SkaForHire

New features to the MRCA

  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want your ships to be restricted to starting where they ended the last month?

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      29
  2. 2. We will have a new ship list with the new MRCA, which method of conversion do you prefer?

    • Straight buyback of licenses paid for my active ship.
      17
    • Let the prize commitee determine what class my ship fits into
      13
    • Give me the choice between option 1 and option 2 -- I know that thsi could go either way for me.
      14
  3. 3. How would you rate your experience with the current MRCA

    • I love it! Don't change a thing!
      7
    • I love it! But, I can't wait to see a few more features.
      15
    • I like it, but I want to see the new changes.
      17
    • It is OK, but needs fixed.
      5
    • It sucks, I want something radically different
      0
    • Get rid of it altogether.
      0


Recommended Posts

One reply to Kabel who regretted that MOCs are not being improved after feedback is given (I felt that this was going in my direction too pirate_wink.gif ):

Most of my MOCs are being taken apart after the pictures have been taken.

I try to apply the feedback I get to the MOCs that I build later. It seems like others operate in a similar way.

24369951161_932640e54d_t.jpg A most astute observation, Captain Braunsfeld! Yes, there is currently no in-game incentive to improve a MOC after it has already been photograph and presented for the masses.

25072137740_cca27f30d8_t.jpg That's not to say that we don't care, however. Note the following feedback we received about the microbuild of the Absolutely Fabulous from Captain Genaro:

A simple, yet nice build. The scene is well built, and that is a nice ship. I find the sails to be a little odd, since the main sails appear to be blowing in the wind while the upper sails are limp.

24426191796_299bf13634_t.jpg LIMP SAILS!!!

25249478042_25d5bc653c_c.jpg

25072137740_cca27f30d8_t.jpg So the next time we presented the ship, we made sure to take that feedback into account, despite the fact that the ship itself was recycled and should not be judged for that particular challenge.

25561737783_68ac5d89fa_c.jpg

25072137740_cca27f30d8_t.jpg So please keep that feedback coming! We probably won't respond, but we will consider it! We aren't mean and we don't bite!

24156803900_a3a468091d_t.jpg Willy, shut your mouth or I'll shut it for you!

25072137740_cca27f30d8_t.jpg Well, except for Lucy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it now, there are a few points that the "MRCA" should address. I will try to sum them up below - let me know if I forgot something. (They are not in prioritised order)

  1. Balance - Small vs. Large
    We need classes that are so balanced in terms of characteristics, price, etc., that large and small vessels will sail side by side, each with their advantages and disadvantages. Smaller classes should be more than just the poor man's choice.
    I believe this could be achieved with statistics similar to what I suggested.
    Further, Owning a first rate SOTL should count differently towards your vessel limit than a small sloop. Otherwise, smaller vessels are likely to be crowded out by the larger, as people grow richer.
    Perhaps this could be achieved by not setting a fixed vessel limit, but rather a limit of X, which denotes the sum of ratings ("rating slots"). Say for instance that the limit is 20. A class 10 (1st rate SOTL) will then count 10, and the builder might rather chose to license 5 class 2's. The value for X could possibly be increased by some achievement, for instance being unlocked by building and licensing ships of different classes. (Eg. building a class 3 (I'd suggest some "authentication" by the community that it fits) unlocks Y extra rating slots, for a maximum of eg. 20) Then Maxim (I hope it is ok to use you as an example, Maxim!) would have to build some of the smaller classes, before being able to license the larger. Perhaps even both to unlock more "rating slots" and to unlock the next class. (For instance, to license a class 3 or 4, one has to have built and licensed a class 1 or 2. And to license a class 5 or 6, a class 3 or 4 must first be licensed, etc.) This might be part of the skill system, to insure some sort of evaluation, before builders can progress?
    However, we would still need some limit to faction ships to avoid the system being gamed by licensing vessels by the faction rather than by players, and vice versa. The more similar the two limits are, the harder to game.
  2. Diversity - Different strategies
    The mechanics have to make more than one strategy viable. Currently it seems to favour heavily escorted convoys. Perhaps one way to do this, is to put a penalty on convoys, for instance in terms of the maximum trade per settlement, and/or an upfront upkeep fee for the escorts? (See below)
    Vessel characteristics might also be part of this, making it more profitable for some ships to sail alone. (For instance the faster ones.) Perhaps a bonus if you are the first to reach a port.
    Hopefully, we will see both single blockade runners (for larger profits) as well as large, well protected convoys; bounty runs; raids; and single and solitary predators, all profiting in their own way.
  3. Geographical spread
    Someone suggested a limit to trade value for each settlement, which I think is a good idea. Currently, sending all the tradeships in one well-protected convoy to the same wealthy ports is the best solution.
    But if we couple limited trade per settlement with the manouver characteristic, the fastest vessels who arrive first, will get the most valuable part of trade, depleeting some of the value for others. They will be more susceptible to attack, sailing alone, and only part of the trade value should be subject to this bonus. (So that large convoys of fast vessels do not become the new norm.) For instance: The first vessel gains 200 % modifier to trade value, the second 150 %. (Precedence calculated by some combination of manouver and sequence of journey.) I see how this could be hard to manage, though....
    If we could then add a limit to the trade available from each port, it would put a limit to the size of convoys (the larger ones being limited to the largest cities), and ensure that there is value in calling at ports unvisited by others (for the bonuses of first call, as well as the availability of trading goods). Rather than a percentage of the trade value, a trade ship with Z in cargo hold would take away Z*x units of tradevalue from the port, leaving less for the next.
    Something like this would make the planning more interesting, and solitary trade runs more profitable.
  4. Risk and reward
    There should be a better balance between risk and reward of different missions and types.
    One thing I would suggest was fewer NPC vessels. (Currently they flood the license market...)
    To balance this out, making the chance of encounter, when there happens to be a player/faction vessel on a relevant mission in the zone, much higher, would mean that predators would have bigger chance of catching prizes (or being taken by any escorts, depending on the outcome), while due to fewer predators, the traders would not see this as an increased overall risk. This also adds to the story building capacities of the MRCA, as more(/all) vessels will be player/faction vessels, which will lead to more ransoming, or similar plothooks.
    I might suggest that some of the other nations (Garvey, Mardier, etc.) might have a limited number of vessels on missions like the player controlled vessels.
    With fewer NPC vessels, more likely encounters by fewer ships, this should also ease the load on Ska when it comes to managing the MRCA, with fewer necessary rolls.
  5. Advisory
    Some have requested some advisory quality to the vessel classes. As I have said earlier, this is a bit fishy, as for instance a cutter can be anything form a class 1 to a class 3 or 4. Perhaps chosing one or two "archetypes" from the existing moc's to put down a baseline for each class would be the best way to go? There should be plenty to chose from, and this should be sufficient to give people an idea of what is expected of each class. We can then discuss how strict we want to be with the creative license for the classes. For me the most important is hitting the "spirit" of the class, and staying within reasonable size deviations. I am certain the Naval Licensing Court will happily suggest such archetypes, when the new classes are in place.
  6. Effort over output
    Some have expressed that they would like to see more emphasis on effort than output. Possibly finding some way of awarding going the extra mile with your mocs (in this case the vessel mocs) would probably be a good idea. As many have pointed out, and as all agree (I should think) this is not about turning this into an elitist game, where only the expert builders can participate, but about making people attend to feedback and seek to improve in terms of techniques, presentation, realism, aestethics, and storytelling, no matter their initial level.
    As I see it the skill system would probably be a good avenue for this. Unlocking "rate slots" or achieving modifiers (To speed, trade value, firepower, etc) by achieving milestones approved by your peers in a University of Petraea style system, (plus titles! We all love titles! Preferably some that our characters can use in game pirate_laugh2.gif ) should be motivation enough.

Let me know if I forgot something, or if you have any comments to my issues and suggestions. It will be much appreciated.

EDIT: I also think there should be wider ranges for defining what a predator mission is willing to risk attacking. It might be very well not to attack anything larger than a rate 3 vessel, but if it is in consort with two others, all warships, or escorted by the Margot, it is still a rather bad decision... pirate_wink.gif

I don't really agree with the balance statement, the sweet spot for balance in investment should start up the class levels a couple steps, or else there is nothing to strive for but a bunch of 1Ts. Scarst and I are working on a "bank" system rather than the current "slot" system we use.

#4 already exists in a way. There are going to be more NPC pirates where the risk / reward is higher.

#2 us probably impossible without programming the MRCA to be ran by a computer, and taking some time to pretty much develop a video game.

OK, I now understand the risks of losing a fortune on a larger ship licence, thanks for explaining. However in my case, there was no risk at all in the MRCA and (unless I suddenly start building large ships, which is unlikely) there never will be. It was just 70 free dbs.

I still think the balance between land based builds and the MRCA needs addressing in the economic game. What do others who, like me, focus on land builds think? But maybe they're not on this thread! And maybe they don't care too much anyway, they just like to build!

For me the best thing about the MRCA are the great builds and stories its results have inspired, both character driven and micro builds.

On the earlier argument about quality, I don't see much point in rewarding high quality builds for their own sake. That just tells us what we already know; some of us build better than others. And it will demoralise the weaker builders like myself. Surely rewarding quality is what the challenges are for. Outside of the challenges, shouldn't we be rewarding effort, improvement, originality and fun? That's what I hope to do in all my comments. Except this one pirate_tong.gif .

4. Maybe keep the amount of NPC vessels (but I still think there are way to many NPC pirates that are heavily armed as of now - I think there are way to many now, maybe make them not appear every MRCA), but increase the chance of them sinking instead of catching them. Also - why are there only armed NPC vessels? I would also expect those nations to trade, but not a single trade ship of the other nations has been caught yet.

to the Edit: More strategic options never hurt!

There are actually NPC traders for each predator. There are plenty of 1A pirates as well, but they are usually destroyed, outran, or never get an opportunity against a PC to be noticed. You are seeing the larger NPC predators captured because their ships stay around and can catch PC merchants.

I see playing the MRCA like playing the stock market. You can win big or lose it all. Shared ownership would be like mutual funds. There should always be an element of high risk for things to go really bad like a stock market crash. The bigger the investment, the more dividends you can make but at same time the more of your investment you can lose.

I think it could be fun to add an element of running aground in relation of the ship's draft if there is going to a simulator. It'll be too much work to physically roll all the different scenarios and matching outcomes to ship characteristics.

Exactly, and to Fuzzy's point -- the EGS land builds are a constant return, a safe bet for your money. In one years time, people are going to be making a lot more money of EGS builds than MRCA.

Scarst and I are playing around with port levels in settlments, saying class x and higher are too large for a port until significantly upgraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bregir's point about #2 is currently one of the core problems that prevents predators from being viable.

Currently the number of predators in a zone have no real impact on the threat level to a trader. The chance of being intercepted is a flat percentage based on the incident roll, and a trader can only be intercepted once while in a zone, so the number of predators is unimportant as far as the trader is concerned. Increasing the number of predators only dilutes the chances of each individual predator to get that interception. Increasing the number of predators also increases the danger level for smaller predators, because they may be intercepted by the other predators.

In order for predators to be viable, the chance of getting an interception during a particular MCRA has to be quite high (maybe over 100%). Getting an intercept only means that the predator has a chance to catch the trader, and if they do catch it, they only have a chance to capture it.

That means that there have to be a lot more traders (which means NPC traders) and at lot less predators, or the chances of being intercepted need to be reworked somehow, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'to Fuzzy's point -- the EGS land builds are a constant return, a safe bet for your money. In one years time, people are going to be making a lot more money of EGS builds than MRCA.'

This is a very good point which I hadn't considered before. As time goes on, every land build I have licensed will continue to generate monthly income, whereas the MRCA will not greatly increase in value. So the 70dbs I earned from the MRCA this month seems a lot now, but in a year's time will be nothing next to my income from land builds. So I now feel much happier with the balance between land builds and the MRCA! Thanks Ska!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bregir's point about #2 is currently one of the core problems that prevents predators from being viable.

Currently the number of predators in a zone have no real impact on the threat level to a trader. The chance of being intercepted is a flat percentage based on the incident roll, and a trader can only be intercepted once while in a zone, so the number of predators is unimportant as far as the trader is concerned. Increasing the number of predators only dilutes the chances of each individual predator to get that interception. Increasing the number of predators also increases the danger level for smaller predators, because they may be intercepted by the other predators.

In order for predators to be viable, the chance of getting an interception during a particular MCRA has to be quite high (maybe over 100%). Getting an intercept only means that the predator has a chance to catch the trader, and if they do catch it, they only have a chance to capture it.

That means that there have to be a lot more traders (which means NPC traders) and at lot less predators, or the chances of being intercepted need to be reworked somehow, or both.

Right, the rework is probably going to have to be that the predators roll the incident roll and not the prey. With an additional random roll for good fortune or bad fortune by each list, and then the predators that "catch" during the incident roll would then roll a random number to determine which prey they ran into. I guess you and I and the rest of the people I want on this redesign team should probably get a private message going sooner than later. I am just not ready to tackle this yet, maybe in a week or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good. Just let us know when you're ready. We all know you and the rest of the leadership team are extremely busy and have plenty other responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about changes and MCRA action 4-2....."Cruising for Prey"

This venture has several specification with regard to faction , individual and class of vessel to be attacked, etc....would the new rules possibly encompass the ability of a faction to "blockade" or "control and extort" a particular travel zone?

For instance, could the "Sea Rats" chose to "blockade" zone two and have a roll for extorting funds or capturing loot from vessels they overtake in their zone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vedauwoo, not that SR would ever stoop to such lows as blockade extortion default_innocent.gif, but this is probably something that would be better (and more fun) if declared and roleplayed openly on the forum imho, and not hidden away behind Oz's curtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about changes and MCRA action 4-2....."Cruising for Prey"

This venture has several specification with regard to faction , individual and class of vessel to be attacked, etc....would the new rules possibly encompass the ability of a faction to "blockade" or "control and extort" a particular travel zone?

For instance, could the "Sea Rats" chose to "blockade" zone two and have a roll for extorting funds or capturing loot from vessels they overtake in their zone?

Yes, this was planned for. It will be available in the war and MRCA rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will there before other natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis?

Vedauwoo, not that SR would ever stoop to such lows as blockade extortion default_innocent.gif, but this is probably something that would be better (and more fun) if declared and roleplayed openly on the forum imho, and not hidden away behind Oz's curtain.

Blackbeard did blockade Charles Town, North Carolina. So there is historical precedence for pirate blockades but Blackbeard lost his head over it. *oh2*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackbeard did blockade Charles Town, North Carolina. So there is historical precedence for pirate blockades but Blackbeard lost his head over it. *oh2*

I think you may be referring to Charles town, South Carolina....now the modern city of Charleston....(my family is from there and I used to live there...) The settlement of Charles Town, North Carolina is reported to have been abandoned by 1670, 10 years before the birth of Edward Teach.

Incidentally, if anyone should find themselves in the "deep south," know that referring to anything "south" Carolina as "north" Carolina may lead to physical assault, depending on the ignorance and sobriety of whomever you may speak with....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may be referring to Charles town, South Carolina....now the modern city of Charleston....(my family is from there and I used to live there...) The settlement of Charles Town, North Carolina is reported to have been abandoned by 1670, 10 years before the birth of Edward Teach.

Incidentally, if anyone should find themselves in the "deep south," know that referring to anything "south" Carolina as "north" Carolina may lead to physical assault, depending on the ignorance and sobriety of whomever you may speak with....

I stand corrected. Blackbeard's blockade was in South Carolina. His death was off North Carolina. Sounds like I shouldn't take you out drinking if we are going talk about the Carolinas. pirate_laugh2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. Blackbeard's blockade was in South Carolina. His death was off North Carolina. Sounds like I shouldn't take you out drinking if we are going talk about the Carolinas. pirate_laugh2.gif

lol....not me...I can't stand the place....too full of ignorant biggoted mofos......that's why I went west....where the weed is legal! pir_laugh2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted this in the 'Build-off' thread. I'm not Sea rat so maybe I speak out of turn, but:

I think the current system (as I understand it anyway) is unfair on the Sea Rats. It assumes they are a nation whereas in reality they are more like an anti-nation. Effectively they are in a permanent state of war with the other nations, but it seems they aren't allowed to break 'the rules of war' which they haven't agreed to anyway. How can a team whose raison d'etre is piracy then be taken to court for piracy? Or take another nation to court? Piracy is, by defintion, illegal, but we need to allow/encourage pirates to do it anyway, even if that's painful for the rest of us and upsets our plans - that's kind of the point. I hope the new MRCA will make piracy (including land raids) a much more lucrative option vis-a-vis trade or I think the Sea Rats will struggle for a while and then sputter out. Currently much the most successful pirate is an NPC, that can't be right? And we need a mechanism whereby the nations can't just use their power to crush the Sea Rats as Eslandola seems to have done (yes, their action was totally understandable, but...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most certainly Sea Rats can't be sued for piracy! Wherever would you get that idea? The Sea Rats can do many actions that would be considered acts of war if any other nation did such a thing.

The problem is, the Sea Rats made a bad tactical discussions the first MRCA and sent all their ships to one place, which apparently scared them into being peaceful traders.

Actually, just considering what we were able to take last MRCA without even attacking Oleon or Corrington, privateering strikes me as quite lucrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the Mardier vs Eslandola build-off thread, but it is more fitting here. It is a matter of game balance, and these are a few of the things I feel should be looked at before releasing MRCA 2.0. After thinking about it, I do see that the Sea Rats may be in a much better position once they reach the threshold of getting large warships, but my points on the amount of DBs generated stands.

The mechanism with half cost for properties for Sea Rats have not worked as I believe it was intended, because of the amounts of money being generated. It weakens the Sea Rats initial strenght, since everyone can afford to build and licence their maximum (2/3 properties a month) within a few months. It is simply to much to quickly.

My experience from other games is that too much money in a game can break it, so this is an important point.

We need more rewards based on titles, rights and FIP, not throwing DBs as a bait for everything. I also think the NPC factions should work as a way to weed out ships, and/or making capture much harder. ATM it is crazy to invest in a ship, when we could send get them "for free" on a heavily escorted trade run. NPC factions working as ship feeders for this is not ideal.

I hope the MRCA 2.0 lowers the chance of capture, and includes damage taken after encounters, that have to be paid before the ships can be used again. The money for this should go straight out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, the Sea Rats made a bad tactical discussions the first MRCA and sent all their ships to one place, which apparently scared them into being peaceful traders.

Actually, just considering what we were able to take last MRCA without even attacking Oleon or Corrington, privateering strikes me as quite lucrative.

I don't recall that we took that action....as I recall, we organized a trade fleet before there was a "fleet registration" mechanism...and a couple of our folks filled out the forms wrong and thus were outside of the fleet.

Our focus on trading is derived from member that had analyzed the game system and advised that nothing other than trade runs had any sort of redeemable profitability...that is, we were told the game system was skewed and it would be in our best interest to trade if we want to have any hope of making DBs.....

Now, if that info is wrong, I would certainly love to know about it....but with the obfuscated game mechanics....and only certain players being aware of said "hidden" rules...how are we to make any sort of good decision....it's clear we get no advantage in any action...and we get less pay for it in the end....

I love playing the underdog....but the further we get into this game, I wonder why anyone else would join our faction....

Edited by Vedauwoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may perhaps have spoken a bit soon; I'm not absolutely positive that every last Sea Rat went on a Predator Run that first month to the same place (in fact I think they didn't). But from the Kings Port Advertiser, it seems that quite a few did, and it went poorly.

Maybe that wasn't such a bad tactical decision either, maybe it was just really really bad dice rolls. Whatever - the point is, it's not a good idea to base future conduct on that one incident.

When I say that I think predator runs are quite lucrative, I'm not basing that off my knowledge of some "hidden game mechanic." Apart from the rules that govern faction ships/armies/forts/movement etc., I operate off the same rules you do. I think they're lucrative because we had a good predator run (in terms of cost of licenses captured, not necessarily in terms of whether we should have done it or shouldn't have, etc.).

Now, of course, maybe it's unreasonable for me to think that because we had one good run, they're lucrative. But it's just as unreasonable to think that because you all had one bad run, they're not.

If you're basing your opinion as to Trade Runs being better than Predator runs off someone's analysis of the game, well, if that person analyzed it right, then maybe Trade Runs are better, and if that person did it wrong, then maybe they're worse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's my point again. If the first predator mission was a ducces, all sea rats would have been predator the past McRA's, so they would be PIRATES.

Almost every mayor Sea Rat confirmed they went trading because the first predator mission failed.

If Eslandola did not attacked, how long would it take before they started raiding again? Especially after the succesfull raid on Tarlo.

I am just saying, one choosed to become a Sea Rat to become a Pirate one day. Maybe they aren't now a pirate, they will one day be a pirate.

They share the same capital (Bastion) as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-emptive strikes and deeming people guilty in advance? Behold Eslandolian justice, gentlemen! pirate_wink.gifpirate_tong.gifpirate_laugh_new.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't party to the decision to send ships on a predator run in the first MCRA.

My character is a smuggler so he went on an independent trading mission.

Do not be deceived - predator runs are not very profitable. After I built an MCRA simulator for Ska, it became clear over 1000's of runs that predators do not make very much money in the long run. Yes, they will capture ships - sometimes. Sometimes, they will capture nothing. Other times, they will be captured or sunk. What's important is the opportunity cost of a predator run. If you take three large warships and send them on a predator run, they might make some money. However, they would make a lot more money if you sent them on an escort mission. As defenders, they will have an inherent advantage in combat. Additionally, by sweeping through multiple zones, they will have more encounters and more chances to capture ships. And - they will help traders make money.

Edited by cb4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-emptive strikes and deeming people guilty in advance? Behold Eslandolian justice, gentlemen! pirate_wink.gifpirate_tong.gifpirate_laugh_new.gif

The Corries are having a blast here I see! pirate_laugh_new.gif

From the Eslandola FAQs:

...Eslandola operates on the principle, innocent until proven guilty....

We certainly wish to see justice done. Whether justice will please those of the Corries who have taken to Pirate-coddling as a pastime remains to be seen. pirate_laugh2.gif

@Cb4, well, if that's the case, then we trust it will be taken care of in the next version of the MRCA to make sure the Sea Rats (and any other predators) have no unfair disadvantage. pirate_classic.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.