Server Features

  • why settle for a small deut increase @Blackmass
    cost of launching recycs is ridiculous with hyper 15
    big destroyer fleet - you looking at relo/drop mobile or don't bother


    maybe they keep it that way for DM revenue

    uni 3, uni 12, uni 44, uni andromeda - retired
    uni 1 - active

  • I mean...if you want to lump it into one vote, fine go for it. I'll vote of course but I feel like its destined to fail. Those who do want eco boost and don't want the other stuff will probably vote it down just so everybody else doesn't get what they want. What ever we decide we're looking for we better be incredibly careful how we ask for it as well is perhaps asking Pink if we can word it a certain way. I'm honestly good with the way things are now.

  • When are we going to try and get more eco or something for this uni, it sucks so hard right now to play in uni1, even as a miner you are better off somewhere else... :)

    Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat

  • I would say try and get an "all or nothing" poll going, for example


    We either get 7x economy + 50% DF + 0.5 Deut consumption or we keep the settings how they are now


    Need something that's balanced for both fleeters and miners, which is why economy on it's own did not pass last time

    High ranked miner, been playing way too long.
    Also have a Youtube channel with the same name (MCW UK), and I buy deut at 2.4/1.4/1

  • When i think 5X eco helped me to quit.... The amount of res to fleetsave was flowing too fast. :tongue3:


    And trying to find any sort of balance in trade rates is a self defeating purpose. If the trade rates were adequate, nobody would merch an this P2W game would make less money.


    Roughly, how many players uni 1 still has ?

  • Roughly, how many players uni 1 still has ?

    It is rare to see more than 100 online at any given time thus my guess would be ~300, perhaps 350.


    Ironically, More Eco helps those Engaged in questionable Remote Administration practices rather than large miners, and will *increase* the temptation for even more to do so when the issue already seems rampant... As counter Intuitive as it might be Higher Eco Multiplier do *not* help miners nor new players on the server, similar to the phenomenon of higher armor helps fleeters, whereas higher weapons 'helps' turtles.


    For those reasons, I am not certain I could support any proposed change suggesting upping the econ multiplier; before or even after the massive update which will undoubtedly change many core balances presently in-game / on-server.

  • Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. :smile2: I heard about such accusations in the past. I recall a distant past when 24 hour play was an offence leading to a ban. Is it still the case ? Or the sharers use less than 24 hours tactics to pass under the radar ? (My guess is GF does not care)

  • Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. :smile2: I heard about such accusations in the past. I recall a distant past when 24 hour play was an offence leading to a ban. Is it still the case ? Or the sharers use less than 24 hours tactics to pass under the radar ? (My guess is GF does not care)

    I do not recall any specific rule regarding how long any single account can be "online' within a single 24 hour period other than something regarding "overhead spam" where an attacker cannot continually keep inbound attacks against a specific target for more than 24 *continuous* hours.


    These "sharers" would be much less than 24 hours of any given day when involving Remote administration issues as the primary offense of Using remote administration for unfair advantage would be circumventing the built in "account sitting" courtesy functionality.


    More malicious examples could be "arrangements" such as Person A buys a used laptop for cheap, and takes it to Relative B's house where remote administration is installed on the laptop so that Person A from their home can control Laptop at Person B's location to play from two accounts simultaneously without suspicion in most cases.


    Alas, such dishonest practices would also be able to negatively impact any attempt to change the settings of a server, and is most likely part of the reason that 80% has been the benchmark for any potentially successful change to a server's settings Which should probably be even higher (perhaps 90%) and more stringent (accounts eligible to vote must have been registered for at least X Months / years etc. )