New features to the MRCA

[SkaForHire]

I want to get a general idea of what people think as we look at changing the MRCA.

[Vedauwoo]

I've really enjoyed it thus far...but I've been rather on the lucky side!

I can't wait to see the new changes....perhaps ways to earn "modifiers" to assist crew, guns, etc. ratings?....training crewmen?.....who knows!

[The Sarge]

I think that starting ships where they ended the month before is the most elegant way to handle keeping very small ships in one zone, seizing ships after a declaration of war, and forcing a choice between sending warships as escorts or keeping them on station in the colonies.

Edited April 3, 2016 by The Sarge

[SkaForHire]

I've really enjoyed it thus far...but I've been rather on the lucky side!

I can't wait to see the new changes....perhaps ways to earn "modifiers" to assist crew, guns, etc. ratings?....training crewmen?.....who knows!

That is planned in the skills tree :) We decided to redo the MRCA first, so that we don't have redo modifiers from the skill system.

[cb4]

In my opinion it is currently being gamed heavily (and I am at least as guilty as anyone in this.)

There's only one really good long term strategy right now and both Corrington and the Sea Rats are exploiting it within their available resources. The other factions less so.

The availability of free licenses combined with the fact that royal ships can be used at no charge and at no real risk means that you can print money... But the way of doing it is pretty boring. The fact that escorts aren't subject to navigational hazards exacerbates this. The fact that one strategy is greatly superior also means that many ship classes are really poor value propositions.

However, I'm confident this will all be fixed. Despite everything, the MCRA results are always the most exciting part of the month.

[CelesAurivern]

I'm not entirely sure what this means.

"We will have a new ship list with the new MRCA, which method of conversion do you prefer?"

Means all ships will be reclassified? With the exception of the free ship, your other ships licences will be refunded and then you may repurchase under the new classification?

[blackdeathgr]

What i would like to see in the new mrca is smaller earnings diference between different classes. Right now i feel like there is an exponential increase and i would like to see these differences tuned down a bit else at some point, money will lose its significance.

That and try to make it more begginer friendly i guess (i dont know how though).

Apart from these two arguments, we all love MRCA and its results each month! Keep up the good work!

[Legostone]

What i would like to see in the new mrca is smaller earnings diference between different classes. Right now i feel like there is an exponential increase and i would like to see these differences tuned down a bit else at some point, money will lose its significance.

That and try to make it more begginer friendly i guess (i dont know how though).

Apart from these two arguments, we all love MRCA and its results each month! Keep up the good work!

It actually is not exponential at all as far as I can see after processing the last few MRCAs, I've calculated the average outcome of the different classes:

The only one poking out is the 3f and 5f, but those are a) a small sample size or b) have one ship with an insane income (over 1000 DB) messing up statistics.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Legostone

[Elostirion]

"I love it! Don't change a thing!"

Not because I think there is no room for improvement (there is little because it's really, really great already!), there are always some possible tweaks, but because I don't want to get everything too complicated for both the leadership team and the participants.

[Kolonialbeamter]

Having slightly recovered from my heart attack upon receiving the news of two lost ships, my opinion on changes is kind of not really made up, so I won't vote yet.

I must say I can totally live with the current system.

I even think the risk is not really high enough, given the potential yield. If you want safe income, go landlubbing!

What about increasing the risks of the MCRA (or leaving them as they are), and to counter risks use the skill system to add 'experience', improved ships, or whatnot

Well, all really depends on what sort of changes are considered for MCRA2.

[kabel]

Personally I think we're putting a bit too much emphasis onto the MRCA instead of onto great buidling. A lot of mocs remain rather simple and are not being worked on again after feeedback has been given. So far quantity is valued over quality. I'd like to change that!

[Kolonialbeamter]

So far quantity is valued over quality. I'd like to change that!

That's where the skill system (like GoH's UoP) could come into play, right?

[kabel]

yeah, something like that

[Captain Braunsfeld]

Personally I think we're putting a bit too much emphasis onto the MRCA instead of onto great buidling.

I see your point. As you need monkey money to keep your game rolling, the MRCA is the key thing to make money (which then allows licenses, etc.). Therefore a lot of action is happening around the MRCA.

Gamewise and storywise the MRCA is also a key point of BoBS (could happen twice a month if you ask me).

We'd need something where quality will generate dubloons to change this.

[Maxim I]

Personally I think we're putting a bit too much emphasis onto the MRCA instead of onto great buidling. A lot of mocs remain rather simple and are not being worked on again after feeedback has been given. So far quantity is valued over quality. I'd like to change that!

True, huge and detailed mocs are rewarded the same as a small simple build

[Bregir]

OK, first of all - I love the MRCA - more so as a story building mechanism than anything else.

As to the questions:

1) Restricted starting point.

I would suggest we do this. It will make the disposition of vessels, both merchant and warships, much more strategic. And actually give factions with fewer warships better chances of making brilliant strokes in unprotected zones. I think it will give a new depth and balance to the MRCA. (And make the life of Pirates and Privateers easier.)

I should say it could be managed by a gentlemen's agreement, where we all agree to follow it. That will be selfcontrolling, then, not putting extra strain on leadership.

2) Conversion

I would suggest a full refund of all license fees (free licenses being worth 0), and then a tougher judgement on the class of ships for when they are relicensed under the MRCA 2.0. As a member of the Naval Licensing Court, I should think we would happily assist in this.

This might also push for more quality, as you will actually have to hit the "right note" for the class, rather than building a moc, and then have very wide creative license as to what to license it as. Instead, you will have to accept the license based on the moc you actually created.

2A) Quality

Maxim (I think) suggested somewhere that those who take feedback and incorporate it into the moc should be rewarded with another x dbs. (E.g. 10, similar to a MRCA result moc). These extra dubloons could perhaps also be earned by taking preposting peer reviewing?

However, I am of the opinion that if some are driven only by dbs, I will leave them to it. I will give honest (and constructive, of course) feedback, and I believe most people are driven much more by factors extrinsic to the MRCA when it comes to the quality of the MOCS.

And there is still the fail-safe of leadership telling people to redo the moc, if it seems to be made only for the sake of gaming the system. Perhaps this is the mechanism to intensify, if you feel that quality is dropping? Personally, I think most people have taken their feedback well, and that people's 2nd vessel is generally better than their 1st.

And the skill system is definitely a great mechanism too. Especially if it gives ingame bonuses. (Although I feel they shouldn't be too strong.)

3) The MRCA

I love it, but have a few suggestions for adjustments, and have made a suggested list of new classes for feedback and discussion. (See link below - everybody can edit in it - but I have a copy )

It was a tough puzzle to make come together, but I think it worked out reasonably for a draft.

My main purpose was to balance the classes better, so both a swift sailing class two, and Maxim's Margot makes sense.

Changes:

1) Larger classes

I have included vessels up to 1st rate ships of the line.

2) "Speed" split into two new new characteristics.

I have split "Speed" into Seaworthiness and Manouverability.

Seaworthiness is the amount of zones the vessel can travel, and how resistent it is to bad weather. Bigger vessels are better provisioned and built for long sea-voyages

Manouverability is how well a vessel handles in the case of a chase. This is spread more evenly amongst the classes, meaning that some class 2's will easily outsail some class 5's.

The manouverability generally peaks around classes 3, 4, 5, and 6, as should be close to historically accurate, and leave the "fastest" vessels available to most.

3) Balance of classes

I have tried to introduce some degree of exponentiality to the prices, and included 5 % upkeep costs for vessels of class 6+. Currently, I have left in the formulas for easy manipulation, but some numbers should be rounded, and some anomalities should be fixed. (Such as the price for class 0)

Further, the manouverability introduces a balance, where some smaller vessels get an advantage in case of a chase, while others will definitely be best suited for escorted runs.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=62FBFEDADE9230D1!281513&authkey=!AAL7kGcRfIwk1DM&ithint=file%2cxlsx

Looking forward to hearing feedback.

[kabel]

Personally, I think most people have taken their feedback well, and that people's 2nd vessel is generally better than their 1st.

My point was that people are not working on the mocs they have already posted in order to improve them. In the early phases of GoH you could rework your moc until the challenge deadline. That really improved things considerably. Here I'm seeing a "get the job done and move on" kinda attitude which is kinda sad as it leaves us with a lot of mocs that are not living up to their fullest potential. And, I also think feedback in Bobs could be more critical. What's the point of ten people saying "yeah your stuff is cool" when there still is room for improvement?

I kinda tried to do that in the beginning when MAESTRO asked for a charter for Elisabeth town, when I told Titus to go back and do better. However, I'm not seeing much of this being done anymore as the incentive is to build as much as possible for the EGS instead of building as good as possible. In the end it doens't matter whether you put a minifig on a plate or whether you build something really elaborate. You still get the same amount of DBs. And, in the end being lucky in the MRCA eventually leads to more income than proper mocing.

[Gideon]

Personally I think we're putting a bit too much emphasis onto the MRCA instead of onto great buidling. A lot of mocs remain rather simple and are not being worked on again after feeedback has been given. So far quantity is valued over quality. I'd like to change that!

I second that. Right now this forum is spawning way too many threads to keep up on reading, let alone comment everything... If it would be possible, it would be great if there was some MRCA gain to listening to feedback and improving MOCs and/or their presentation.

[Bregir]

@Kabel:

I do see your point, Kabel, and I too think we could benefit from raising the bar for effort somewhat. I am somewhat surprised that so many seems to be under pressure to reach the two freebuilds, plus one MRCA. I would not think those 10 dbs were so important. Perhaps the freebuilding bonuses should be suspended in months where there is a challenge deadline?

I agree with Gideon that there are so many new builds, that it is hard to comment on all. But all things equal, this is a sign of the success of BoBS, isn't it?

Perhaps we could encourage people to make fewer comments, and instead give deeper feedback, where they have something relevant to say? I have tried focusing on giving elaborate constructive feedback to all ship-mocs, but even that has been a lot of work...

I think this is a hard nut to crack - I don't think we should tell people to stop building, but rewarding quality and effort over quantity in some way would probably be a good idea. Not sure how, though.

EDIT: And how about those that put in "sufficient effort" in their first iteration? Should they be punished for not improving on a hypothetically "perfect" moc?

Edited April 3, 2016 by Bregir

[kabel]

I don't think we should tell people to stop building

To stop building is of course nonsense, since the sheer number of mocs here is a sign that BoBs as a whole is really on an excellent track. But to go back and encourage people to improve should be implemented in one way or another. Actually, I have no clue how to achieve that, but I think in this first stage of a critical assesment we should name certain weaknesses.

[Mike S]

My point was that people are not working on the mocs they have already posted in order to improve them. In the early phases of GoH you could rework your moc until the challenge deadline. That really improved things considerably. Here I'm seeing a "get the job done and move on" kinda attitude which is kinda sad as it leaves us with a lot of mocs that are not living up to their fullest potential. And, I also think feedback in Bobs could be more critical. What's the point of ten people saying "yeah your stuff is cool" when there still is room for improvement?

I kinda tried to do that in the beginning when MAESTRO asked for a charter for Elisabeth town, when I told Titus to go back and do better. However, I'm not seeing much of this being done anymore as the incentive is to build as much as possible for the EGS instead of building as good as possible. In the end it doens't matter whether you put a minifig on a plate or whether you build something really elaborate. You still get the same amount of DBs. And, in the end being lucky in the MRCA eventually leads to more income than proper mocing.

@Kabel:

I do see your point, Kabel, and I too think we could benefit from raising the bar for effort somewhat. I am somewhat surprised that so many seems to be under pressure to reach the two freebuilds, plus one MRCA. I would not think those 10 dbs were so important. Perhaps the freebuilding bonuses should be suspended in months where there is a challenge deadline?

I agree with Gideon that there are so many new builds, that it is hard to comment on all. But all things equal, this is a sign of the success of BoBS, isn't it?

Perhaps we could encourage people to make fewer comments, and instead give deeper feedback, where they have something relevant to say? I have tried focusing on giving elaborate constructive feedback to all ship-mocs, but even that has been a lot of work...

I think this is a hard nut to crack - I don't think we should tell people to stop building, but rewarding quality and effort over quantity in some way would probably be a good idea. Not sure how, though.

EDIT: And how about those that put in "sufficient effort" in their first iteration? Should they be punished for not improving on a hypothetically "perfect" moc?

My two cents for whatever it is worth.

I strongly disagree in putting any form of reward or penalty on build quality. Lego is an art not a skill. What is better to one may not be to another. EB is a place to display your MOCs online no matter what quality, not a school for becoming the next Lego designer. If you don''t like something, don't comment on it. I have personally found comments useless as they are usually out of my current control- more time, different pieces that I don't have, etc. If you are not going to keep your model on display, what is the point of improving it? Just build something better next time. I cannot emphasize enough that building Lego is an art. It is expressing what you want to portray using the modular medium of Lego. There is no right or wrong way of building. It is 100% subjective and a matter of personal taste. Let people be free to express themselves in whatever form they want no matter how rudimentary it turns out to be. The game aspect in my opinion is only to add some extra fun and to add a unifying factor to the pirate community where all builds have some sort of relativity to the next.

[Kwatchi]

To stop building is of course nonsense, since the sheer number of mocs here is a sign that BoBs as a whole is really on an excellent track. But to go back and encourage people to improve should be implemented in one way or another. Actually, I have no clue how to achieve that, but I think in this first stage of a critical assesment we should name certain weaknesses.

To be perfectly honest, if this turns into a GoH overnight I won't bother participating anymore. Don't get me wrong: I am hoping to use the feedback received to improve my future builds, but at the moment most of my work is done over an evening or two once the kids are asleep. This is something I'm doing to unwind after a long day, not to impress judges, and improve my knowledge of building techniques over time in the process. I had never used a SNOT technique before last month and now I studying Capt Greenhair's notes on shipbuilding; things I'd never would have done if not for my joining BoBS/EB community for the sheer fun of it.

You want a prime example of casual improvement: look at GulagUrag's first ship versus his second ship. Had his first ship simply been rejected out of hand, do you think he'd have stuck around?

Having said that, I understand some of the highly skilled builders would like to see the standard raised. Sir Stig's stuff amazes me very time he posts (sorry for trying to raid Bardo btw; nothing personal, just business). I personally can't attain that level right now (skill and collection wise) but I want to eventually. And I agree there should be an avenue to showcase that talent. Perhaps the Challenges should be the avenue for this, where entries need to approved prior to being accepted for submission and the in and/or out of game reward is something significant to reflect the effort. Maybe even a "Hall of Fame/Best of BoBS" sticky with the winning/worthy entries.

TLDR version:An arbitrary committee rejecting submissions is a bad idea to me. Challenges become a strict showcase of skill, with significant reward attached, is my proposed solution.

TLDR TLDR version: stick = bad, carrot = good

[Maxim I]

There really is a huge number of MOC's posted every day. Althoug many of them are nice, most of them could have been better. So the idea of Bregir isn't that bad (no freebuild db's in months with a challenge deadline).

The only thing I still don't agree about is the upkeep for larger ships. if there is upkeep, this should be for every class...

[CelesAurivern]

I am somewhat surprised that so many seems to be under pressure to reach the two freebuilds, plus one MRCA. I would not think those 10 dbs were so important. Perhaps the freebuilding bonuses should be suspended in months where there is a challenge deadline?

On top of that 2 challenge categories and mini-challenges and what have you. So yes, when competitive spirit is in play, we're all trying to outdo one another in terms of output.

There's simply no time to go back and fiddle with that build when you're scrambling to meet the next month's challenges.

And for those of us who are not making 1000 dbs per trade run, this pocket change is quite important <_<

The only thing I still don't agree about is the upkeep for larger ships. if there is upkeep, this should be for every class...

That's also for balancing, I believe. The class 5+s are currently too powerful to allow free-roaming without a leash. The upkeep is that leash.

Edited April 3, 2016 by CelesAurivern

[Vedauwoo]

https://onedrive.liv...thint=file,xlsx

Looking forward to hearing feedback.

So, the 1st rate SOTL can haul 120% of a settlement's trade value.....isn't that a fiscal impossibility?