Astro Galaxy - a realistic space exploration game

Corporation General Talk => Corporation Stance => Topic started by: Raptor on April 08, 2022, 01:54:49 AM



Title: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 08, 2022, 01:54:49 AM
Recently, I've noticed several inactive mining units have covered entire planets, shortly after a solitary marker was placed there under the mining covenant and etiquette.

These blockades are a significant nuisance to my mining operations, to the point where I shall henceforth consider them a form of economic warfare. I will allow captains 24 hours to remove such blockades. From 06:00 UTC on 9 April 2022, I reserve the right to execute special military operations to secure my interests.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 08, 2022, 06:54:03 AM
"That's hundreds of planets that are not being mined, but where every player in the game has to avoid placing any mining units, just in case one of you guys wants to get round to mining them."

Not the case. If SPQNR, or anyone else, were properly mining something there, you wouldn't hear anything from me. The fact, however, is that those units were placed there in response to CH putting up a marker. A marker, as everyone is aware of, is NOT a claim to an entire planet, but to a specific deposit. Now, those deposits AREN'T being mined by those filler mods. Which is just as well, because THAT would be considered an act of war after the various warnings given on this issue. Which, incidentally, pre-date the moment CH may or may not have made COM life more difficult for SPQNR.

It was never our intention to break up with SPQNR, but the unfortunate fact is, that the backtracking on the Scorched Earth proposal ensured the once glorious Republic became a soft target for c*nts like caker. With whom SPQNR relations seem remarkably cordial these days. CH and I *haven't* forgotten his crimes, and AG's reluctance to correct them. If it's a pirate's game they (Sir Emi included) desire, a pirate's game they'll get.

Personally, I've not knowingly frustrated the Senate's cause so far, but consider this my notice to you that the opposite (SPQNR frustrating my cause) is now increasingly the case. That requires a counter reaction. The severity of which will be proportional to the trouble it gives me. I do not intend to blow blocking units that are actively watched by an SPQNR ship or station. That, to me, would signal it is a bonafide mining operation, not an economic blockade. Unaccompanied mining units will be treated as the latter.

Furthermore, I should like to add that "cheating" is a point of view. No one in SPQNR seemed to have a problem with automated deposit finding or intel gathering when it suited New Rome and its growth objectives. Nor does the formal rule on not exploiting flaws in the game (Dark COMs, anyone?) appear to be included in SPQNR's current view on what constitutes cheating.

On a final note: we don't hate the game. We hate the fact that its mechanics do not allow proper dealing with thieves. There used to be a time all Romans agreed on that.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 08, 2022, 01:27:27 PM
Would that be the same influence that let a 5-0 lead slip through its fingers when the Senate voted on Scorched Earth?
I think that was the last time I tried politics in AG.  :19:

You know how much I value loyalty. It takes a lot (so I guess I'll have to give credit to caker for achieving that) to leave my team. And LOEP is my team now. Even a full-scale war with SPQNR will not change that. Nor will it change the fact I'd be delighted to share a few pints or a fine wine with youse at any time. But it seems inevitable our AG paths have diverged too far to avoid in-game conflict.

Like I said: personally, I won't attack mining units that are accompanied by a ship or station in orbit. If they're not: I hope it won't be more than mk-I units that prevent me from mining deposits I paid for.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: zokikrk on April 08, 2022, 02:33:04 PM
CH has droped more than 100 Coms over me. But lately he atack my Stations with My Ships there. That stations was without pirate ships(60 days).I was in middle in colecting them.First battle over and waiting another 20 min.He came and took my station.
He directly steal from me more than  10 bilion solars. Because my ilegal mode somethimes are more than 3 b solar each.

He must stop this.I have respect for what he doing for me when i was newbie but it is over.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 08, 2022, 04:42:30 PM
CH has droped more than 100 Coms over me. But lately he atack my Stations with My Ships there. That stations was without pirate ships(60 days).I was in middle in colecting them.First battle over and waiting another 20 min.He came and took my station.
He directly steal from me more than  10 bilion solars. Because my ilegal mode somethimes are more than 3 b solar each.

He must stop this.I have respect for what he doing for me when i was newbie but it is over.

AG has become a pirate game..
I only takes station(s) with none in orbit.. (Then I arrive) and you dropped a COM on me claming that is was you COM, but you was not in orbit..
Except if I come across 0 power station(s).. I'll take it out..
But If your doing the COM, why can I take out a 0 power station(s) before you can ??

My goal is to make sure that PF, Caker and his alts, don't get any income and if I can take out a station, right under your nose, he can too..

I had respected SPQNR, but then you started blocking all stations slots and extream exploiding of a bug in AG.. (I lost it)

I only drop coms on COM's blocking all Stations slots.. You interup my income and I do yours too..

SPQNR DarkCOM explained:

Use you biggest ship to collect Nest COMs.
Start as many Looter COMs as you can on the same place..
Wait 90 days and the ships leave the stations alone.
Take out the stations and get the loot (iligale mods etc)
Destroy the stations and get the revard..

My lates intel Top 20:


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 08, 2022, 04:56:51 PM
Just to clarify: I'm not here to broker any kind of deal. Like I said: I'm done with politics.
I appreciate everyone wants to play the game the way they see fit. That used to work, until the balance was upset by methods that are arguably a federal crime in the real world. Ultimately, three people were willing to stand up to that. The rest de facto accepted the events of late 2020 by their failure to at the very least continue to actively hunt down the main culprit. It is well documented that many did so because they were, and perhaps still are, incapable of defending their own interests. In doing so, they pushed away the best intel gathering and pre-emptive strike capability in AG.
Ironically, this could now lead to direct conflict between two sides who can hurt each other far more than the root cause of this BS ever could (not least because most of us are, at the very least, capable of producing our own combat gear rather than having to steal it). But I won't be negotiating anything on anyone's behalf other than my own. And from my point of view, *I* am (partially) stopped from mining claims I paid for, which have therefore become my in-game property. The only thing I will make sure of, is that I *can* continue my way of playing the game. I understand others will not be happy with some of CH's actions, but that must be taken up with him. I will not be a pawn in such a game of chess. By trying to force me into such a role through mining blockades, I'll only be pushed further towards the hawks. If, for the sake of protecting less evolved Senators, an uncomfortable co-existance with the likes of caker was chosen, I would urge SPQNR to consider what damage *I* could do when actively sabotaging anyone's operations.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: zokikrk on April 09, 2022, 11:57:54 AM
CH(NB)  I was buying and mining those PT from the Deposit list.Now i can't enter Deposit List(probably you changed password).You have no lose from my stars.I always payed.If u want to mine some PT on my teritory just let me now.If u give me access to deposit list i will continue with buying those PT and u will have no loss.

And yes before u attack Stations without ship there(i mystake for 1  day when the looter ships go[and u know that that is my stations]) BUT before 2 days u attack 3 different planets with stations WITH MY SHIPS there.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 09, 2022, 12:43:29 PM
CH(NB)  I was buying and mining those PT from the Deposit list.Now i can't enter Deposit List(probably you changed password).You have no lose from my stars.I always payed.If u want to mine some PT on my teritory just let me now.If u give me access to deposit list i will continue with buying those PT and u will have no loss.

And yes before u attack Stations without ship there(i mystake for 1  day when the looter ships go[and u know that that is my stations]) BUT before 2 days u attack 3 different planets with stations WITH MY SHIPS there.

zero power stations.. You had collected the loot..

Captain Harlock   Pirate looter   ARJ 2288->S/ARJ 2288 G3    xxxxxx   0   0.00% / 0.00%   05-Apr-2022 17:20
Captain Harlock   Pirate looter   ARJ 2288->Alpha ARJ 2288   xxxxxx   0   0.00% / 0.00%   05-Apr-2022 17:19


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: caker18 on April 09, 2022, 05:19:13 PM
Friendly reminder to LOEP to avoid their all-famous God complex...

PF has committed to ceasing hostilities against virtually all major realistic targets... this LOEP has not done, and is even turning its back against former friends...

Is peace that difficult? You make your decisions.


I personally find it quite remarkable that LOEP is so diehard in their attempts to get us to not receive any revenue, that they are willing to piss off SPQNR

They know this is counterproductive as it will force PF into piracy, instead of generating revenue appropriately. They also know that this behavior disrupts SPQNR, and finally they're aware of the fact that if SPQNR is sufficiently disgruntled there is a nonzero probability that they might requisition our services in disposing of LOEP (personally, I find this to be quite the symbiotic relationship - we don't need to waste resources on intel, SPQNR can push LOEP's attention back to us, LOEP can get the worst of both worlds)

And they wish to do what exactly? We hold all the cards here - most of us are on and off with AG, and so we are effectively free to do as we please when we please. It is impossible to get us "off" AG - we might just come back three months later, trash some of your "bases", and go off again. Our research framework is concentrated within single-payer, single-producer research, which gets us leaps and bounds ahead of distributing corp resources in terms of science and production.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 09, 2022, 06:18:51 PM
You have already committed numerous acts of war against us, and we are trying to be magnanimous by drawing a line under that, so we can resolve this peacefully, to the economic benefit of both of us.

Are you interested in negotiating a settlement, or are you bent on war?

Settelment you say...

All I see is just bend for SPQNR.. and recive payment to look the other way..

I'll not do so...

We can't make any treaties as We a pirates in a pirate corp..

Choice is still up SPQNR..


PM from Herod.
>[SPQNR] Herod(#8449)
>06-Mar-2022 09:08
>
>
>
>You are a trader as well as a pirate. If you weren't a trader, you wouldn't have a mining agreement or expect people to respect your markers.
>
>As a pirate you can't have a treaty, but as a trader you can have a private trading agreement. I am offering to pay you 1000QP per month (starting today and on the first of every >month) if you don't collect any coms or >start/drop any coms in 1,-3 or 2,-3.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 10, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
Friendly reminder to LOEP to avoid their all-famous God complex...

[blah blah]
We hold all the cards here

Pot. Kettle. Black.


But I guess you just had to rear your inbred head.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 10, 2022, 01:39:18 PM
But be aware they're tougher cookies than you'd expect at first sight.  :19:


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: Raptor on April 10, 2022, 02:57:09 PM
I had a couple of stalemates, but all my fault. Mis-calculated the required power (manually  :19:).


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 11, 2022, 05:02:48 PM
I restart all my coms at least a week beforehand. For the past year, when Harlock dropped little coms on me, it was only an irritation.

Now, for the first time, you've dropped a com on me that I can't fight.

I now have no reason to continue fighting coms, and my only motivation to remain in AG is to expend my entire energy on totally f**king up your game.

I have two trillion solars in the bank and no need to earn any income for at least couple of years.

I hope people reading this thread appreciate how I've tried to be reasonable and done everything I can to avoid conflict and persuade Harlock to play fair.

Harlock, you now have 24 hours to agree that you will no longer drop any coms on me or else I will give up fighting coms completely, go dark and devote my entire energies and considerable resources to f**king up everything you do.

You can attack my ships in the next 24 hours, but I can rebuild everything instantly without it touching my savings.

Please note: I am not speaking for SPQNR, but for myself only. I am happy to leave SPQNR if it means you focus your f**kery on me rather than other members of SPQNR.


I think some one is using the conflict and my Name..
My COM collecting ship only has Total power of 321,286,928.. But just blame me anyway is easier..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 11, 2022, 05:23:20 PM
Are you saying you haven't dropped a large com and a small com on HDU A1? If you say you haven't, I will accept your word.
2022-03-19 08:17:18 was the last drop on S/HDU 27744 A1

2022-04-01 10:50:02.503187
2022-06-24 09:38:06.000000
Q (2,-3)
HDU 27744
S/HDU 27744 A1
23
145
23
0
1
2022-03-19 08:17:18.000000


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 12, 2022, 04:19:11 AM
I must admit I am very frustrated with the direction this scenario is headed.

In the past I admired how the larger players in AG spent considerable time and resources in helping the smaller players learn and grow. It was a real community, and numerous times I and others remarked that it would be great if in real life the 'large players'  would be as much into helping the smaller players as the players in AG were.

Now it appears that it is us, looking at the recent examples provided by the 'large players' in real life and emulating them.

As per the comments from NoBrain - here are my thoughts:
1. "All I see is just bend for SPQNR.. and recive payment to look the other way.."

I don't understand what you think we are asking you to 'bend' or 'look the other way' for.   The COM strategy we are using now was introduced to SPQNR by Stargazer almost 2 years ago prior to the split off of LOEP.   He even assigned anyone in spqnr who asked,  several COMs that he had initiated himself, just before they were due, so that we could fight the coms and have an idea if how simple and profitable it was.   I don't ever recall anyone saying, at that time, that it was an exploit that was against any AstroGalaxy rules.    Although numerous spqnr members were content to mine rather than do COMs at that time,  Cakers ocasional attacks pushed more of us to use that COM strategy over time rather than risking the loss of expensive mining assetts.

The only practice that I recall having had numerous discussion in spqnr  as being 'not permitted in AG' was the use of automation scripts.   If anyone was/is 'looking the other way' it was/is all us non-scripters.  Many of us including Gildavinor (now in LOEP) openly stated that we would not get into scripting because we felt it was either not permitted, or at the very least not fair to other players.   Admitedly, we were more than willing to 'look the other way' in regards to the PT hunting scripts because, when there was a universal database available for the sale and purchase of mining claims, we could all truly say it was a win/win benefit for ALL players, including those outside spqnr.   I admired the considerable energy/effort that NoBrain put into developing the PT collecting and listing efforts, and that was one of those very helpful things  that I mentioned in the intro above.

2. "We can't make any treaties as we a(re) pirates in a pirate corp.."
Just because you are 'pirates' does not mean you cant have a treaty.   look up 'Treaty of Tripoli 1796'.   If fact 'privateers' were basically just pirates that were commisioned by a country, and had made agreements to only attack specific targets, or to not attack specific targets.  The normal aim of piracy is to make quick riches with minimal effort.   Yet when offered a way to make an easy 1000 QP per month with little to no effort on your part, you turn that down.  That does not sound like what a pirate or privateer would do...

Yes, I admit we were also willing to overlook all the automated hunting/killing scripts that NoBrain made to protect players against pirates.   Similar to the PT hunting scripts mentioned above, I considered it as something that would allow players both inside and outside spqnr to be able to enjoy the game more by not loseing as much of their mining equipment to persistant pirates like Caker and other players at the time.   Before the split, we had lobbied for SirEmi to implement some changes that would at least make it possible for a player to counter attack or track an attacker, to at least have some balance in the odds against fighting a pirate; but to no avail.

The actions of Caker (in piracy and also in hacking into inactive player accounts), as well as the lack of development interest by Sir Emi were the main reasons LOEP formed.   There were several objectives of LOEP.  One was to fight Caker, and give him a taste of his own medicine without being encumbered by the diplomatic process of SPQNR.    Another objective was to attract the attention of Sir-Emi in the hopes of him making changes to Astro Galaxy that many players had been asking for.   To do this NoBrain wanted to make AG unplayable by newer players and thus reduce the potential for income to  Sri Emi from players purchasing QP to get VIP status.    Although the majority in spqnr did agree with the goals that NB (and others) had; we did not agree with the method that was being proposed, and voted against such a move; causing NB and others who agreed with his proposed tactics to split off from spqnr to form loep.

In regards to those LOEP objectives:  It appears from comments/proposals made on the AG board that Caker has seen the light and now realizes that piracy by large players against smaller players detracts from the overall enjoyment of the game by the majority of players.   That is one positive accomplishment that I give full credit to NoBrain in accomplishing.  Unfortunately,  it also appears that NB is now intending to take over Cakers role and detract from the gameplay of the majority of other players by, among other things, dumping large coms indiscriminantly throughout the galaxy, especially in places where other players already have COMs in progress.  

As for the the objective of inspiring Sir-Emi to do some game development; I did not agree on the tactic but I did have some small hope that it might work.  After almost 2 years with loep working on that strategy with no disernable result, I have given up on that hope.

I expect that if we all want to continue to enjoy playing AG we will all need to work together and come up with an agreement that is acceptable to the majority within the current AG implementation without the expectation that we will ever see enhancements made.   Maybe after 2 years, it is time for us all to 'let it go' and return at least somewhat  to how things were pre Caker/LOEP.

3. Choice is still up SPQNR..
 What 'choice' are you talking about?    So far the only choices I see is to either quit playing AG or put up with your ever increasing use of scripting which over time continues to expand and make the playing of Astro Galaxy more and more difficult by anyone other than those who are willing to bend/bow to wishes of the biggest bully.   Although an spqnr member has offered significant financial incentive to NB to allow the game to remain playable to no avail, I have not seen any other choices offered by NB/loep.

If we continue down this path, at some point the only player that will be active is NoBrain.   It will not really even be him playing, it will just be his robo scripts.    Will anyone be willing or even able to save mankind from extinction by a hostile artificial intelligence in a post-apocalyptic future? (Terminator - Rise of the Machines).

The choice is to leave a free Station slot or not...

Quite simple..
If all station slots are blocked With COMs, I Just add one the the stack.. (If I have one)

I also want to play the game you know.. or I had stopped a long time ago..
But SPQNR have blocked more and more system with Unmatted COM's (Dark COMs)

I had to leave SPQNR, because the proposed solution to a problem also had a ultimatum.
It was not supported by the Senate and our path had to end..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 12, 2022, 04:33:52 AM
But if blocking station slots is the problem, that is an easy issue to resolve. Let us buy the deposits at planets or moons where we are blocking the station slots.

This way, the orbit isn't blocked from the person who owns the deposit.

Win-Win situation.

No the solution is to stop blocking all station slots..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 12, 2022, 04:49:01 AM
Explain how that harms you. If I pay you the full price of every PT I block, in what way do you lose out?

It harms me to see a Bug beeing exploied to extream by SPQNR.. and Sir Emi not doing anything about it.. And I have desided to do so..
In SPQNR I could use the senate to control it.. but after I left there have been an groth of big dark COM's..

Just like it hams you to see how I play AG...


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: CaptainTiny on April 13, 2022, 05:31:23 AM
Before adding a few questions and comments by myself, I just want to state that I fully subscribe to the long message from Jonrovian I have been playing this game as it is about peaceful exploration and support among the players. There are other games out there for bullies and warmongers...
I am a bit puzzled why we are having this discussion at all.
@NB - If SPQNR is indeed making it difficult for other players in this game, shouldn't you be happy? After all, you ,made this your purpose, destroying any ship, station or mining gear with just a few exceptions.

Anyhow, from a statistics point of view SQQNR is not monopolizing this galaxy. We operate in around 6% of all sectors. I don't know the overall numbers from the corporation, but I do know my own: I have got coms over 170 planets and moons which are stabilized by my own ships. Ony 10% of those would block new stations, which is anot eeven the real picture as half of those are 1 slot planets where mining is never profitable. Another 400 planets on those stars don't have any coms at all. In addition there are 10 stars in my operating sector which are not stabilized and open for business by default. I don't see how this game play can create a big disadvantage for other players. In any case, where this becomes a real impediment, I am happy to compensate the player for any potential loss. Adding those numbers from above and being among the 10 top players, my share of blocked plnets is somewhere around 0,005%. My ongoing mining operations block around 0,01% of all planets in comparison and I have heard no complaints about that...

@NB - If you are serious about not monopolizing the game you should scale down your ARC operation where you harvest around 90 to 95% of all alien ship wrecks.


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 17, 2022, 09:57:13 AM
I now have no income and my game has been closed down by CH. I have been painted into a corner, so have no option now but to stop fighting coms and devote my entire resources to attacking the person who has done this.

Before this happens, I have one final offer to make station slots available at every PT:

• Maximum 8 pirate stations at any planet that can support a PT
• Maximum 3 pirate stations at any moon that can support a PT
• Unlimited pirate stations at asteroids, 1-slot, anything that can't sustain a PT

That way, if the orbit is blocked, it's because you have dropped a Com. It won't be my doing.

The offer to buy the PTs off you at above market rate is also still there.

This offer has a 24-hour expiry.

My terms is to leave a free station slot.. I don't care if a PT can be found or not.

I'm not destroying your game, I'm just limiting your income from exploiting a bug in AG..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 17, 2022, 02:09:19 PM
It's Max 8 stations for all bodys, except 4 stations for moons.. one is free means Max 7 / 3..

I'll stop dropping on the current COM's, if there are SPQNR ships in orbit..

I will resume, if number of stations increase or the 60 days has ended...
60 days starting after you (SPQNR) has accepted..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 17, 2022, 02:30:26 PM
Couple of things:

• If you look at Uranus, you'll see there are 9 stations there. I've just confirmed by doing a test at Sirius Eta – 9 stations allowed (so 8/3 is correct, not 7/3).

• Are you saying that you want both a limit on the number of stations AND a ship in orbit?

You understand that switching to Com Dark was never about exploiting a bug in the system – it was a way of being able to still fight coms by having the stabilising ship in the safe zone. With his stolen spaceship, Caker destroyed our ability to safely keep ships in orbit while fighting a Com.
If you have tested it, then it will be 8/3..

8+ nest coms need a ship in the 60 days.. if no ship is in orbit, I'll drop on on top..
SPQNR has no problem with Caker..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 17, 2022, 02:44:53 PM
Can you clarify?

Are you saying the 8/3 only applies if there is no ship in orbit?

You're happy with any number of com missions as long as there is a ship in orbit for the full 60 days?

For the next 60 days all nest COM's over limmit 8/3 and a ship in orbit will not be dropped.. but If no ship and over limit there will be dropped. if under limit none will be dropped..

After 60 days if there is more nest COM's 8/3, there will be dropped.. if under limit none will be dropped..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 17, 2022, 03:00:47 PM
If we go for this, you have to stop dropping coms for the next 60 days.

If you keep dropping coms in the next 60 days, the orbits will never be clear, so we will not be able to guarantee 8/3 after 60 days. They will have your pirate ships in orbit, so we won't be able to get rid of the stations.

If you drop a com in 50 days' time, it will take 110 days before the orbits are clear of stations.

We need 60 days of no dropped Coms if we agree to this. Then, we after 60 days, there would only be 8/3 in orbit.

For the next 60 days all nest COM's over limmit 8/3 and a ship in orbit will not be dropped.. but If no ship and over limit there will be dropped. if under limit none will be dropped..

After 60 days if there is more nest COM's 8/3, there will be dropped.. if under limit none will be dropped..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: NoBrain on April 17, 2022, 03:18:10 PM
We both have to be reasonable for this to work, and you are being unreasonable.

If you want us to limit our com activity and agree to limit the number of coms we fight, you have to meet us halfway and give us 60 days to sort out our messed-up coms and completely change our gameplay.
Why ??

You said that you only had a limmited numbers of big dark COMs..
I've 97 COM's over limit in my DB.. So Chose..


Title: Re: Admiral Piet Hein policy on mining blockades
Post by: torh on April 23, 2022, 03:40:02 AM
If we go for this, you have to stop dropping coms for the next 60 days.

If you keep dropping coms in the next 60 days, the orbits will never be clear, so we will not be able to guarantee 8/3 after 60 days. They will have your pirate ships in orbit, so we won't be able to get rid of the stations.

If you drop a com in 50 days' time, it will take 110 days before the orbits are clear of stations.

We need 60 days of no dropped Coms if we agree to this. Then, we after 60 days, there would only be 8/3 in orbit.

For the next 60 days all nest COM's over limmit 8/3 and a ship in orbit will not be dropped.. but If no ship and over limit there will be dropped. if under limit none will be dropped..

After 60 days if there is more nest COM's 8/3, there will be dropped.. if under limit none will be dropped..


fine by me i still work with timer ships present at my coms and i am in the fourth ring