Six Month Settings Change

Quote from War Doctor

I support all the proposed changes. However, if leaving DF at 50% and fuel cost at 100% is the trade-off to come to a consensus on the eco and research increase, then I am willing to give both those up. 50% DF is already very fleeter friendly. Fleeters make up the minority of most servers, ours included. DF and fuel only help fleeters. The rest of the changes help everyone.

I appreciate seeing friendly discourse about these proposed settings changes.

Mylops has done a great job backing the changes as listed, including the ones you are against.

Id also like a turn to share my thoughts on why the numbers settled where they are.

DF increase is obviously good for fleeters, who take advantage of the fleet to DF aspect of the game. That cant be hidden or disguised by any amount of words. My hope is that with higher DF ratio it may bring life to smaller fleeting accounts, as well as more profits for the active players. I can see why that wouldnt be something you want outright, but maybe we can agree on even a slight increase to 60%?

Fuel decrease. Well again one can make the point that this benefits fleeters only, but anyone who has done large scale trades knows that cargo movements get expensive and even sending out regular expeditions, or even pirate raiding expeditions can add up to a decent deut usage. With no reduction to exponentially increasing research and lifeform costs, a reduced fuel cost for all fleet sizes would be boon to all of us.

Eco increase is the real gem that we all want a piece of. The increased eco will improve mine and expo yields and that is useful for everyone across the board. All players, fleeter or not, will benefit from higher yields in this way. Lower ranked players will have a higher constant stream of res to their accounts so that they can climb the ladder that is currently filled with inactive accounts. It can also be a solid counter to the active fleeters in the uni. Realistically the fleeters in this uni are way outnumbered by the players who arent playing in that way, so if the players who arent hunting start advancing at a faster pace they can be better prepared to defend themselves, or worst case scenario, rebuild.

Overall I think that the proposed settings changes are balanced and evenly effect everyone in the uni in a beneficial way. Having a slightly higher yield from all aspects of the game in this uni, I believe, is the best way to bring more activity to this uni.

As mylops previously stated however, we can always come to a compromise, but I really would hate for this to become a 1-sided settings change here only one group is truly happy with the outcome. Lets all work together and compromise, because at the end of the day, we all seem to want a better environment, and the only way to make this change happen is to come to an agreement.

Hey Bizzle whats the good word? we havent heard anything since we started this thread.

Yes! This is the good news I wanted today!

Thanks!!