Wreck field- discussion thread

Well, I at least think that changes are good. I also see that there is always somebody complaining about each new change. But still, please keep the changes coming. I will also not welcome all of them, but I rather have new version with new changes and challenges, than still be playing OGame 1.0.

I'm not here to say that this is bad or good, the idea itself seems good, yet I didn't even know about tear-down res saving, so I have no opinion about that.

What I am really interested in if it is JoKy (the lead dev?) that is making the decisions, or GF itself? In other words, are you being managed, or do you make these decisions on your own?

I really think that you cannot use your personal opinion as an argument in any case as a dev, but if GF itself has decided that tear-down saving should go, then so be it.

I just want to be able to trust the team behind this, people make mistakes, that's why I hope that (in this case) someone above the devs have made that decision as JoKy is (with all respect, in my opinion) too personally biased for this matter.

Let's say we take this to an extreme and put a poll up (ingame or on forum) and you see that a high percentage is against this change, then I think it is fair to not change it.

If on the other hand you have a reason to believe that the demolish building feature of the Wreck Field will retain 5% of the players, and that removing tear-down saving will cost 1% of the players, then it could very well a fair decision to do this.

I hope you understand what I'm saying, this is not a personal attack by any means.

JoKy, I don't see the point of saying “every change someone cries”: the “cry” of kfg is far more adult that those random cries that we see in forums with every change. I mean, really. Again, in this argument, I don't see the point of criticizing that way.

It's not “abusing” the system, it's just something that works that way, never seen problems with it, and some people include it in its strategy.

Now the random thing is saying that you have to remove it just because it's the only way wreck fields could work. The same thing implementing wreck fields is completely new, there's no need to destroy the tear-down of mine, for instance you could say “The energy that one needs to repair fleets also helps to tear-down mines without cost” and bingo! Everything would be solved, tearing down buildings would be like like always, except for the fact that if one wants to use that for wreck-fields then it costs nothing.

I don't mean that as a suggestion (which could be). Its just that your way of devaluing kfg's argument seems quite absurd.

It's not “abusing” the system, it's just something that works that way, never seen problems with it, and some people include it in its strategy.

if something "works that way" makes it work as intendend and correct?
if a game mechanic is abused the reason to not change, it "works that way"?

I´m here since 2004 and there were many many changes. Deathstars were too powerfull and were change and i read so many complains. Spy probes were build with millions over millions because spyraids were possible? was also changed.

Maybe you can think of my argumentation, why I can´t follow and more think that it is just a kind of try to bring an argument to not change, because a minimal group of player are using the tear down of buildings to save their resources. Just because they don´t want to build transporters or even don´t want to hink of other methods to save the resources.

I really understand the argumentation, don´t miss me. But it is no real one, not for me.

LG

tearing down buildings would be like like always, except for the fact that if one wants to use that for wreck-fields then it costs nothing.

If the destruction can have 2 differentes behaviour, it may entail problems : some who usualy save ressources in destruction could accidentally destroy a building if some ship get crashed here (really few are needed)

Some player could even crash ships to miners to bother them/make them destroy mines ( Could be fun but ... )

What vulca said and also that it can be hardly abused. If you normally have to pay to tear down and you have nothing to pay even when a wreckfield is available ... who will then really pay for tear down?

Live with the fact that it is changed and change your tactic

LG

Saving resouces by building something or tear down something is not the reason why it cost resources

LG

Quoted from OWiki.de:

v0.372a

spätestens 27.10.2003

• Nach grossen Schlachten können Monde entstehen
  
• Mondbasis ist fertig
  
• Gebäude lassen sich nun abreissen. Das kostet aber RS.
  
• Trümmerfelder ohne Planeten lassen sich nun nicht mehr angreifen oder ausspionieren
  
• Kleiner Bugfix im Urlaubsmodus
  
• Sensorphalanx ist fertig
  

Could be well that Legor himself programmed it in the game. Go and blame him for this feature and not us. And if I do the math correctly, this date lies more than 12 years in the past.


You are, afaik, the first one related to GF to ever publicly call this an "abuse of game mechanics". So please stop accusing users of deliberately abusing the feature. There have been plenty of occations for official statements, i.e. the 10th anniversary, where the ion technology was linked to deconstruction costs. The GF didn't bother.

Concernig the costs: For deconstruction saving of 1 billion resources you have to build a Met 43, worth 1.87 billion resources. That is far from cost-free.


So please enlighten me:

Fleet:
40 k LC = 480 M

Research:
Weapons 20: 524 M
Shields 20: 419 M
Armour 20: 524 M
Can't use it often since my labs are busy most of the time. So I need fleet anyway.

Buildings:
Fusion Reactor 22+23: 925 M per planet (for a capacity of 1.07 billion; way too expensive, not needed now)
Metal storage 20: 524 M
Crystal storage 19: I have one already. Capacity 786 M. Can't use it, when a mine is building.
Others: no, I will not waste resources and fields for buildings I don't need (Nani 6-9: 786 M per planet for a capacity of 819 M).
So I need fleet anyway.

Moons:
Buildings cost too much crystal, deuterium and fields. Storage capacity is way too small.
So I need fleet anyway.

Got any better ideas? Thank you very much!

kfg

Your quote from owiki.de say now what exactly? That tear down was implemented and cost resources? That should work as argument for?
That it should not be changed? That it should work for saving resources?

About that trollpart in your post

Maybe you should read my posts again and what my argumentation reference to.
The whole argumentation is that tear down should still cost resources because a minor group of players in end game use it for saving resouces without any cost and any risk that it can be taken by enemies. So I argument that this way to use the tear down process is an abuse of the functionality.

the ion technology research update changed that behavior that you even have to pay less resources. Within the next update it´s for free. The user ideas also mentioned that it should give resources back.

And still the argument that it should not be changed because of the saving part is no reason for not changing it. I still thing you all skilled enough to find other ways to do it

LG

First of all I see this discussion like if we were from opposite teams and we had to fight for different things. It's not my intention, and if with my post I helped to radicalize your position (and ours), I'm sorry, I didn't intend to.

And we all have been here for a long time, so that's no problem.

The thing is that you, or whoever is implementing this, are implementing a completely new idea (with the objective of ensuring that more players play the game). To do that you decide to change some behaviour of the game, as if it was a minor thing, at least that's what I read from the post, i.e., I agree with the last paragraph of kraja's post, if it was intended, then I don't like it, but OK, but I do think that it was used just as a justification of wreck fields behaviour. So the problem is that it does matter to some of us. And of course, we will continue to play, and of course we will adapt, but why on first place will you change it?

My example wasn't serious, it was just to show that if you want to justify something it's completely easy to justify in another way so you don't change current behaviours.

And it is definitely a part of the game which has NEVER had any kind of criticism, really, it's just something that worked in a way, it seemed logic (I say that —at least here— based on the fact that I haven't seen any discussion in forums proposing to change the prize of demolishing a building), and also was used by some players. Personally I think there's no need to change it, and I would ask you to consider this again.

As kraja said, if you really wanted to change this because of X reason then Ok, although I don't agree. But I'm afraid, given how the new was given, that it isn't really though but just as the first excuse.

Now personal things/opinions: (1) I think it's logic that if a building costs resources it has to cost some resources to demolish (and the fact that I've never known anyone that had a problem with it just...); (2) JoKy I really think you are radicalizing the opinions, saying this is a childish cry and comparing it to other (completely different) changes (the reduction of spy probing was actually a change to control the abuse; and the change on RIPs was actually to try to bring more equality; I don't think this is the case).

By the way, other proposal just so you see that there are many options: why would a building only give resources on wreck-fields? Why not give resources back always when tearing-them down? What is so special of wreck-fields that can make tearing down give resources (just in that occasion) but cannot make tear-down happen instantly (just in that occasion)? I do think there's room to be flexible and do not tangentially harm certain strategies that have never been a problem in the game.

If my post seems angry, sorry, English is not my mother tongue, I really I'm trying to say everything in a completely calm way.

so, if i understood, in a universe where 30% goes to debris, the defender keep 70% of his destroyed fleet?

it seems unfair, and i think that this will bring some "cheaters"....

Hi JoKy,

I understand well you want a constructive conversation, but if I'm right :

- on our local board, the translation of the announcement is " give us your opinion ". You can disagree with the opinion of players that think that the destruction is on their gameplay since years, but just answering " its like that now, and regarding this it cannot be changed ? " is not a constructive way to discuss. This answer can work on every suggestion, so if its to receive this answer I think GF must not propose to us a discussion. You have the key, so... By the way, why did you not propose that with researches ? We cannot for the moment downgrade a research, so its a completely new feature that will not compromise the game of any players, and I'm pretty sure that the number of players having a single planet with more ressources than in researches is not very high. It means too that this procedure can be launched as well as an quite empty planet or a well built planet.

- I made a remark about the player who looses is fleet if intercepted by 5 other players. It is THIS PLAYER you want to keep in the game, not one of the 5 defenders who welcomes the fight. I thought its a constructive question, and still waiting about your comments about that.

BKR,

Iguy

It is a regular game element. And that this feature is more than 12 years old and not less, as you stated.


It should not be sacrificed for a new feature that will be exploited for pushing. You don't think so? I do. And other gamers too. V4 was bad enough, but with wreck fields it will be possible to use otherwise unavailable resources from buildings for pushing. And even if only a small percentage of gamers will push themselves, they will exploit the game mechanics and rules far more than a small percentage of gamers who use deconstruction saving.


You are the one who started insulting users. You stated, that we don't think about alternatives besides more fleet. So I present the costs of the alternatives and you call me a troll. Since you obviously can't be banned from here, I personallly think that you are abusing your power.

kfg

Mmmm, are you sure that res given back after downgrade is available for other thing than converting the wreck field into ships ? I don't think so. So no problem with push.

1. Attack and destroy fleet
   
2. Collect DF
   
3. Repair wrecks with resources from buildings
   
4. Go to Step 1

Maybe you can't recycle 75 % due to the limitations set, but you don't need DM for bribing the scrap merchant or for gambling the best ratios at the resource merchant.

That's the simple method. Users will come up with more sophisticated tactics. They always do.

Concerning intended uses:

• Building something: costs resources and fields, main benefit: new or improved properties, secondary benefit: saving of resources, comes with abort button.
  
• Tear down something: costs resources, main benefit: free fields, secondary benefit: saving of resources, comes with abort button. Odd, that this button was never removed to prevent "abuse".
  
• Building Terraformer: costs resources and energy, main benefit: free fields, not really a secondary benefit (since saving of resources costs too much energy), comes with abort button, drawback: expensive.
  
• Constructing ships or defence: costs resources, main benefit: new or more ships or defence, no secondary benefit, no abort button to prevent cheesy saving.

So you had to pay for free fields one way or another. That's the explanation why.

kfg

I see it as a bad idea.Now a player can push themselves with pure miner acc,just sacrifices a building to rebuild some ships and hits it again,and again,and again...till there is no more building.

kraja wrote:

Jake Doyle wrote:

I see it as a bad idea.Now a player can push themselves with pure miner acc,just sacrifices a building to rebuild some ships and hits it again,and again,and again...till there is no more building.

That's actually not possible, because one can theoretically push a fleet to 100% by destroying and rebuilding it infinetily more. But there is no way to gain more than 100%. So at the end of the day one could still only push a fleet and not the buildings.
But if there were no restrictions and the GMs wouldn't interfere one could now push 100% of a fleet. But it was already said that there would be some restrictions. If they are good enough that we don't know, yet.

You didn't get the point.Let's say universe with 30% to df.So there is 70% of the fleet in the wrecks.I can sacrifice a building get the resources from the building and rebuild those 70%.Then again lose fleet,and sacrifice another buildingtl to gain resources to build fleet and then again lose it....did you get the point?U would use indestructible resources from the building to build fleet.Destroying an acc,buildings to get resources and get pushed.The new option allows it to gain resources that couldn't been used before.This update will only encourage pushers to push themselves with miner accs.