recycler deut consumption on impuls drive 17 and hyper drive 15

    • Usability

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

    • recycler deut consumption on impuls drive 17 and hyper drive 15

      Since noone is answering in general suggestions I decided to post my idea here... hope it's allowed

      "I suggest that recycler after reaching impulse drive 17 uses 20% more deut, and with Hyper drive 15, 30% more deut. The way it's regulated now is crazy and unrealistic even in this unrealistic game. It's simply illogical for recy on hyper drive consumes almost as much as destroyer. Now at impulse drive 17 deut consumption doubles, and with hyper drive 15 it even triples. So pls change this in later versions of ogame ..."
      I'd like to go for this in Sirius, that's 1x speed uni, but I won't be able to support this crazy amounts of deut for recy... even if I slow down to the speed less than on combustion drive recy still spends some 30% more.. so it's crazy. Impulse/hyper drives are newer engines that should use deut more efficiently, should spend more for more speed but not THAT much!!!



      I think this has to be changed, hoping for some supporters, pls...

    • Completly agree with you :)

      Impulse and hyp are better engine.
      It should at the worse cost as much as the combustion engine for the same flight time.
      Because you put a new better engine, and your recycler cost more deut to send them at the same speed than before ?
      That's very weird...

      Having to pay more for more speed, that makes sens.
      But having to pay more for the same speeds with better engine, that make no sense to me :D


      ** OgameTech **

    • " Because you put a new better engine, and your recycler cost more deut to send them at the same speed than before ?

      That's very weird... "

      Mmmm', its not weird, technically its absolutely normal.

      A Citroen C2 will consume 3.8L / 100km driving at 120 km/h;
      A BMW M6 will consume 8L / 100km driving at 120 km/h.

      Dont forget that the recycler don't receive a BETTER engine, it receive a MORE POWERFUL engine ( combustion > hyperespace )

    • iguypouf wrote:

      " Because you put a new better engine, and your recycler cost more deut to send them at the same speed than before ?

      That's very weird... "

      Mmmm', its not weird, technically its absolutely normal.

      A Citroen C2 will consume 3.8L / 100km driving at 120 km/h;
      A BMW M6 will consume 8L / 100km driving at 120 km/h.

      Dont forget that the recycler don't receive a BETTER engine, it receive a MORE POWERFUL engine ( combustion > hyperespace )
      Yes, BUT, Citroen C2 weights just under 1 ton, while BMW M6 weights just under 2 tons, also in real life you can choose to buy regular gas and diesel powered engine, and with diesel powered engine BMW M6 won't consume 8l driving 120 km/h, but probably 4-5 (and diesel powered engine won't lag in speed to regular gas powered engine), not to say that BMW not only weights more, but it's much larger than C2 (logically)... Thinking that way you can say that comparing recy and for example destroyer, recy should be much smaller and lighter than dessie, running the same engine SHOULD use much less deut - more than with combustion, but not 3 times more!!! And while you're comparing speeds, cruiser, BS and BC would still be much faster than recy and they spend less deut THAT'S NOT WEIRD TO YOU?!?!?!. The only ship you can compare recy with, is large cargo, those two ships (recy without impulse/hyper drive) use deut on much different scale (while they shouldn't be that different in size and weight). Recy takes 5 times more deut while FLY TIME IS 2x MORE-how come THAT is not weird to you????? - plus you need deut to make recy... But I don't mind recy spending 5 times more than LC - but 2 or 3 times even more after impulse/hyper - that's not "normal", that's even not "weird" - that's CRAZY (and not in good way)!!!

    • Bah, if you start speaking about weight, we can imagine that a recycler is more heavy than a destroyer. More heavy than a small cargo.

      Taking back my IRL comparison, if you take the engine of the BMW and put it in a C2 ( and if we an imagine that the french material will not explode on first acceleration ^^ ), this engine will consume 8L / 100.

      Just remember that recycler looses his combustion motor, and builds up a new one.

    • how can something consume the same amount of gas powering 2 tons and 1 ton... it will surely consume less, not much less, but still less... though this RL comparison does not "hold water" at all...

      and also I don't understand how can you imagine recy would be heavier than destroyer... it can only be heavier in context of it's pilot listening to heavy metal music.. how can recy be heavier than destroyer, when destroyer would be much larger than recy, and equipped with massive weapons, cannons and everything, while recy has only cargo bay that can take 20k of resources, moreover, you need about 5 recy fully loaded with resources to make one destroyer??????
      what was your point about recy being heavier than SC is even more un-understandable (there I probably invented a whole new word for this occasion - english is not my native language, so don't mind if I'm wrong... :) ) you probably meant large cargo, ok, I can take it... recy would be heavier than LC, but I seriously doubt it would be much heavier, but still, equipped with same engine recy still take 5 DAMN times more deut than LC...

      I'm still waiting for someone who will make a good argument opposing me... I'd like to some people who can make decisions about this game to say something

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Maximus10 ().

    • its dumb and probally another case where things weren't rellay thought through

      with fast recs you pay 50% more deu for the same speed and 3 times the amount for saving your recs.
      getting fast recs is already so expensive that the vast majorty of players will never have them
      yeah, the benefit is pretty neat but with investing that much ressources there shouldnt be such a downside

    • and also I don't understand how can you imagine recy would be heavier
      than destroyer... it can only be heavier in context of it's pilot
      listening to heavy metal music.. how can recy be heavier than destroyer,
      when destroyer would be much larger than recy, and equipped with
      massive weapons, cannons and everything, while recy has only cargo bay
      that can take 20k of resources, moreover, you need about 5 recy fully
      loaded with resources to make one destroyer??????
      And why not ? You imagine that a destroyer has a lot of cannons, weapons... OK, so why can you not imagine that a recy must have a inbuilt factory to filter the things hanged up and only keep the usable metal and cristal ? In your mind it cannot be heavier, but your imagination is not the same as others.

      What is heavier ? A real battlecruiser like this



      or a cargo like this



      ?

      Which boat will consume more fuel with the same engine, do you think ?

      The new speed of the recy is a HUGE ADVANTAGE, and it should have a HUGE INCONVENIENT to keep the game balanced.

      So Yeah, you have to make choices. Its called strategy.

    • LOL

      yeah, do I really have to say it one more time... recycler carries 20k (that's 20 000 resources) that's it's limit... + 18 000 needed for it's construction... resources needed for construction of destroyer is 125k- almost 4 times more... your comparing RL things don't "hold water" here... therefore how do you explain cruisers, battleships and battlecruisers cost more than recy (full cargo bays included) - OK cruiser cost a bit less, but how can they still fly damn faster than recy with impulse/hyper, and they consume much less deut?!?!?!

      And as some already said, you already have to invest so much for this, why do you have to be punished for that???
      also, you're saying "huge advantage" OK, it is an advantage, but I wouldn't say it's "huge" - it's saving some time, but now, it costs, as you say, "huge" amount of deut and that "huge advantage" melts down like an ice in summer... I never said it shouldn't cost any more deut, I was just saying it shouldn't go up to 3 times more deut...
      I'll give you an example...
      about a month ago I dispatched my full fleet (I'm in 1x UNI) to attack, some 60 systems away, deut cost for full fleet (about 70-80k ships) was about 7.5M, while recy (11k recys) costs were about 3.3M deut.. If I had hyper 15, deut cost would be more than 10M deut, that's perfectly normal, balanced and logical to you?!?!?! 80K ships 7.5M deut - 11K recy over 10M deut - RECY DAMN IT?! SRSLY?!?!?!?! Come one man-HOW!!!
      Also try to explain this... recy equipped with Impulse/hyper if slowed down to nearly combustion 100% speed it still takes about 30/50% more deut...

      I see you like to compare RL things, what you're saying is that, let's say a car (about 1 ton in weight) with 60 horse power engine should consume less than the same car with 130 horse power engine... earlier you were comparing C2 and BMW - that's like comparing recy and battlecruiser - apples and oranges... you can only compare same things with different engines, so you have the same recy with 60 horse power engine, and recy with 130 horse power engine... clearly the better the engine the less gas taken compared to the time saved...
      In the description of combustion drive it says "...it's the oldest drive tech - still in use..." so you can't compare engines from 50 years ago and engines of today

    • Recs have always eaten a lot of deut, and they will continue to do so, to uphold balance. It's not about how much it costs to get there, but how those recs play out after getting there. Slowing recs to smaller speeds reduces the launch cost significantly, and you have the option of going full-speed when you need it.

      As for RL stuff, you essentially shove more fuel into the engine to make it go faster than it used to. Even with newer engines you're bound not to have exactly "efficient" combustion. This is a game by the way, a game where we can have 10k moon-sized death stars orbit a single planet without any problems.

      This won't be changed because if the deut cost to launch is reduced, the penalty of getting the DF faster will be smaller as well, which would create too big of a power difference between smaller and bigger players.

    • but I wouldn't say it's "huge"
      Its not huge only if you take in consideration YOUR single player game.

      I will take an example of a fight just happened in my universe. A player saved his fleet from his big bunker. A player tried to attack him, and 45 minutes before combat, another player defended him from the same system. The player calculated that the loss will not be so huge, so sent the rest of the recy (3h20 time flight) and let the fight happening.

      Any player (in VM too) that would seen the fight and having Prop Hyper 15 could launch recy on 1 galaxy-distance and take the ressources before the fighter.

      If you don't call that a huge advantage (on a multiplayer point of view, again), I cannot do anything for you, sir.

      For rushes, the new engine allows you too to...save deut on aborted attempts ( when you launch on a player that seems not connected and finally moves directly after you launch the fleet ) - again a huge advantage.

      For rushes again, to avoid that your recy will be fighted on return-fly is also a very big advantage. Or if your own fleet is fighted on return-fly, getting your recy back to recycle your own fleet rests before your fighters...

      The huge advantage is not comparing your game with and without. Its comparing your game with and your opponents without.

    • Because in this case, you only have the advantage, and not the inconvenient. And once again, its this choice which is called strategy.

      Its exactly the same as another thread asking to be able to ghost the fleet on 5% or 1%. They want something better ( fast universe or fast engines ) but the inconvenient about the decrease of the ghost time is too much.

    • From what I know, the cost is roughly the same for the same flighttime, when comparing a 100% comb drive and what the same flighttime with impulse.

      First and foremost, the launch cost for a 100% launch needs to be higher than what you get with the older drive, since the new one is faster. This requires increase in fuel consumption, which in turn increases everything else.

      For comparison:

      1:1 to 1:83 with 10k recs (200.000.000 capacity)

      100% combustion 18 - 4:12:38 - 3.596.626 deut
      60% impulse 17 - 3:57:31 - 4.603.674 deut
      50% impulse 17 - 4:45:00 - 4.046.066 deut
      40% hyper 15 - 4:20:11 - 5.286.866 deut

      Hyperdrive 15 costs 47% more to launch at roughly the same speed, impulse costs 27% more if you launch at 60% and 12% if you can take another half an hour of travel time. Does this cost you more? Yes. But, you can also launch recs at 100% speed with hyper 15, and get there in 1:44:10, at the cost of 10.790.069. That's cutting the time in MORE THAN HALF. Impulse 17 gets there at 2:22:35 with 100% speed, costing 7.192.935 deut.

      That extra half an hour, or entire 2 hours, depending on which drive you're going from, can mean the difference between getting 200kk of DF or not, especially if it's some sort of recently discovered lanx hit that you can't get the recs into position fast enough.


      To sum it up, the deut cost is perfectly balanced as it is. The FS costs are a by-product of making sure this massive speed cut doesn't get too OP. If you could launch the recs at the same fuel cost as before upgrade, you'd see every respectable fleeter rush HD15 as fast as possible, since fast cheap recs are something sent from heaven to them.