Adjust bashing rule regarding the usage of IP missiles

    • Fleet, Defense and Combats

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

    • The problem I have with your suggestion is that it makes next to impossible to destroy dedicated bunkers. The only suggestion I would argue is if you want to nerf ipms then you should nerd defenses in general and make them require their own version of fields. Such as every level of a certain building lets you build 100 different units of defense.

    • Building 30k IPM in a few hours is definitely possible without DM, first of all, depending of the universe speed, and shipyard and nanites levels. Detroids are also a thing and, considering it took 30,000 to destroy your bunker, I can safely assume it is an old universe, and/or a very fast one, where people have billions of resources saved up for the next project.

      Therefore, it is also very safe to assume that any player with enough death stars could have run your defenses down over time if they had wanted to. 6 attacks would leave you with (0.7^6) = 11.7% of your defenses left intact. Would you also have complained if that happened? I'd like to think not.

      The main issue here is that you had too much defense for the amount of ABM on the planet. Whether you like it or not, the defenses' job is not to make you invulnerable, but to protect your basic assets while you're not looking at your account: production, satellites, and whatever else you're willing to leave at risk of being destroyed and recycled.

      A fleeter can only be nearly totally safe in one way: backed-deployment ghosting (or however else this is called if a term is coined), but if the player is sleeping 8 hours a day, that makes their fleet unavailable for 16 hours a day, and requires good planning. Any other way is weak to moonbreaking or phalanxes. So, if a time-consuming playstyle is never truly safe, why should a player who involves 5 minutes a day playing his account be? You chose to defend yourself with a bunker rather than with large cargo ships and ghosting, which both have their weaknesses, and one of yours was used by the attacker. There needn't be a reason for someone to wipe your bunker clean other than because they can, or want to, profit or not. I personally don't even understand why moonbreaking attempts are considered bashing, which greatly limits raiders' possibilities and forces them to have friends or allies send more moonbreak fleets if theirs all fail.

      If you wanted to have a 5-minutes-a-day game where you can't lose progress, I'm sorry to tell you this but OGame wasn't the right choice. I completely understand that life doesn't allow everyone to have plenty of time to spare on games, but then you've got to make choices accordingly.

      But hey, now that your folly bunker is down, this might be a good time to go for something less vulnerable to overnight operations, such as ghosting your resources in cargo ships, that way even if you are being attacked after a successful moonbreak, you still get a chance at finding people to help you defend, or threaten to destroy the attacker's fleet as soon as it's back from the raid.

    • Tenko wrote:

      Building 30k IPM in a few hours is definitely possible without DM, first of all, depending of the universe speed, and shipyard and nanites levels. Detroids are also a thing and, considering it took 30,000 to destroy your bunker, I can safely assume it is an old universe, and/or a very fast one, where people have billions of resources saved up for the next project.

      Therefore, it is also very safe to assume that any player with enough death stars could have run your defenses down over time if they had wanted to. 6 attacks would leave you with (0.7^6) = 11.7% of your defenses left intact. Would you also have complained if that happened? I'd like to think not.

      The main issue here is that you had too much defense for the amount of ABM on the planet. Whether you like it or not, the defenses' job is not to make you invulnerable, but to protect your basic assets while you're not looking at your account: production, satellites, and whatever else you're willing to leave at risk of being destroyed and recycled.

      A fleeter can only be nearly totally safe in one way: backed-deployment ghosting (or however else this is called if a term is coined), but if the player is sleeping 8 hours a day, that makes their fleet unavailable for 16 hours a day, and requires good planning. Any other way is weak to moonbreaking or phalanxes. So, if a time-consuming playstyle is never truly safe, why should a player who involves 5 minutes a day playing his account be? You chose to defend yourself with a bunker rather than with large cargo ships and ghosting, which both have their weaknesses, and one of yours was used by the attacker. There needn't be a reason for someone to wipe your bunker clean other than because they can, or want to, profit or not. I personally don't even understand why moonbreaking attempts are considered bashing, which greatly limits raiders' possibilities and forces them to have friends or allies send more moonbreak fleets if theirs all fail.

      If you wanted to have a 5-minutes-a-day game where you can't lose progress, I'm sorry to tell you this but OGame wasn't the right choice. I completely understand that life doesn't allow everyone to have plenty of time to spare on games, but then you've got to make choices accordingly.

      But hey, now that your folly bunker is down, this might be a good time to go for something less vulnerable to overnight operations, such as ghosting your resources in cargo ships, that way even if you are being attacked after a successful moonbreak, you still get a chance at finding people to help you defend, or threaten to destroy the attacker's fleet as soon as it's back from the raid.
      He didn't destroy me entire defense, only 10% of it. But he said he would go on until all of it was gone. It was a grudge from another universe. The only issue I have is the fact, that gamewise, I cannot DO anything about it. So 4 years of building, and there is somebody who has a grudge, gets boosted by probably other players, because this player who attacked me was only ranked 440+ somewhat. I was limited by the amount of ABM I could build. As I said, if Gameforge does not want to adjust the bashing rule regarding IPM attacks (which do lots more damage than regular attacks), then set the amount of ABM's free please. Gameforge could make them more expensive, like the costs of a Gauss cannon for example, but make them unlimited. So the defender can self determine how much ABM's he wants to deploy. Still, this does not make him 100% save. That is also not my goal. What's the fun in a game where you can never loose? Other players can work together as well. They can gather up to 10 or 20 or even more players and surround the turtler and bombard him. But, that takes some effort, and for the attackers it's also a question, "do we really want this?, what's in it for us?". In the current situation it's like being a fleeter who cannot move his fleet and being picked by another player, and he can't do anything about it. How would you feel? "Turtling" is a gamestyle as well. It's a part of OGame. You have fleeters, miners and turtlers.

      About your last remark: I destroyed (scrapped) the remaining 90% of the bunker myself, because I would not give him the pleasure of doing it. I build 220,000 battlecruisers for it, but that account is months in v-mode now because I don't know what to do with it. And your remark about those deathstars bashing my bunker, yes, that was possible, but at a huge cost for the attackers as well, because I had also over 1,200 deathstars lying behind that bunker. Any attacker who came with 20,000 deathstars would lose so many deathstars that it would be too costly, just 'to bash the turtler'.

      To be short: The IBM is too strong, and the attacker can build and fire them so fast that a defender never could anticipate it. The attacker can determine when the defender is offline (he has to sleep too), so he can go on.

      I ask only 1 of these two things:
      - Adjust the bashing rule of IPM's
      - Make ABM's unlimited to build, just like regular defense, giving the defender the choice how much he thinks he needs.

    • Demonfreak wrote:

      How would you feel? "Turtling" is a gamestyle as well. It's a part of OGame. You have fleeters, miners and turtlers.
      Correct, but as nobody force you to choose a gamestyle , then why if you decide to be a turtler, you want that gameforge change rules to improve your gamestyle ? I think that any player should manage game in way to improve his experience of play, fun, possibility to up in highscore, etc.

      An adjust of bashing rule, could sound need in some situation, but at same time it is need that who attack could have a possibility to win ........... some change instead go in direction of a static game (anybody can decide as to game, but you have also to considere that a turtler style don't go in direction to have interaction, activity).

      Atm for sure it is not correct that anybody can destroy the game of another, just for pastime, just to see rosik .......... this is not fun, it is not a way to have more players, this is not way to show skills

      Demonfreak wrote:

      - Make ABM's unlimited to build, just like regular defense, giving the defender the choice how much he thinks he needs.
      personally I think this it is not a good solution, because will be possible to arrive a point that you will have an amount of defence and ABM that permit to you to login any 20 days .......... you of course think at your life, your opportunity, but if we have to watch at life of server, we have to prefer to have more players moving ships and play really.

      IMHO

      In a word, more there is balance between any components usable and better is.

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

    • Ive never seen someone use IPMs above 10kk points, but him being mad and "sending a message" or on moons => I think you are making problems where there are none.

      Beside that. If you are scared to lose your deff, you have too much deff already. Build up enough deff to defend yourself and not to play excel simulation. If you get IPM'd you just IPM back because the enemy usually has a defense to defend himself too. Usually one of you loses interest fast and ez pz. Otherwise ask the fleeter you are selling deut to to retime this guy.

      Demonfreak wrote:

      - Make ABM's unlimited to build, just like regular defense, giving the defender the choice how much he thinks he needs.
      This would leave to undestroyable moons btw.

    • defense builds up on old inactive unis, like the shell of a dead crab that doesnt decompose. If bunkers were any tougher they would be overpowered. They dont have to last for ever to be useful. It was never permanent points.

      ===
      double capacity of missile silo
      ===
      ipm are limited by build speed, range, _cost. abm are limited by silo capacity. this will buff defense while making ipming less painful. currently to ipm with strong nanites you have to do nothing but build and send for as much as 1-2 hours. depending greatly on other factors. its so intense, not for everyone. my idea gives a little more breathing room during hours of missile work.

      the capacity of silo is clearly low, but not low early uni when you have less than 40 pt. the real problem is the cost multiplier per level of silo, it shouldnt double. but changing that could change fields used. i would change the capacity, base cost and cost escalation so fields used are balanced out. 50-70% cost increase per level would scale better imo.

      ADDED: im in new uni. i have 20-30 pt but 40 abm. my silo is low but why upgrade, 40 is so much.
      Dor - Cygnus - En

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

    • Demonfreak wrote:

      The only issue I have is the fact, that gamewise, I cannot DO anything about it
      Yes, you can. You just need to build ABMs as his IPMs hit your planet. Saying you can't do anything about it just because you need to sleep would be like a fleeter saying he can't do anything about his fleet that's sleeping on his moon being recycled while he's sleeping in his bed. Ridiculous, isn't it?

      Demonfreak wrote:

      I had also over 1,200 deathstars lying behind that bunker
      If you're leaving 1200 death stars behind your defense instead of fleetsaving, look no further for an explanation as to why you're being IPM'd to hell. So yeah, turtler is a play style, and just like any other, it has its weaknesses. If you want to play games where you can't be attacked or lose anything, you've made the wrong choice.

    • Tenko wrote:

      Demonfreak wrote:

      The only issue I have is the fact, that gamewise, I cannot DO anything about it
      Yes, you can. You just need to build ABMs as his IPMs hit your planet. Saying you can't do anything about it just because you need to sleep would be like a fleeter saying he can't do anything about his fleet that's sleeping on his moon being recycled while he's sleeping in his bed. Ridiculous, isn't it?

      Demonfreak wrote:

      I had also over 1,200 deathstars lying behind that bunker
      If you're leaving 1200 death stars behind your defense instead of fleetsaving, look no further for an explanation as to why you're being IPM'd to hell. So yeah, turtler is a play style, and just like any other, it has its weaknesses. If you want to play games where you can't be attacked or lose anything, you've made the wrong choice.
      No I cannot, I cannot stay awake 24 hours to keep building ABMs. You don't get it. Sooner or later the attacker knows when you are offline and the amount of damage he can do is huge compared to a regular fleet attack or even a moon destruction. With some DM, a nanite factory at level 8 or higher and a lot of resources so much defense can be destroyed, and you don't even have the option to rebuild like you have with the spacedock, or the option to steal debris. You have zero options in this regard. Going in v-mode is the only escape. I should have done that at the time. And about those Deathstars, they are part of a turtler. Deathstars are not battleships, they are battle stations. They are a integral part of any big turtler. Any turtler without deathstars is extremely vulnerable against enemy deathstars. And besides, that person was not after those deathstars, he had a personal vendetta going on, because he thought I betrayed him (which was not the case). But that does not matter what his reason was, in general speaking the IP rocket is too strong, and there is no real defense against it if someone is willing to make the effort in starting shooting them. You have to sleep one way or another.

      So again: if Gameforge is not ready or willing to put a bashing rule on the IP rocket, then change the ABM rocket:
      - Make it more expensive (twice or three times as much)
      - Make it unlimited to build

      In this scenario an attacker can still attack, and it will costs the defender also those expensive AB missiles, but then HE has the choice how much ABM's he actually is willing to build in order to keep his defense safe from enemy IP attacks. Remember, there is no limit in how organized an alliance can be if they really want to take down a turtler. A group of 10 or 20 players surrounding a turtler and the turtler is gone. But then you can say, it was a group effort to accomplish something, getting the fleet behind that defense, or the resources, but not what we have now, is senseless bashing just to destroy. It's isn't allowed with regular attacks either, why should it be allowed with IP missiles?

    • A bashing of ip rocket sound interesting, for particular cases, but very complicated to have an only rule for everybody and any situation. Need that go decide case for case if attack is fury, useless.

      To have unlimited ABM will permit at defender to be unassailable in gain

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

    • Not necessarily unlimited but the ratio of ABM's to IPM's should be much higher. At the current time ABM's are fairly trivial to get past. IPM's per level should stay the same, however ABM's should be tied to level cost (Level*8=ABM capacity). so,
      Level 1, 8 ABM's
      Level 2, 16 ABM's
      Level 3, 32 ABM's
      Level 4, 64 ABM's
      Level 5, 128 ABM's
      Level 6, 256 ABM's
      Level 7, 512 ABM's
      Level 8, 1,024 ABM's

    • Justanotherplayer wrote:

      Not necessarily unlimited but the ratio of ABM's to IPM's should be much higher. At the current time ABM's are fairly trivial to get past. IPM's per level should stay the same, however ABM's should be tied to level cost (Level*8=ABM capacity). so,
      Level 1, 8 ABM's
      Level 2, 16 ABM's
      Level 3, 32 ABM's
      Level 4, 64 ABM's
      Level 5, 128 ABM's
      Level 6, 256 ABM's
      Level 7, 512 ABM's
      Level 8, 1,024 ABM's

      i would not double it each level, but still good suggestion!

    • No. IPMS shouldn't be included in bashing.

      Reason: 6 bashes/mds combined is already a stupid low number.

      Demonfreak, people didn't even wanna crack you at your turtle in peg (before you deleted), why are you saying they need to be restricted even more. I would know your def, i smashed my fleet into it because i was bored with the dynamic of the uni. Even if i wanted to spend 50 hours ipming you, i wouldn't, because its boring. Although thanks for the honorable mention in the youtube video.

      Cheers.

      MSR

      The post was edited 3 times, last by ManSizedRooster ().

    • Google translate on :)


      I am a player who often uses rockets and and I have over 100 million points (I'm top15 on my universe). I even sacrificed one of my colonies for this purpose. I do not have any mines or defense built on it. There is only a silo at level 11, a shipyard and a nanite factory. This planet moves through the universe thanks to relocations. And it destroys every bunker that can make a profit.

      11 level silos can hold 55 rockets. By reducing the time of their construction thanks to antimatter, you can empty the silo 5 times in every 2 minutes. It gives me a rate of fire of about 8,250 rockets per hour.
      The largest bunker that I destroyed solo, required 18300 rockets and it took less than 2.5 hours.

      If a player makes a mistake and keeps more resources in the bunker than the cost of building rockets needed for his destruction, then I think he should not be surprised that someone is bothering about it.

      It would not be possible if the rocket attacks were subject to the bash rule.
      Some like to fly with their fleet, others like to dig, I like to destroy other bunkers. This is my way to play Ogame. Do not take this away from me :/