Unlock vacation player locations to swap

    • Acquire and obtain players

    • Unlock vacation player locations to swap

      Hi all,

      I saw a few threads asking for vacation players to be deleted in order to allow relocations to be done more easily.
      I don't fully agree with that but understand the frustration of having the spots I want permanently occupied by someone who isn't playing the game whatsoever.
      What I suggest is that for players that are in vacation mode for more that 6 months, their spots should be "unlocked" to swap. So if you want that spot, you can relocate to there and at same time the vacation player will be relocated to your original location, so pretty much like a swap (example: if active player is occupying 1:185:12 and wants 5:110:5, the player in vacation will be relocated to the 1:185:12).
      I understand this should only be applied to vacation players only, as applying it to inactive players (without vacation mode) with bring a lot of strange tactics that I think wouldn't be attractive to the game...

      This will allow:
      - active players will use relocations a lot more
      - the vacation player not to lose his account (as suggested by others)
      - in the remote chance of an v-mode players returns, oh well, after 6+ months you probably won't remember where your planets where in the first place (lolol). Now seriously, he can always relocate to near by positions to the original ones he had, if he truly thinks it where worthy of course (and spent some DM of course).

      What do you think? It would give an interesting dynamic to long dead systems no?

    • your idea sound interesting , but in opinion you are that vacation user and you stopped to play with planets in position A,B,C,... what will be your reaction if you come back and discover that they have moved everything?

      I don't think this solution can be apply for every account, but only for account arrived by fusion ............. so if an account forcibly moved (without it deciding to go to the exodus universe), then over it will be active your solution.
      And maybe same solution could be applied for inactive (always arrived by fusion) ......... also if in that case there will be a problem with attack incoming to inactive's planets (so solution could be that relocation failed if at time 0 there are an attack incoming to inactive).

    • that's why I mentioned 6 months... my experience tells me that if you are away that much time then you are disconnected from the game anyway. Generally you won't come back but if so and you want to get the same positions than before, then use relocations. But you made a good point, why not a warning by email saying you have 24h to log in or you will lose that position? If he returns the 6 month clock is reset and he keeps the spot... if not, the swap goes forward.So if he ignores the warning, well.. he was warned.

      The question is, who should the rules protect? The player who abandoned the game and didn't return after 6 months or the ones that are still playing it?

      The reason I'm against this to be applied to inactive players is because you will have active players trying to populate their systems will inactives in order to do easy farming... if applied to v-mode players only, that would be avoided.

    • I think the unmentioned problem here is that some players go to systems where long time V-moded account is in order to use them to create a blocked system for protection.

      If I want to have a "safe" place so that I can't be raided from in-system, it is a viable tactic to enter and make a blocked system with these types of abandon accounts.

      Why would it then be allowed that an enemy can come and "swap" out so he can be in-system with me?

      If there are no other planets to "swap" with, what if my ally mate wanted to arrive to help me against this enemy but can't because the only long term V mode player has already been "swapped" out.

      So 6 months is nothing. If I am deployed over seas for military for a tour, the last thing on my mind is playing ogame. I think it would be rude to come home, login in, and find I have emails telling me some or all my planets were moved last week because players wanted my positions.

      And on that note, think of having a planet moved from G5 to G1 over this so that a fleet save set up is disrupted, to say nothing of temp changes and thus sat changes.

      What if you're a slot three planet and I'm in a slot 15...so I lose deut production because YOU wanted to move?

      Last, who will compensate me to move my planet back to a cold spot, and possibly back into a galaxy I need to be in for targets or FS options I designed my account for?

      So sorry, for these reasons I'd say I'd pass on this idea

    • @Silverwind, thank you for your inputs.

      Well, 6 months was only a number I was putting in (this is only a sketch), because let's face there are too many people not playing the game that are permanently on v-mode and will never return. Some people suggest the v-mode accounts should be just deleted after a certain period of time, I don't agree with that and I stated it on my first post. However I do recognize this is an issue to the people that do want to be active and play the game.
      I wasn't realizing that 6 months could be a short time period for some people that do wish to play the game but I'm open mind regarding increasing this. What is on your opinion an acceptable period of time?

      Regarding a possible compensation if the v-mode player returns... why not offering him a free relocation for each planet that had been moved? If the player returns, doesn't seem a bad idea to give him a chance to re-locate his planets again. In that case, that player will not have any issue to go back to slot 15 in order to not lose the deut production and/or re-work is location strategy.

      Regarding blockade strategy, I'm afraid if someone chase a player like that, it won't be a sea of v-mode players that will keep that player safe. If someone get into the trouble of spending DM to do relocations to go after him, is because that player is very profitable or is been bullied... either way, he can always relocate out or make himself unprofitable.. I'm afraid this suggestion is about making the game more dynamic and that's a very passive strategy to be honest, which I don't agree in the first place. So for me ending with that strategy is a plus I wasn't considering at all.

    • It's hard to pick an exact number for a time frame for me since I don't agree with the concept of force moving a V-mode player.

      Really to me, in my experience, is that this is just a method for getting in-system with someone you want faster access to hit.

      If it is to get to better farming grounds or something...well...there's got to be close alternatives not in a locked system. One system, two systems...hell, even 10 systems off of a "hot" farming area isn't that big a deal is it?

      And I get it, you kinda want some V mode ruins moved out of the way. Sometimes it's annoying in older Universes to see them piled up.

      I can't say I have an alternative to this idea, just that I don't care for it.

      That's not to say I think you've tried to make it well thought out and logical. Perhaps some other would weigh in also ?

    • @Silverwind @TGWo

      Thank you for your comments showing the different issues around this situation, it shows me that although in vacations mode, these players still have great influence in the game in more than one way. As mentioned earlier, I don't agree with that... if you have an office job and go one month for holidays when you return you will still have your job, same desk, same chair... now try to get a 2 years holiday or license, unless you are the owner you will be fired on the spot. On Ogame there is not such a mechanism and again I'm against accounts deletion but the way I play my game should not be affected by players that in some situations played for 1 week and will never return.

      Silverwing showed that 6 months may be too short. I agree with him now, 6 months in some situations may be too short. What I propose now is a flat component + a variable one according with how old was the account when the player went into holidays. As example a flat 6 months plus 12 weeks per year old (1 week per month old). So a 5 year old account will have a protection of 6months + 5*12 weeks = 112 weeks = + 2 years.

      TGWo and Silverwing comments shown me that this would be a surprise to a lot of players returning and those changes into their planets may put them off the game for good. I agree, for this reason the player must aware of this rule to not be caught by surprise, so what I propose is a solution according with the time you went into holiday:

      - Players that merge from other Universes already in v-mode - As TGWo suggested, implemented straight away. They were not aware of the merge in the first place so I can't see any harm on this.
      - Players that went to v-mode before rule becomes live - I would suggest a rule exception and apply a larger protection period. Let's say, let's pick the oldest active player in that universe and apply the time rule according to that player age to all players in this situation. An email should be sent warning about the rule implementation and the date he will lose protection.
      - Players going into holiday after rule implementation - When you select v-mode, a window should pop-up showing what is the duration of your protection so players knows when they need to came back.

      Regarding the blocking tactics... I believe we just have to respectful agree to disagree. In my opinion, those passive tactics should not be protected and those players will have to adapt and become more active. Like in previous Ogame changes (merges, officers,.. ) there are always someone that have to adapt the way they play the game, I'm trying to be balanced in my suggestions but unfortunately I can't see way (neither want) to protect that game style.

    • cfmc wrote:

      - Players that went to v-mode before rule becomes live - I would suggest a rule exception and apply a larger protection period. Let's say, let's pick the oldest active player in that universe and apply the time rule according to that player age to all players in this situation. An email should be sent warning about the rule implementation and the date he will lose protection.
      I think that a more safe solution should be that if you went in holiday before change rule of holiday, then for you for the moment the change don't have effect ........... but first time you do a new login you see a popup that warn you about change of rule and that will be effect from 15 days after the moment you saw popup

    • Thanks for your comment TGWo.

      Let's pick as example Universe 1, it started in Sep 2004. I would expect the oldest player to have around the same age so we are talking about 2018-2004 = 14 years. If we apply the time rule above 6 months + 1*12*14 = 6months (or 26 weeks) + 168 weeks = 194 weeks = 3.7 years of protection... that's a lot of time by anyone's clock!

      Don't get me wrong, leaving them outside of the rule can be an option as well as probably just the ones that went from the merge would be enough to shake things down. I guess that would be something to Ogame designers to decide if they decide to take this on-board.