Protection of weaker user - First Discussion [closed]

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

  • kendiraton wrote:


    Cheetah is playing HIS game,
    You don't want to have more *** after a F and before a K? So make some changes on your (no personal offense here!) side!
    If you want me to kiss you on the mouth (a real french kiss), just ask me. I will not!

    :thumbdown:

    kendiraton wrote:


    I'm only trying to keep OGame a real strategical game and not something where any moron/noob can have a chance to win against players who think for the future...


    :thumbup:


    all rules are the same in all board, not with your style of post that you are able to have answers or change something
    so next try like this, we will not be more patient

  • OK, WeTeHa said I should post feedback from ogame.org discussion here at Origin and that he will see it.... so sorry for the wall-o-text!

    Early Feedback on the noob protection plans from ogame.org community:

    This is a summary of some of the points raised in the first 200 replies of the discussion of the new protection proposals at ogame.org with inclusion of a few of my own thoughts.

    Commonly used comment “this is not OGame!” Funniest “this is not Farmville!”

    Generally people agreed that some changes were required to the noob protection, but are in shock at the extent of the changes proposed. Some people await the trials with interest. There’s a feeling of let’s test it and then vote on it (not the majority feeling though).

    Many people have expressed their disappointment at the lack of visible progress with the Universe merger plans and current bug fixes and the fact that the programmers have apparently instead been concentrating on these elaborate noob protection features.

    A lot of people have been happy with the merger proposals announcement and they really felt as though GF were listening to the users, but this modified protection has now left them fearful that changes will occur that the vast majority of the community do not want and that GF does not care for their needs. I’m confident that GF listens and that’s why I’m compiling this summary for them.


    Older Universes:
    Serious concerns about this being implemented in the older universes. People want assurances that it won’t happen. There are concerns that this becomes a scenario where the developers are looking after 2 codes and that eventually prompts a unification process where the older universes get the new features. As I understand it, this is not the case and these features will be included in the code with an on/off switch? So in effect the older universes will already have it in their game, but just not enabled. If this is the case then people may become more optimistic that these will not be implemented in the older universes.



    Fleet Escape:
    This feature has attracted the vast majority of negative feedback of all the proposed changes. Comments often reflect on the point that OGame survives on the no fleetsave=no fleet principle and that this idea kills that basic component of the gameplay. They say this will kill fleeters and fleetsaving, making players lazy about fleetsaving and preventing the new players from ever learning the “proper way to play”. There is a strong feeling that this shows bias toward turtles and miners. Some feel that the fleeters will be forced into playing as miners and get bored and leave.

    Someone took a look through one of the HOF sections and pointed out that there was not one single hit posted there that was within the 5:1 fleet escape category and it was also noted that many early CR’s for a new universe would also be affected. Many people are concerned by this ratio and the fleeters are all concerned that it will kill fleeting. Those who show some consideration of the idea suggest that the ratio is increased to benefit the fleeter. How was this ratio determined? Did it take into consideration the fleet required for zero losses in a battle? I think we need to give some proper working examples of how this will work, examples where a fleeter can still gain and also examples of how costly it will be for the defender in terms of deut.

    There are many arguments in favour of including defensive structures into the ratio. Turtle miners will be protected. One person proposed an adjustment to the ratio that was weighted for different types of defense, so some defensive strutures have more value in adjusting the ratio than others. This would need some thought though to get right. Another suggested weighting the proportion of fleet that can escape in proportion to the relative strengths of the attacker and defender. So more closely matched opponent in the ranking system= Least amount of fleet escapes.

    It was pointed out that IPM assaults will become more commonplace because the defense is not included in the 5:1 ratio. Players finding their defences totally wiped are more likely to become demoralised and quit than those who had a 70% rebuild after an attack. Possibly the fleeters would not be prepared to take the cost of the IPM assault and that would deter the attack but in reality only time will tell of that.

    There are strong complaints about the Admiral being able to adjust the ratio.


    Ranking system:
    More in-depth explanation of the military ranking please. People are intrigued by this but it is not clear enough how it will work.


    Hideouts:
    Having looked at how the hideouts work in a newly registered account, I have myself concerns that the cost:benefit ratio is not well-considered. The idea of these is that they are supposed to benefit new players. However, I would not be willing to invest 14k of resource to simply protect 1.2k of deut early in the game. I predict that they will only be built later on in the gameplay when people are already well-established in gameplay. Those resources are better invested in other things at that early stage of the game. I agree however with them not taking any field space since the new design has smaller planets. I’d like to see a full breakdown of how much each level will cost and what it will protect and where the upper cap will be (if there is one).

    Others have called for this to use field spaces and also for an upper limit to be placed on how much can be protected.


    Honour system:
    Not many comments, some people like the idea .. A few have included it in their dislikes. There was a suggestion to only reward the “good” people rather than the evil bullies.


    Noob protection ratio:
    Some people have suggested that it should be a broader ratio, e.g. 20:1 so fleeters have more targets. Others think there should still be some upper limit at which the protection goes completely.

    Someone suggested that you capthe protection on a relative position in the universe. E.g Top 25% can all attack each other but below that the 1:10 applies.
    Some simply like the idea of instead increasing the current noob protection 5k cap to over 100k points (eg. 500k). Concurrent with that, others have suggested allowing an option to switch off your noob protection (for the confident “pro” players)


    Other interesting ideas:
    GF should think of more ways to educate the new players in gameplay tactics etc. Someone suggested including a regular fleetsave mission as part of the tutorial, e.g Send a fleet on a mission of 8hours+ duration for 3 consecutive days; this would help teach some fleetsave principles. Reward with something like 1 week commander or a good amount of DM.

    Another proposal was to allow a delayed auto-fleet rebuild for a new player who got attacked. Some percentage of their fleet recovered after an attack (e.g 30%) while they are within a noob protected category. There would need to be a limit placed on how long this protection occurs (Delayed rebuild to prevent waves, perhaps holding in space for upto 24hrs with a recall button for the defender, if they are not called back within 24hrs of the attack then they are lost?). You could utilise the Admiral to increase the percentage of fleet recovered.


    I hope I have covered most of the points raised and general feelings, the other .org admins will hopefully fill any gaps in my interpretation.

  • dear Lynbo

    i read all your text. Nobody among the best players, will spend his time sending mips. Your way of seeing the play it is Sims in space. It is not any more Ogame. Make another Game and to leave Ogame such as the players want it, if not in 3 months there will be nobody any more. 90% of the new players, regard Ogame as a game-console, not as a strategy game with the long run.

    75% of the players of the old universes have been there for several years, the new players feels in more the 3 months, because they do not want to be invested. Even if you to change the rules you do not keep these new players.

    When I began universe 33 in June 2006, there were 14500 players, and there were on the universe 18 still 11000 players seven months after the beginning of this one. Today, it remains on Fornax a recent universe only 8000 players.

    The new players want to be in the top 100 as of the first month, if they does not arrive there, they stop very quickly and starts again a new universe.

    YOU COULDN'T CHANGE THAT !!! WITH ANY NEW RULES.

    I'm sure of one thing. The new rules will make flee the former players even more quickly than today. Not forget that Ogame is a strategy wargame in space and not a Barbie game.

  • Hello, excuse my english but can you just clearly explain us what is the purpose of the fleet escape ?
    I mean if my target is a fleet on a moon i never send more than 5x the defender's fleet, so you wont protect these fleets, if my target is behind a bunker i'll just use my rips again and again to destroy it and then catch the fleet (i'll just lose a lot of time and he'll lose his whole bunker instead of 30% (or 15%)).
    These situations represent about 90% of the fleet destroyed.

    Now if i see some destroyers coming back on a moon and if the owner of these destroyers has got a big fleet i just can't catch his destoyers: if i send more than 5x his destroyers's cost, they will flee, if i send less: he just has to put his fleet to destroy me, and you wont solve this kind of problem by changing 5:1 to 10:1 nor 50:1.

    Same situation if i moonbreak someone (remember it can cost a lot, and it only happens to top players):imagine the fleet come back in two days, so the target call his friends to protect him, so i call my friends to help me, but by doing this we will have more than 5x the target's fleet alone. And then 1s before the attack they'll just call back their fleets and the defender's fleet will be saved.

    So what kind of fleet do you pretend to save with the fleet escape ? The fleet witch are already hard to catch ? The fleet which require a lot of preparation to be catched ?

    Trying to help the newcommers is a good idee, doing that by punishing the good players isnt a good idee. The actual problem is that lower player can't even dream of destroying a part of a top player's fleet, and that many top players dont even spy the top 300. So just delete the player's rank (perhaps it will reduce cheating too) and do not write on the planet name "I AM CONNECTED" each time the player watch his main view. So the lower players will have some chance to make traps.

  • I had a doubt.
    I did not understand a thing if it substantially autofleet part in protecting only those noob, so I can attack that has less than 1 / 10 of my score, but if I send 5 / 1 to its fleet this flex, or equally on all player in a position higher or lower than mine?

  • Buxidaphobe

    I really like you're reply. You just explained very common ways that this could be exploited to the disadvantage of the Attacker.
    War Game usualy try not to passify people. Most rules are meant to prevent abusif exploitations of others and the system.

    Your point that this change regardless of the mathematics involved being very bad for Ogame.
    I agree with you that this concept of auto-fleet saving is Literally contradictary to the current game-play.. I Agree that eventhough Gameforge may have a plan for Ogame. Who would want to play this game after it bring updated against an overwhelming majority. (and for most knowing the original ogame this is probably the worst change imaginable)
    Even if this is kept as not a live option on Current Universes. I think just the thought of this type of change really is going to drive people away anyways.

    Especially with how 95%+ Players think this is game-killer.

    As a Subscriber and Client to Gameforge, I don't like this Idea.

    Blizzard the most widely subscribed company, which I am also a client.
    Everytime the community has a strong voiced opinion about a specific of gameplay issue.
    It is always addressed.
    They introduce new things, if they upset people. Those changes are either removed of properly adjusted to get back on the good side as a Company with their comunity.

    I think if this is applied to new universes. Alot of the community will lose respect for Gameforge.

    Mind you, i'm only referring to the auto-fleet save feature. All other changes are maybe debatable and in need of further investigation, but very understandable. The auto-fleet save is the focus of 99% of heated replies and disapproval.

    I mean 2 out out 3 changes are acceptable. That should be a good thing. But when the third makes the game no longer the same game....

  • Dan wrote:

    I had a doubt.
    I did not understand a thing if it substantially autofleet part in protecting only those noob, so I can attack that has less than 1 / 10 of my score, but if I send 5 / 1 to its fleet this flex, or equally on all player in a position higher or lower than mine?

    No,

    you just can't attack someone who has less than 1/10 of your score, AND if you attack any player with 5x more fleet than he has on the targeted position, the fleet will escape. Oh, something else i forgot: how can you protect your moonbreak with this ? The defender just need to put 100 destroyer on his moon and to keep his whole fleet ready ...

  • Opening new uni-s doesn't attract enough players. Merging existing ones does. So if GF eventually wants to merge all unis in one, the question would be, how long would it take and what kind of "noob protection" would help to smoothe the transitions.
    Life? Don't talk to me about life...

  • Thanks for these additional posts. It frustrates me even more...

    on the other hand i of course understand the intention behind it, as ogames biggest problem is the diminishing userbase, and this is meant to keep new players longer, and not have them leave frustrated at an early stage after an "unfair" fleetloss.


    What is an "unfair" fleet loss?

    Is it unfair to lose your fleet when you don't hide it correctly? I don't think so.
    Is it unfair to lose your fleet when you face a better (I say better, not stronger) player? I don't think so.
    Is it unfair to lose your fleet because of a sudden lost of connection? I would say yes, but probability much less than 1% of the fleet losses.

    There is always a mean of keeping resources and fleet, even if you face someone with more than 10 times your points. But for that you must learn how to play.

    Implementing this version which completely changes the game play, only for 1% of the fleet losses, is it really what players want? I don't think so.

  • Francolino, thanks for having posted your replies here Protection of weaker user - National feedback & reply, even if not complete. That allows us to better understand. I did a "quick & dirty" translation on the french board...

    If I understand well (not sure, btw), the hideoout is really something as dumb as the depot for ACS (given the cost and the capacity: who (but the noobs) will spend more than 4M for hiding 15k?). Why GF does spend time developing something which goal is to slow down development of noobs?

    W.r.t. current universes, I would like GF tell us that they will not implement it at all (i.e. switch off all the characteristics). It doesn't make sense otherwise, since even if you test with a test universe, you will never see all the drawbacks of these features that will undoubtely come up in an old universe. Like always, don't changes the rules when the game has begun. Far from being the case here.

    Francolino, I hope this post is factual enough...

  • kendiraton wrote:

    Francolino, I hope this post is factual enough...


    It is, thanks.

    Well, as told in the reply, there is NO final decision about this new feature in existing universes, except that this feature comes NOT complete with all functions and settings. And i think, they collect for a longer time experiences for this decision, not only the test server. i agree with you, this is much to less to see all drawbacks. And - those drawbacks are the reason WHY it's sure, that existing universes get at maximum only a reduced version of this feature.

    Regards,

  • I see it this way:
    It's impossible to make a "noob protection" that will be equally effective for new and old unis.
    So these ideas could be good, because it is said that this protection will be implemented in all unis, but parameters can be changed. That way, "noob protection" could do it's job through all stages of an uni, because parameters would be altered on some regular basis.

    Are announced parameters good for a new uni?
    Seems not. On .ba a new uni is recently opened (20.04). So it is somewhat logical that players from that uni are currently most active on forum and they all oppose announced parameters. But to be honest, I think that all experience of all Ogamers is not enough to precisely determine the best parameters. A test server is needed and it's opened. So only time will tell what effect will those parameters have on certain types of players.

    Furthermore, we are all expecting the merging of unis. I believe that is the main reason for inventing this elaborate noob protection. There's just too much effort involved to enable the merge, and I can't believe that GF is abandoning that line of thought completely, just to make new unis more attractive.
    I expect that attempt will be made to merge as many unis as possible in one (more players, more action). That will make big differences in players strengths and there will have to be a good "noob protection" for players which are currently on top positions in younger unis.

    Automatic FS is scorned by all and I must admit I don't like it either.
    Maybe it could be usefull only for a small period of time immediately after the merge. Not all players will be able to move their planets to same positions, so there's a chance that your FS which you were using for years simply won't be possible anymore. You'll have to improvise untill you get used to new space order.
    Automatic FS could help players which were strong in their own unis, but are suddenly surrounded by stronger enemies. Although, I think that this new "noob protection" without automatic FS should be enough to cope with that problem.
    Life? Don't talk to me about life...

  • marv wrote:

    Automatic FS is scorned by all and I must admit I don't like it either.
    Maybe it could be usefull only for a small period of time immediately after the merge. Not all players will be able to move their planets to same positions, so there's a chance that your FS which you were using for years simply won't be possible anymore. You'll have to improvise untill you get used to new space order.
    Automatic FS could help players which were strong in their own unis, but are suddenly surrounded by stronger enemies. Although, I think that this new "noob protection" without automatic FS should be enough to cope with that problem.
    Don't mix up 2 different things, please!
    When you are merging universes, it's by definition old universes, so this new feature is not implemented (and that's good). And before you play in the merged universe, you are on vacation mode, if I'm not wrong. You have to switch this mode off before playing in the new uni...

  • kendiraton wrote:

    Don't mix up 2 different things, please!
    When you are merging universes, it's by definition old universes, so this new feature is not implemented (and that's good). And before you play in the merged universe, you are on vacation mode, if I'm not wrong. You have to switch this mode off before playing in the new uni...


    Thanks, this is correct.

    To make it clear : Uni fusion (Ogame 2.0) and protection of weaker users (Ogame 3.0) are two separated, independent developments. See also : Protection of weaker user - IRC discussion in the beginning.

    Uni fusion is a general solution for older universes ( and keep in mind, merging universes is NOT a one-time event)
    Protection of weaker users is a solution for the ogame future to keep universes longer alive and active.

  • In progress - please don't quote ... and don't read :P - and sorry, i need a while ....

    Buxidaphobe wrote:

    I didnt get any answers, i pointed out that adding the fleet escape won't save any fleet from "unfair" attack, so what's the purpose of adding this ?


    Well, i try to find an answer about this most disliked feature. ( in my words and meaning of course )

    First, i quote myself :

    Francolino wrote:

    <Francolino>... about fleet escape, we have all the same opinion
    <Francolino> for me, this basic idea is good ..
    <Francolino> but not for ogame as it is