ogame without ACS, i played really hard many years ago, but now its only a calm play just for relax, but afters those things were happen im thinking about give up. Many accounts were deleted because if this shut down. Many clean players lost his fleet because of cheater so on, any idea how to fix it now? Propably not.

      Cheers.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Brut ().

    • Brut you're right,
      I answer a instant to Sorcy for our clarity and then is enough.
      Display Spoiler

      Sorcy, to avoid misunderstanding.
      I am perfectly in agreement with you that the worst plague of this game is the lack of fleeters (along with the use of smarthphones and internet connections everywhere), indeed I really appreciate the dedication of them.
      In my little, I disagree with the current Niubbio-protections that only encourage listless players so that they can spend dark matter in order to cure the rankings.
      For me the game is war, not agriculture.
      But given that in battles the less sportsmen are been lost, and just they are the ones in whom Ogame is most interested, so the current suicidal disincentive of fleets is explained in new updates of game versions. I find it improper to look bad when a bigger attacks a smaller one,(It is not that real life is a walk in a meadow of daisies),
      Instead things are simplify so that even the less interested feels himself to be able to play, where is the reasoning?
      (But these things are well known by all).

      Sorcy wrote:

      Really small players are not natural victims of biggest fleeters. With server ageing they are more or less out of our interest.

      I did not mean in general, but only in this case, that's exactly what I was saying, the small ones' natural competitors are the small fleeters (except for single cases), but because of this bug in a planet of a small player there may be several M of resources, perhaps does the top fleeter abstain from attacking because "really small players are not natural victims of biggest fleeters".

      I expose you to a real case.
      Returning from the last V-mode a 25k points player, he finds resources in his planets for 20M and the more expensive building requires 300 points.
      He can put defenses in the queue for 15 days.
      Or do abnormal levels of robots, build 400 cargos, rotating resources continuously among the planets in deployment.
      It is an abnormal situation, the big miner has probably developed the next mine, a big fleeter has lost that famous 20% and had rested, but a small one has lost its progression and has to spend a week of hell to not see the his "poor" treasure (not re-evaluated) at the mercy of the phenomenal attacks.
      And I'll be clear. I do not speak for myself, I will content if anyone attack, I only did it a matter of principle.

      Sure enough I said: [quote:] But if you believe to make this thing look justice, you're wrong.

      If we speak of principle, I do not consider fleeter as an aggressor, but perhaps the only one who honors the game in its intimate nature. I think the miner most of all hopes to have strong fleeters who thanks for the game vitality. If it were just a matter of agriculture we can implement a simulated growth model that goes on forever infinitely without the help of any player.
      I have participated because I could no longer feel that the attack's ban would protect the miners, because it is not so, or it is not predominantly. And it's true that the fleeters have lost, but the small ones have gotten three times as much, a bit of honor for them.

      Sorcy wrote:

      Cano your logic have some flaws :)

      It's true there are some flaws.
      First of all, everything could be irrelevant in light of the amount and condition of the players actually present in the server, which I do not know.


      Thanks.

    • Cano wrote:

      I have participated because I could no longer feel that the attack's ban would protect the miners, because it is not so, or it is not predominantly. And it's true that the fleeters have lost, but the small ones have gotten three times as much, a bit of honor for them.

      Out of curiosity, how would you answer to a small player who decided that hunting will be his way of playing instead of mining? Small fleeters/raider/farmer/etc?
      You know, those exist too.

      Because as you described situation above it's always about 3 groups of players "big miner/big fleeter/small player" where, I believe, I more properly generalized into two basic income contrast groups "fleeters/miners" disregarding the players size considering as fleeters also those smaller who invested big percentage of their resources into ships, proper war researches, engines, etc.
      It's not "small player" in general the one who pull the shortest end here. It's always fleeter. Big fleeter who can't fleet while his direct competition is growing stronger even while server being down. Small fleeter which his direct competition (small miner) is growing stronger even while server being down.

      Should small fleeters be a collateral damage while their rich colleagues in same ranks would boasts with millions resources under additional protection? When you protect small player (category which is too generalized to build an argument around it, because under any condition there's still just big/small miners protected) what help does it have disadvantaged small fleeter/raider here? (you know, the one not disadvantaged only vs big miners and fleeters but also disadvantaged versus his direct competition boasting with millions)?

      When you said with bug "The fleeter produced 5, the miner produced 7, the small produced 2" i would correct you "The fleeter produced 5, the miner produced 7, the small miner produced 2, the small fleeter produced 1". (considering as fleeter anyone who invested big percentage of resources into gameplay with ships instead of mines mostly).

      How would from non-attack ban after vacation mode by your opinion get some advantage the small red one as the most disadvantaged here?
      ex #1st ranked uni14 .org
      ex #1st ranked uni1 .us
      ex #1st ranked andromeda .si

    • All this above is just matter of philosophical discussion of course. @Brut with post above hit the nail regarding the real problem here.
      Details how things will be handled by gameforge after so long downtimes and mass vacation mode aren't crucial here anymore. This server, this community, with so many players frustrated, so many players permanently in VM, etc... won't be ever the same again. Right now those few still interested don't even know if server will be back anytime soon ... if ever.
      ex #1st ranked uni14 .org
      ex #1st ranked uni1 .us
      ex #1st ranked andromeda .si

    • Jango wrote:

      Does anyone know who killed the main fleet of lonewolf?

      No one?

      There were just few players capable to do it with a profit and not too big points drop as no one lost any decent points that night. I also spoke with all potential candidates and everyone denied it.
      Unless someone lied and killed fleet in batches other possible scenarious would be killing fleet in waves vs some middle ranked turtle (that's why we didn't noticed points drop) or killing fleet together with colony deletion. Something unexplained obviously happened here.
      Killing this fleet in a batches from a bigger player would be obvious push, so this may be a reason why hide it from the rest of us, however to me still seems deletion with a planet and/or moon.
      ex #1st ranked uni14 .org
      ex #1st ranked uni1 .us
      ex #1st ranked andromeda .si