Improvement of planet sizes in positions 1 2 3 13 14 15

    • Usability

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

    • Improvement of planet sizes in positions 1 2 3 13 14 15

      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.

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

    • Can I ask why you suggest this for Ogame 6.0?

      6.0 is the "Communication Update" and has nothing to do with Planet-Sizes...


      @topic:
      The findable sizes on the positions mentioned by you are reglemented with purpose.
      You have to pay a price for more energy (1, 2, 3) or lower temperatures (13, 14, 15).
      This prices are the lesser sizes on those positions.
    • 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.
    • Maybe the price could be "less probability" instead of "less fields". Maybe all positions could have the same maximum number of fields but different probabilities. External planets may have a "ridiculous" probability but the possibility to have a great planet.

      Regards,

      Arzorth ;)
    • 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 :)
    • I play ogame with most of my planet located 12,13.

      That gives me some good point. but some bad point.

      I don't think cooler planet is UNDERPOWERED.



      I don't played at 1,2,3 but I easily find 1,2,3 user (most of them is one-time use graviton)




      so, I think there isn't big problem with that.


      //I am going to relocate to 15 place ;)
      Images
      • place001.JPG

        12.71 kB, 1,020×15, viewed 380 times
    • i have to agree with you

      either these planets get a huge buff(for example double the produciton of ALL ressources) or you have to make them bigger

      at the moment they are only "noobtraps"

      i think it would be the best solution to just make them bigger.


      on another note i think the planets in general are too small and there are only two ways to increase theire size. terraformer gets really expensive rather fast and i dont think much ppl are willing to pay money for only a few fields.
      the biggest noobtrap you get when u register your account: your homeplanet.
      from talking to alot of beginners i know they almost always create their "base" on the first planet because they dont know its deleteable and think 163 fields are enough. ofc they are unwilling to delete the planet where they build the most even if they know they should.
      i think the mainplanet should have at least 200 fields if not 250 so people dont get frustated when they realise the planet they were given in the beginning is too small and they have to eventually delete it.
    • I think the strategy aspects should be considered here.

      Although I personally would like to have larger planets in the " cold spots", I think the overall idea is to make players think before they give order to build a construction and calculate the profitability of the building they intend to develop.

      These details can make the difference between a success player and a sloppy developed account
    • @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”.
    • Another option would be to be able to relocate to every spot instead of 1-3 4-12 13-15.

      Honestly i don't see why they made it so not viable to colonize the outer regions of the galaxy.
      Even with relocating from spot 3 and buying the +planet size and terraformer it's not as viable as having a normal 200+ planet that you can upgrade fully.
      The increased deut production is too smal in order to balance out the planet size problem there is now.
      Did i even mention the increased cons of having to power them with fusion?
    • Slots 1-3 and 12-15 have there place most people dont see the use for them but alot of Fleeters use them for placing a mobile colony as there are less solar sytems with no 1-3 or 12-15 filled vurses slots 4-11 which are almost always filled.

      Each player has there own style and buy doing this you also affect a fleeters style of play slots 1-3 and 12-15 are looked at as disposable planets due to there size.


      Just my Input
    • I totally agree with this idea. Slots 1-2-3 and 13-14-15 are too small to even think about to colonize them. Using them only as mobile colony isn't good in my opinion.

      I think every planet should have the same maximum and minimum. But the probability to get a planet with much fields should be at spot 8 xx% higher then at spot 15.

      I really think the ogame development team should consider this as a change. We had it much better before the redesign. Okay planets of 18 fields were possible too, but then you have bad luck, abandon it and send another colony ship.

      I play in quantum at .org and see nobody from the top 100 having a planet at spot 15. Most of them have a planet at spot 11 and 12 because it's worth it (less fields as spot 8, but also a lower temperature). At spot 15 you can't make that choice, it would be really a waste of a colony to colonize there...
    • positions13-15 got alot bigger
      might be a bit too "op" for universerses with +25 fields

      i dont know about the sizes of 1-3 and i dont care because these positions are shit at the moment. you already have a big disadvantage because you produce alot less deu and on top of that they are smaller.

      the positions 1-3 should have the most fields to make up for the huge deu disadvantage. there is no reason to penalize warm planets because energy isnt important enough.
      i suggest to make the positions 1-3 the location of homeplanets and buff them via the improvement of the solar plants. solar plants should produce way more energy on warm planets - i mean why isnt that the case already? would be logical with that name.
      why should homeplanets be on 1-3 you wonder? because it would be way more beginner-friendly especially if the solar plant produced alot more on warm planets. when "noobs" are not that dependent on having sol-sats they get alot less frustrated after getting farmed.

      based on that my suggestion for average planetsizes would be:
      1 250
      2 240
      3 230
      and so on
      13 130
      14 120
      15 110

    • Some remarks about that:

      - the home planet is usually deleted anyway (at least in younger accounts) because it's too small
      - you can relocate from pos 1 to pos 15 and the temperature changes - it would now be very easy to have very big deut colos
      - the last point is also an argument to do try out the new sizes of pos 1-3. maybe it's still efficient to colonize them and relocate to pos 15
      - Compared to deut production, the energy product is negligible. I wouldn't make it easier to play with hot planets as you will lose insane amounts of deuterium (over the years)
    • beginner almost never delete their homeplanet, but yeah they are too small and should be bigger

      relocation rules are fixable, dont know why you would make that point

      most of the players dont relocate and the fact that these positions are only good for relocation to cooler planets is actually sad

      the difficutly of playing isnt affected by deu production. this is an entirly different point, plus its just not true. the fictional deu loss would be insignificant even in extrem cases where a player has 10 planets on position 1(which is highly unlikely)
      even if accounts were heavily affected by the loss of deu productions you could just tweak the temperatues numbers a bit, that doesnt change anything about the idea.

      Display Spoiler
      zeig mir mal die temperaturen deiner planeten. ich bezweifle, dass der schnitt bei 5°C oder weniger liegt(außer du hast mit umsiedelungen nachgeholfen). dann kann ich dir vorrechnen wie viele millionen deu du "verloren" hast und trotzdem hat dich das beim spielen nicht gestört.