Hello,

At this moment, a full system is a system with positions 4–12 occupied, and 1–3, 13–15 empty. Why? Because positions 1–3 and 13–15 (from now on: “extreme positions”) never have an acceptable size.

The suggestion is “easy”: change the maximum size of the planets that can be found in the extreme positions, even if the probability of obtaining them is too small. For me, an acceptable number of fields would be at least the same as the main planet, 163. But of course more would be great (for instance, 180 fields). Anyway, this is open, so GameForge could choose what they find appropriate.

The thing is that, at this moment, no one colonizes in those extreme positions (except for a few newbies) because the maximum size is too small (may be 120 fields or something similar), and you can't develop a planet correctly. I think, raising this maximum to something acceptable (at least 163, or may be 180 or whatever GameForge chooses) would be great. Even if I had to throw a thousand colony ships to a 15 position to find an acceptable planet, I would throw them.

I think this is easy to implement and does no harm, but improves the situation, enabling 6 positions in a solar system that at this moment have no meaning whatsoever.

I think that's all, if I missed something, please let me know.
See you.

I wanted to put this in suggestions, but I guess it ended up in the 6.0 subforum, it was not intended.

@topic
My point is that “you have to pay a price” should be reconsidered. Right now it's an impossible price (an example of it is that NO ONE, not even a single player, in the top 100 in many universes have a planet in those places, which means that no one is willing to pay that price).
For instance, I think that 163 fields is an “acceptable price”. Where you can still develop a planet semi-correctly.

A few years ago, there was still a price, almost no one had a planet in those positions, but still you found some adventurous who found an acceptable planet there.


Even if the probability is too small, likesome time ago, but the possibility existed.

The truth is... there's not too much to discuss, since the only thing that GameForge could take from this suggestion is “Think about it” or “Reconsider it”.
I think the “price” to pay for those positions is unacceptable (and that's obvious, I think there's nothing to discuss there). As an example, no one ever places its planet on those extreme positions. So, the suggestion is “Please, GameForge, could you take a look again and make that price acceptable?”.

Now about what's acceptable, that's another discussion, and we can only give “ideas”. I think, given that most of people create a colony with 200 or more fields, that a maximum of 165–180 for those places would be enough to be an acceptable price to pay: have an small, but still acceptable colony, in exchange for the benefits of those positions.

For example: in position 14, the maximum size could be 170, but it's just 1% of probability of obtaining that size, the rest of the probability gives a smaller size. And for position 15, for instance, even an smaller maximum size, just 165 fields, with a probability of 0.5%.
I think there's nothing to discuss, because we don't know what algorithms they use at this moment, and I'm not proposing anything, just that we could obtain acceptable planets on those positions.

I can't think of a con of making this work. So, if there's one, I would be glad to know.

That, in my opinion, would convert those positions even more acceptable. Which I'm not sure is desired. I still want 1 2 3 14 15 16 to be mostly non colonized.
My —much more higher— price, 180 fields as the maximum size, or even less (with 165 I will be partially happy), would ensure that they are still special positions, and they are mostly free positions.

I'm not sure how to explain. I would like to be able to colonize there, so, first thing, whatever makes that possible is welcome; however, I think the price should not be “too cheap”, so a limited size of a planet in those positions is, in my opinion, more appropiate price than just probability (which involves the possiblity of obtaining big planets, and I'm not sure about this).

Thanks for collaboratin here

@Valent That's where I'm headed. Right now there's no strategy aspects to be considered here (objectively, those positions don't offer anything). So that's the proposition: “Change the size of those planets somehow, in a way that people could consider them as possible to be colonized”.

Now, the discussion about what's “acceptable” is a different one, and I don't plan to discuss on that, but I think that the two options considered in this post are great: (1) any possible size with a ridiculous probability; and the one I like the most, (2) same system as now, but the maximum size in position 15 to be 165 or something like that (people will still think that's too small, but that at least leaves room for real strategy an people could consider using those planets).

Personally 165 seems about right (without putting too much thought into it). Right now, with 120 fields or less is IMPOSSIBLE to develop anything, but with 163 is possible, although many people would say no, and still prefer 200 fields or more.
In my case I have a 200M miner account and have no problems at all with 163 colonies, I still have lots of free fields.

That's the key. Enabling a dark side of OGame right now (which in the past was available). No one (in his right mind) colonizes in those positions, with this change, people “might”.