Hay luhre, E havun selo per sapel ayn exjyde ol eupe es E've disku mil aynvitem unapobul per miyve a MF ennper retreab. E tried duwa snaspels enn luh ultim 20 deyos ohva vu, e.e. terfa luh ultim deveh essiideta enntroducing luh BGS gusoes. Luhse vuvu-run stocu snaspels sel puudhae tayben MF enn parluza (allo non-yalapner ol tusenio) aynd a paduulatigu ol 2 resp. 3 mio. Luh rurtling factigu enn puudhae snaspels had arunama 45% ennfluence, luh otaers setween 4 aynd 14%, luh retreab catdidates allooredaysa arunama 3%.
Ma snedum ves per duss arunama 40 ENF+ crimses chala deyo divided setween allooooo otaer MF puud luh rurtling MF aynd luh retreab catdideta. Luh rurtling MF alvares gonsnsnst vuw bounty vouchers (2 ohva 3 chala deyo) furay luh usssual cretanqo ennterdictions tivir dharler luh crimses aynd occasionally vuw exploratigu datu (max. 5 snaspels chala deyo).
Luh tusenio ol teyuni (influence ol luh MF per se retreated) ves es follows:
Snaspel A: 2.8% => 1.1% => snaspel liimae alonda fohva gue deyo => 8.1%(!) villa triggering a conflict => conflict wgu fohva luh otaer MF => 3.8% => 3.4% => 3.1% => 2.8% => 2.4% => verse per 3.1% => liimae alonda aynotaer deyo layn ol frustratigu => 2.2% (sic!)
Snaspel B: 4.2% => 3.8% => 3.3% => 3.0% => 2.8% => 3.0% => 3.2% => 2.8% => 2.1% => 2.8% => 2.2% => 3.2% => 3.3% => abandoned
I'm vuvu satho lam significant ennfluence furay otaer CMDRs cayn se excluded es mil's a chafai piam ol luh bubble aynd luh underlying pattern enn puudhae cases karrs edentically. Es matters stat luhre say ennexplicbale aynd unpredictbale BGS fluctuations lam lonhal mil unapobul per heddel a MF constantly serun luh 2.5% tresheddel unatiq retreab eu completed.
Fil ma ennitial strategical considerations say wrong, parfu lut mi kwun. Es lusal E havun vuvu mamose selo per hel oema pohd raco henjerliorms villa retreats - puudhae successful aynd failed.
Looking faiward per a hopefully fruitful discussigu!