Absolutely URGENT matter : avoid abuses of the functionality "Scrap Merchant"

    • Absolutely URGENT matter : avoid abuses of the functionality "Scrap Merchant"

      I think Ogame has all interest to react very fastly against the abuses encountered with the new functionnality "Scrap Merchant".

      I don't know on other communities, but in France several players are growing incredibly just by recovering passwords of given up accounts with defences or fleets; they scrap all the destroyable units, converts everything in deut for example, and trade the res through their main accounts. Result (with Merchant conversions) : all the scrapped res of an account appear "just like Magic" on their main account.

      Some specialized players makes ups of more than 10 millions points a day... And some very good accounts of more than 15M fleets points are just "recovered" only to be scrapped.

      The consequences are numberous... A lot of fair players are disgusted with those practices (+13M points a day for a guy = equivalent of the 250e fleet in the ogame.fr rank), and the anger is very hard in the board community.

      In Germany, the answer is a rule to limit the amount tradable by week, so I know that the French community is not the only one to have trouble.

      I've two suggestions :

      1/ Add this case to be involved in the push sanction : "scrap units only to trade it with another account is push"

      2/ Handle the scrapped res in a new feature : the "Global Account Storage", named "GAS" for simplify.


      > The Res received through the scrap merchant don't go to the planet storages, but in a special "global account storage" (GAS, for simplify).
      > The limit for a special transaction with the scrap merchant remains the size of the planet storage, like actually (to avoid loose of income).
      > The Res in the GAS cannot be taken by attack, and are not visible on Spy Reports.
      > The Res in the GAS cannot be tranferred or trade with another account.
      > The Res in the GAS can be converted through the Merchant, but in the limit of the current planet storage (to avoid loose of income) and remains in the GAS.
      > The Res are usable on all planets or moons (and not just on which the scrapped objects were).
      > When you launch a building you can choose to use all or a part of the Res in the GAS. BUT ! When a building is launched with at least 1 unity of GAS Res, it cannot be cancelled.

      This GAS, if created, could be used in the future to implement the creation of accounts in old universes, with for example 1G Res within.

      If some farmers decide to use the GAS to economize or ghost res (launch defence and scrap), and the farmer will accept to loose at least 25% of the income of his farms, so the risk is small (ans this will create a new small income for GF).

      This idea can really let the Scrap Merchant to his defined role : permits to a player to "remodulate" his account after several years of playing.


      I really hope that this SOS call can be read and understood, because this is very critical.

      Just to situate the problem, the Merge has just finished today, and the best "scrap-pushers" are on one of the target universe. Result : the exodus players were fighting to don't go on this target universe... Because nobody wants to play in such conditions.

    • Its the main point of the problem : the succession of actions have exactly the same consequences of a very big push, but each action taken separately are legal.

      We are searching since a very long time about ways to prevent this, but the only answer we have is "its legal".

      But the consequences are dramatic on the motivation and involvement of other players in the game.

      Finally : why do you think that this idea is a "restriction" ?

    • iguypouf wrote:

      everal players are growing incredibly just by recovering passwords of given up accounts with defences or fleets; they scrap all the destroyable units, converts everything in deut for example, and trade the res through their main accounts. Result (with Merchant conversions) : all the scrapped res of an account appear "just like Magic" on their main account.

      iguypouf wrote:

      the succession of actions have exactly the same consequences of a very big push, but each action taken separately are legal.
      playing two accounts in the same universe is against the rules

    • Players will always try to find ways around the rules, "to cheat the system". If we continue with making restrictions we can end up playing x/o. It is part of their idea of game, and is the game staff's job to keep them under control.

      That is my opinion, you block this possibility ( no idea how it can be done), always will exist some players finding a new way to go around the rules and get profit out of it . I don't say cheaters should not be punished, but we can't punish everybody because only a few are cheating and we can't run around the clock and block feature after feature because of that, I'm sure it must be a different solution to this.


      As I said, the GAs with the help of the CoMa can do something in this situation- if they want.

    • Étant contre cette abus, vu qu'aucune restriction commerciale n'est possible ou suppression du ferrailleur, cette pratique ne pourra donc être aboli, mais donnons une chance aux opérateurs de les bloquer

      c'est pourquoi j'expose mon idée :

      - le joueur est obligé de faire un ticket avant de commencer son ferrapush

      l'opérateur sera donc alerté que ce push légal va avoir lieu, et sera donc motivé pour trouver une faille dans le ferrapush du joueur

      pas de ticket, l'opérateur peut donc bloquer, "pour non avertissement "


      in FR, we call this abuse : ferraPush, in English : scrapPush


      As against this abuse, like no trade restriction is possible or removal scrap merchant, this practice can not be abolished, but give operators a chance to ban

      that's why I expose my idea:

      - The player is forced to make a ticket before starting his scrapPush

      the operator will be alerted that the legal push will take place and will be motivated to find a flaw in the scrapPush

      no ticket, the operator can block, "for no warning"

    • Valent wrote:


      Players will always try to find ways around the rules, "to cheat the system". If we continue with making restrictions we can end up playing x/o. It is part of their idea of game, and is the game staff's job to keep them under control.

      That is my opinion, you block this possibility ( no idea how it can be done), always will exist some players finding a new way to go around the rules and get profit out of it . I don't say cheaters should not be punished, but we can't punish everybody because only a few are cheating and we can't run around the clock and block feature after feature because of that, I'm sure it must be a different solution to this.


      As I said, the GAs with the help of the CoMa can do something in this situation- if they want.

      Of course some players will always find a way to make profit "border-line". In this case and in my suggestion, you say that everybody is punished, but... Who is punished in this case ? Which players will be annoyed if their res' scrapped have to be used on their own account ?

      And yes, you say that only some players cheat, but... Yet today, this has an impact of everybody. Because of the size of this practice, and the consequence on the ambiance, on the equity, on the justice feeling on the universes.

      We are not speaking about a player that grows two fast; we are speaking about players that make in 2 days the same as a good player working 2 years...

      And for the rest of the message : the answer of the GA and the CoMa are : "yes, we know the problem but we cannot do nothing".

      PS : Valent, after a quick look on the Infuza stat of RU, the last "scrap-push" was +13M fleet points. It means that ONLY with this "scrap-push", an empty account can have a biggest fleet than... the top 6 fleet ogame.ro. In two days. I hope that can help you to situate the size of the problem...

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