Bregir

The Naval Licensing and Prize Court

Recommended Posts

The Supreme Courts of the Brick Seas* has decided to establish a Naval Licensing and Prize Court, delegating the discretion over all matters related to the licensing of ships and the condemnation of prizes. The Supreme Courts have appointed a judge from each faction, in order for the Naval Court to function unbiased and independently of faction interests.**

Licensing of ships

Generally, once a vessel is licensed, there is no changing the license. Neither can a license, for instance a capture, be upgraded to a larger license. However, there are some exceptions, which will be handled by this court.

  • Up-licensing a vessel
    For vessels with a license smaller than what the related MOC justifies, it may be possible to increase the license, when the funds become available. The general rule is that the maximum rating of the vessel should be included, when the vessel is first posted. In these cases, the vessel can generally be up-licensed without further ado. (Given that the suggested rating has not been contested.)
    All other cases (including ships posted before this rule) will be evaluated on a case to case basis, where this court will decide whether a vessel can justify a bigger license.
  • Captured licenses
    As with normal licenses, the rating of a capture is generally fixed. Thus, for example, a 4T cannot be upgraded to a 5T. Instead, unwanted licenses (captures) can be sold through the prize courts (See below) or to other players/factions.
    However, if a substantial MOC is presented, showing the vessel being suitably upgraded, and approved by this court, exceptions to this rule can be granted. However, uprating more than one step will generally not be accepted. The extent of the MOC must represent the extent of the upgrade.
  • General licensing issues
    Other issues can also be brought before this court, where it will act as an advisory and mediating organ, before cases are brought before the Supreme Courts.

Condemnation of Prizes

Captured vessels can either be put into the fleets of the capturer, sold to other factions or individuals, or condemned as a prize. Condemning the capture as a prize represents it being sold to the breakers yard or auctioned away to the old world, meaning that the vessels will be removed from the game world. IC, the outcomes below represents the uncertainty of the outcome of such an auction.

Prizes brought before this court will be condemned by the following procedure:

A 6-sided die will be cast, and the outcome will decide the result of the prize auction as a share of the license value:

  1. 20 %
  2. 30 %
  3. 40 %
  4. 50 %
  5. 60 %
  6. 75 %

If the prize is MOC'ed (e.g. the capture of a player vessel), 25 % is added to the outcome. Eg. rolling 3 for 40 % will mean you get 65 % of the license value.

NB: Prizes taken by independent pirates and ships flying black flags roll a 3-sided die for the outcomes: 1: 50 %, 2: 60 %, 3: 75 %. Bonus for a moc'ed vessel is added hereto.

Applications for license changes, licensing issues and prizes to be condemned are to be presented before this court (in this thread), and will then be processed with all possible expedience.

Decisions of this court can be appealed to the Supreme Courts, although only after a settlement with this court itself cannot be reached.

Signed, stamped, and sealed.

The Naval Licensing and Prize Court

*BoBS Leadership

**Kolonialbeamter, Maxim, Dr. Spock, and Bregir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to the "Up-licensing...." Is the vessel to remain true to it's role through the process, or may it evolve? That is, should an "eventual" 5T always be a "T" class vessel in lower classes, or could it evolve from an "F" to an "A" to and "WR," etc...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following, a message sent from our humble King of Oleon, saluting this initiative:

"Our Grand Nation approves this decision, in accordance to the Act of Justice and Well-being of our loyal subjects, signed by the most prominent and sophisticated nations of our time.

Therefore on our part, we decided to appoint one of our current rulers as a sign of the significance of this body of judges, to us.

Most noble sir KB, we will all be praying for you, to our almighty Gods. May you judge wisely for the greater glory of our proud and fair Nation and prevent any possible mistrials.

King Stephan the II"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to the "Up-licensing...." Is the vessel to remain true to it's role through the process, or may it evolve? That is, should an "eventual" 5T always be a "T" class vessel in lower classes, or could it evolve from an "F" to an "A" to and "WR," etc...?

Well, without having conferred with my fellow judges I will say this. Every "instance" of licensing has to make IC sense. So if it starts as a 2T, because it is a warship sailing in ballast to be outfitted at a larger port, there to become a 3A, then I suppose it makes sense. What is important for my ruling is that there is a sense to it, both in terms of the build, and the story behind it. However, it will have to be an individual assesment. Making a build showing an upgrade will, by the general logic, make us more prone to accepting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a build showing an upgrade will, by the general logic, make us more prone to accepting it.

This is what I was thinking would make the most sense.....

So, if the vessel stays as the same role (i.e.: Trade) then paying to upgrade license would be sufficient. But to change role, a build would be posted showing some story about said modifications.

Edited by Vedauwoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was thinking would make the most sense.....

So, if the vessel stays as the same role (i.e.: Trade) then paying to upgrade license would be sufficient. But to change role, a build would be posted showing some story about said modifications.

That sounds to scale with what you pay for. You don't have to build a whole new MOC, but you have to alter something. Makes for a better story, and brings in learning about ships if you want. As long as we have leeway for humoristic solutions (As stated before I don't know much about ships. Still mixing up aft and stern and bow).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was thinking would make the most sense.....

So, if the vessel stays as the same role (i.e.: Trade) then paying to upgrade license would be sufficient. But to change role, a build would be posted showing some story about said modifications.

If the original moc is sufficient in size and form for the larger rating/license, it will generally be accepted. However, if you have captured, bought or build a class 3A and want to uplicense it to a 4a, we would probably ask to see some sort of moc and story to justify it. It doesn't need to be the actual vessel being upgraded, if you can find some other creative (and substantial) way to show it.

The same goes for changing roles - if it makes sense, we are likely to accept it. (Eg. from a 3A to a 3T could be a warship being decommisioned and turned into a trader. A small story about this would probably be enough)

At least, that is my take on the roles. Justify the change substantially (rating and/or type) and I will vote yes.

As Sir Stig says, if it can inspire creative building and storytelling, I am willing to make leeway for the EGS. But if my impression is that it is more a question about getting ingame advantages, I am not. Hope this makes sense.pirate_satisfied.gif

/Bregir

*Disclaimer* The other judges or the Supreme courts have not confirmed this. It is merely my interpretation of the letter and spirit of the rules. pirate_blush.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first case is brought to the Naval Licensing and Prize Court. Coyle Shipping Company and Associates requests permission to re-license the Sulky Harlequin with a 5T license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first case is brought to the Naval Licensing and Prize Court. Coyle Shipping Company and Associates requests permission to re-license the Sulky Harlequin with a 5T license.

Your request is currently being processed and we will get back to you asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that this is not a national prize court of law -- ie: it does not determine the right of capture when a vessel captures another. This element of law is taken care of by individual factions and NPC nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruling: The Sulky Harlequinn

From: 4T2

To: 5T

Result: Conditional approval

After lively debate, the court has reached a decision. This decision is not that of any single member, but a compromise acceptable by all.

We find the Sulky Harlequinn on the small side of the rating of 5T, mainly due to her length and her armament. However, subject to Mr. Coyle undertaking and documenting the necessary upgrades, the request will be granted.

In praxis: To allow for the upgrade, we would like to see a MOC directly or indirectly showing the Sulky Harlequinn being upgraded in some way. Examples of this includes, but is not limited to:

- Enlarging the ship

- Having the ship sent to the dockyards for refitting

- Making arrangements with a shipyard for improvements

- Purchasing additional guns

- Hiring additional crew

As should be clear, it is not necessary to show the vessel it self, even less to show her in her new state. The important thing is that the moc and the story explains and justifies the change in license. As such, it should also follow that the more substantial the upgrade, the more substantial the moc must be.

Such a requirement will generally be asked for anyone wiching to upgrade his/her ship

1) To ensure consistency in the IC story, eg. why the Sulky is suddenly a bigger, better ship

2) To ensure fairness, so that noone can "game the system" by upgrading uneligible vessels.

In this particular case, the upgrade is relatively limited, thus our requirements are not too high. (Something like a 16x16 vignette)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sulky has now been upgraded. Now I need to figure out what form to fill out to pay the upgrade fee as the ship license form doesn't have an option for comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sulky has now been upgraded. Now I need to figure out what form to fill out to pay the upgrade fee as the ship license form doesn't have an option for comments.

Can you please provide a link to the "before" upgrade Sulky? Also provide some details on what the upgrades were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sulky has now been upgraded. Now I need to figure out what form to fill out to pay the upgrade fee as the ship license form doesn't have an option for comments.

There actually needs to be a new form for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear mr. Coyle,

Your request has been granted, and the courts are very pleased with the efforts put into this. You have said the bar high.

Best regards

The Naval Licensing and Prize Court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to license the "La Salamandra" as a 4A based on the fact that small shooners and brigs are listed under class 4. Futhermore, she's based on the USS Hannah, the US Navy's first ship. Others say she's too small for both an amred ship as well as a class 4 ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts will convene at first possible opportunity and give you a ruling as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright, I reject my claim and will henceforth not participate in the MRCA anymore, not license a thing anymore and be more happy thereafter ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright, I reject my claim and will henceforth not participate in the MRCA anymore, not license a thing anymore and be more happy thereafter ...

While we accept (yet regret) your decision, in the interest of transparency, I will still let you know our result. We did not reach unanimity on the matter, but below you will find our considerations.

Generally, we think "La Salamndra" is a perfect example of a 3F, possibly a 3A, and that it could also, while being on the small side, pass for a 4T1 or 4WR. However, as she "only" carries 4 main guns, most of us think that she is too small and lightly armed for a 4A, which should carry around 12 guns in her main batteries.

Let us know if this leads to any questions or comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first of all, thanks for the answer. However, as I've said before I don't really care anymore. But maybe if the rest of the Eslandola leadership wanted to use the ship for the next trade run, I'd be more than happy to give away all! of my licenses to the general good of Eslandola.

You guys may wonder what the hell is happening in this dude's head, but actually the answer is rather simple: I'm just not a very competitive guy, never been, and all these dynamics of an online game with all the harsh words, not the ones that are good natured inter- empire trash talk but rather the "I'm pissed off because you got more than me" ones really serve to discourage me from participating in BoBs. You know, as a high school teacher I have to listen to this same megablocks the entire day and I'm not willing to endure this during my freetime. So asking a "court" to give my moc a certain permission just seemed absolutely absurd to me in hindsight. And it really annoyed me that, instead of talking about my moc, people started to dispute my proposed license, WTF?

Furthermore, when I then heard, through all those zillion PM sub discussions, that people of a certain empire were taking my story telling as some sinister attack upon their their beloved empire, instead of seeing the funny twists in the story that had nothing to do with anyone ecept for my Eslandolan trade lord mates, I was even more appelled by the dynamics of this game. I suppose some people even concieved me as such an evil bastard that they didn't comment on the moc at all anymore. (why is that the rest of the world always claims that germans are completely ingnorant to the concept of humor?)

Anyway, to make a long story shot, I was about to quit BoBs for the same reasons I had quit AG , which is a preference of strategy over moc quality and humor! However, after having spend a lot of money for bricks I wouldn't have bought if it hadn't been for BoBs, I realized I just had to quit what caused my negative feelings towards BoBs (the mrca) and yet remain a participant of this game. So, I hope you guys get my point and all have a wonderful evening!

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of avoiding all the vitriol and arguments surrounding ship ratings, can we have some concrete guidelines, ie number of studs in length/beam/studs burthen? Right now it is very hand-wavy and there have been many instances of over and underlicensing that have gone unremarked. It's only when someone pops up and says - oh, I think that's too high a rating - that a builder gets victimized and the focus gets pulled away from the actual MOC and it turns into a war of examples and counterexamples. Having a court is all well and good, but the job of the court should be to interpret the rules, and everyone should know what the rules are. Right now figuring out the rating for a MOC involves visiting the ship index, trying to measure existing ships, and then trying to figure out where the MOC fits. I point out that there have never been any size arguments about any land based builds because the rules are very clear (excepting the whole perfect square thing). There are now too many ship MOCs with too much size variation for 'gut feeling' to be sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kabel:

I think you are bringing up some good points, and I agree that the EGS/MRCA should not take precedence over the storyline and the builds. Some people are probably taking it too seriously, and I see absolutely no reason for conflict.

That is also why I suggest people are more open to the rating, rather than insisting on a specific rating - it seems like putting the game over the build and storytelling, when some stats are more important than keeping immersion. At least, that is my interpretation.

I fail to understand why people would react negatively OOC to an IC action. Oleon seemed to react as expected, rejecting the claim, and I can tell you it started a lot of conjecture and speculation in Corrington too. pirate_laugh_new.gif All signs of an effective storybuilder! pir_laugh2.gif

@CB4:

We are working on something in the skunkworks, CB4. Most likely a set of "archetypes" for each class. Specific measurements are hard to make, as there are so many things to measure, and it puts a lot of rigidity into the system.

However, a good way to avoid conflict is to be open as to the rating of the vessel you post. I typically suggest what rating my moc should have, and then ask what people think. That way, conflict is avoided. pirate_blush.gif

Edited by Bregir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually... there was a very lively debate about land-based sizes: were they minimums, or maximums, or just a guideline, or what? (answered as just being guidelines) I understand the logic behind using concrete numbers - but this would be really difficult with prefab parts since their lengths and widths are predetermined (12 or 16 wide, 8 long on the midsections, etc) and many different types and sizes of vessels have been and will be built from them. We can't limit a 16-stud beam to a particular class (or classes) without prohibiting people from building larger-class illusion-scale vessels. If everything was brickbuilt it would be easy... but that ain't happening. I like the current approach, and remind everyone that the examples listed on that size chart are just that: examples. Schooners came in many different sizes (a 4-master would no doubt be bigger than a 2-master) and could easily be several different classes, even if they aren't listed as an example for several of the classes. But I agree: numerous vessels have been posted that looked over- or under-licensed without raising any eyebrows. I think people should just build what they want and then worry about the class later; if in-game money is a concern (building for a specific license cost) there is ample opportunity to ask for input either here or in the general Q&A/starting topic. That might not be perfect, but basing classes exactly from the dimensions (especially studs burthen) could be messy too, and I dare say every single vessel need not be perfectly licensed anyway. It's a game, license costs are based on class and not actual size, and if people have demonstrated good effort with borderline sizing to meet a particular class then I see no reason to penalize them. That being said, the schooner in question seems really small for the requested class - again, the chart lists examples and schooners could easily be smaller or larger in class - and if lots of people object to or question the requested classification I generally think it best to reconsider the matter. Perfect? No. Does it have to be? I think not. As with land-based licenses, I believe there is room for interpretation within reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inclusion of example ship types/rigs in the spreadsheet of ratings is incredibly confusing especially as it doesn't really mean anything.

At least land-based MOCs have a guideline that is a concrete number. Ships don't, unless someone happens to have some old vanilla TLG MOCs to measure (though you could come up with waterline dimensions quickly enough if you know how many midsections they have).

If it was based on dimensions, something like this could be used (as suggested previously, though I can't recall by whom), which accounts for both width and beam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder%27s_Old_Measurement

Maybe that formula is too complicated, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly - the person who builds a ship gets to decide how he or she will license it. That's the way it's always been. If and when made necessary by over-licensing, leadership will step in. But unless someone asks for opinions on the size of a class (which several have done, and which is more than fine), publicly giving unsolicited advice that conflicts with what the builder has expressed as planned is probably not the best idea. If someone feels that a ship is being seriously over-licensed, the best thing would be to privately speak to the builder or to some of the BoBS leaders.

Honestly, this (La Salamandra) was not a case which should have been taken to the court. The court's purpose was to decide specifically upon the cases of ships that had been under-licensed before the new under-licensing rule came into play. Subsequently... I'm not really sure what the court is for, but I suppose if someone wanted to he/she could ask for a ruling, or if the court disagreed with a builder's license, it could mention that to leadership.

You can see it right here - trying to micro manage things tends to drive people away. Let's not get too caught up here with all the technicalities. Try to have fun, and let others have fun too. pirate_wink.gifpirate_laugh2.gif The guidelines are meant to be loose to encourage creativity. We all know that kabel isn't trying to bend rules with his ship, and so far I don't think we've had anyone else doing so. If the effort is there, let's try to appreciate it! pirate_satisfied.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.