Wreck field- discussion thread

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

    • It seems like a good idea especially for players whose moon was destroyed and fleet was destroyed returning from deployment.
      It gives the player a good chance to at least rebuild some of the lost fleet.
      The important part here seems to have a high number of nanite factory and new building "space dock".
      It would be a useful building only if it is not counted in planet space.
      As far as i understand it would require "energy". Am i right? That issue can be solved with solar satellites and i assume we can also rebuild solar satellites with this new wreck area.
      Also destroying other buildings without need of resources is a good addition and it will not need time to destroy buildings.
      I think this new feature should be available firstly for universes older than 2 years because fleet amounts can come up to 200B or 300B and if it will be applied for ogame, it should be applied in all countries in all universes at the later stage for newer universes (newer universes i mean like 6 months old or so)

    • Same opinion as @kfg. When accounts are big (and even in small accounts) saving resources by deconstructing mines is a life saver. I wouldn't like to see it removed. Couldn't you think of a better workaround?

      I use it even in small accounts with just 20M points and can survive with 8.000 cargos in the whole account. That's just a choice, but when accounts get bigger... this wouldn't help at all a 300M+ account that needs to save 6.000M resources to put a mine.

    • Nice idea, it would be even better if double standards against attackers are removed. The point of this upgrade is to make players stop quitting. The defender has that benefit, the defenders usually are more careless and will benefit from that. Fleeters tend to play a lot more and spend time in the game and in the case of a big ninja, they do not have that benefit. The attacker might even be a new player sending all their ships on their first mission. Not fair at all, especially when someone has spent much more time than another player. If something goes wrong, the attacker will quit, defender will not.

      Defenders who are constantly losing fleet and rebuilding might decide that fleet is not for them. How are we exactly encouraging them to switch gameplay? In that case I think that giving an option to use DM and convert wreck field to resources would be useful.

    • I think that giving an option to use DM and convert wreck field to resources would be useful.

      It's called Scrap Merchant ...



      - A wreck field only appears if [...] more than 150.000 resource-points are destroyed.

      This should be reduced, at least for player below 500k points.
      Many players on "old" universe get crashed and stop after reaching the 500.000 points. (getting out of protection is dangerous :D)
      That would be too bad for them to not be able to use this option ...


      ** OgameTech **

    • Yes, I agree with you vulca regarding the scrap merchant. However, a direct approach instead of rebuilding and then selling to merchant would be useful and less time consuming, especially for the cases that the player understands that there is no time for fleeting. I think complexity could be reduced that way.

      I also agree with decreasing the limit of points being destroyed in order to make the wreck fields appear.

    • iguypouf wrote:

      What about the attacker who crash against a defence of 5 players ? Is it considered as the looser of the fight, and regarding this the wreck field is available for him ? Or even if winner is only for the defender ?


      It has nothing to do with the winner.

      The wreckfield is generated only out of the fleet of the main defender, so out of the fleet which is standing on the planet/moon (and not holding, etc).

      So in your example, only the destroyed fleet of 1 of the 5 defending players potentially generates a WF. "Potentially", as there are some requirements (min. 150k units, etc).

    • 150k resource points = around 38 light fighers. Yeah this should be reduced! No one can reach that high amount!

      So there will be no more tear-down saving of resources? That is a kick in the face for all miners using this very efficient tactic in late-game. The change of ion technology was bad enough already. This is much, much worse!


      That´s how it will work, when tearing down is then without costs and works instant. It´s the same with every change in the game, someone will always complain, don´t mather what. But I think that tear down cost resources was a fail anyway. I also know that some are using it as cheap save method, also some are failing that way, when they forget to abort it. I also remember several ideas over the years, where user requested a change on that, at least also to get resources out, what they know from other games.
      I think players will always find a way to save resources :)


      LG
      Being a QA is sort of like being a goal keeper. People only talk about you when you’ve screwed up. We are the silent guardians of game development, and they will never have to thank us.

    • JoKy wrote:

      150k resource points = around 38 light fighers. Yeah this should be reduced! No one can reach that high amount!


      150k resource points is not clear if it is 150k ressources or 150M ressources.
      On french board, it was clerly translated to 150k Points = 150M ressource (= a lot for 500k points player)


      But if it's 150k ressources, yeah that less enought ! :)


      ** OgameTech **

    • Resource points = what one ship cost. By an light fighter it will be 3.000 metal and 1.000 crystal in summ 4.000 resource points. Maybe now it is more clear :)

      LG
      Being a QA is sort of like being a goal keeper. People only talk about you when you’ve screwed up. We are the silent guardians of game development, and they will never have to thank us.

    • DeLord, thank you for the precision.

      I thought it has something to do with the winner, as far as the " purpose " explained to " justify " this new feature is... to avoid loosing players who loose their fleet in the game. In the case I asked for, the player that the game will loose, its the attacker, not the defender.

      Thank you for your answer,

      iguy

    • JoKy wrote:

      That´s how it will work, when tearing down is then without costs and works instant. It´s the same with every change in the game, someone will always complain, don´t mather what.

      This change is not necessary for the wreck fields. There are enough other ways to accomplish the goal.

      JoKy wrote:

      But I think that tear down cost resources was a fail anyway. I also know that some are using it as cheap save method, also some are failing that way, when they forget to abort it. I also remember several ideas over the years, where user requested a change on that, at least also to get resources out, what they know from other games.

      I remember users (myself included) requesting to take back the ion technology change. If someone forgets to abort, it's his fault. Happend to me, too. And I never complained about it. It must be very important to make OGame like any other game, it seems.

      JoKy wrote:

      I think players will always find a way to save resources :)

      At the moment, I would need another 40 k LC to save my resources for the next Met 44. Expensive way of saving because you'd have to invest into dead points. Bigger fleet, more heavily loaded, consuming more fuel, presenting a more attractive target.

      kfg

    • Sure it´s a great costless tactical option so save resources. But all arguments are based on personal ways to play and to abuse a game mechanic.

      I think it´s needed to have that option. If someone looses his whole fleet, how should he get resources to get the part of his fleet back, which did not moved to the debris field? There are not enough resources available after a big crash. So it´s needed to have an option like this.

      As said, there are always ways to save resources, saving them normally via ships, start research, start building upgrades ...

      I can understand if something is changed after years which was abused as cheap way to save resources.

      At the moment, I would need another 40 k LC to save my resources for the next Met 44. Expensive way of saving

      So it´s anyway a first way problem and that´s all what those complains are based to.

      LG
      Being a QA is sort of like being a goal keeper. People only talk about you when you’ve screwed up. We are the silent guardians of game development, and they will never have to thank us.

    • So for more than 12 years it was a unique feature and now it's an abuse of game mechanics? Cute little twist there. There are a million other ways to implement wreck recovery, but GF insists on this one.

      You are so desperate to keep people in the game, but you can't think of a way to do it without annoying the ones who don't need it, since they can take care of themselves.

      kfg

    • Someone from the German board asked to post this here


      Admiral S wrote:

      Das folgende wollte ich dort drüben schreiben. Aber dazu müsste ich wohl angemeldet sein. :verlegen:
      Ohne eine englische Übersetzung. Joky versteht schließlich selbst deutsch.
      Könnte das jemand für mich übernehmen ?

      JoKy wrote:

      Ich denke, es ist erforderlich diese Option zu haben. Wenn jemand seine ganze Flotte verliert, wie sollte er an Ressourcen kommen um den Teil seiner Flotte wiederzubekommen, der nicht ins Trümmerfeld gegangen ist? Es sind nicht genug Ressourcen vorhanden nach einem großen Crash. Deshalb wird eine solche Option benötigt. (Übersetzung von Lunati)
      Es ist immer möglich an genug Ressourcen zu kommen, ohne den Abrisssave zu opfern. Man muss es nur programmieren.

      Aber es war natürlich schon immer einfacher, auf seinem Standpunkt zu beharren, als auf andere einzugehen und sie damit vor den Kopf zu stoßen. :rolleyes:


      kraja wrote:

      Abgeglichen hab ichs nicht, aber O-ton von Joky war schon definitiv, dass der Abrisssave ein Ausnutzen der Spielmechanik ist und abgeschafft gehört.
      So einen Dünnschiss (von Joky) habe ich schon ewig nicht mehr gehört.
      Wenn dem wirklich so sein sollte, so gehörten ganz andere Dinge von OGame abgeschafft, weil sie ebenfalls ein - sogar bewusst programmiertes - Ausnutzen der Spielmechanik bedeuten, die weit schlimmer sind und die GF gleich mit. :rolleyes:



      Translated it would be something like this:

      JoKy wrote:

      I think it´s needed to have that option. If someone looses his whole fleet, how should he get resources to get the part of his fleet back, which did not moved to the debris field? There are not enough resources available after a big crash. So it´s needed to have an option like this.
      It's always possible to get ressources without sacrificing the tear-down-save. One just has to program it.

      JoKy wrote:

      Sure it´s a great costless tactical option so save resources. But all arguments are based on personal ways to play and to abuse a game mechanic.
      It's been a long time, since I heard such nonsense(from Joky).
      If it is really like this, then there are some other things that should be abolished because they are a - even deliberately programmed - abuse of a game mechanic that are far worse...(the last part I'm not really able to translate. He practically adds that in that thinking one should also abolish the GF)

      Edit: Not Admiral S anymore but now kraja asking: Is this Your personal opionion Joky or did the the GF decide to abolish the tear-down-save in general out of some gamedesign reasons? If it's like the latter, what are these reasons exactly?

    • kfg wrote:

      So for more than 12 years it was a unique feature and now it's an abuse of game mechanics? Cute little twist there. There are a million other ways to implement wreck recovery, but GF insists on this one.
      kfg


      So your argumentation is like: We abused that feature over 12 years (it´s even less because tear down was implemented later) and because of that it should not be changed. Let me think ... nope.

      You are so desperate to keep people in the game, but you can't think of a way to do it without annoying the ones who don't need it, since they can take care of themselves.


      That´s not possible in the game. If we change something don´t matter what someone cries. We are always against fleeters, then against miners, then against someone random.

      The major reason why there are complains: Something changed and I have do adjust my normal gameplay. Changes are bad but on the other side all want changes ... hmmm

      It's always possible to get ressources without sacrificing the tear-down-save. One just has to program it.

      Then tell me how :)

      @kraja
      So your argumentation is like: there are other things to do, so don´t do that? oO

      Please guys stop flaming and be constructive or we close this thread :)

      LG

      P.S.: for sure it´s my personal meaning of this feature because I can´t follow the argumentation and I don´t decide or implement it, my team and me is testing this feature, when it comes to our testservers, nothing more.
      Being a QA is sort of like being a goal keeper. People only talk about you when you’ve screwed up. We are the silent guardians of game development, and they will never have to thank us.