Brethren of the Brick Seas (BoBS) Intro Thread, Era II

[Maxim I]

6 hours ago, Captain Braunsfeld said:

That makes me curious!

So we'll have more space and I can come with a lorry? 

 

Yes sir!

[Darnok]

On 25.4.2018 at 1:33 PM, Maxim I said:

This year in November, Brick Mania Antwerp will take place again. Next to a wonderfull exposition with more than 8000 visitors (the past editions), is is an unofficial gathering of European EB-Pirate lovers :D

Two years ago we did an enormous lay-out (84m²) and as we have a bigger exposition hall this year, we are going to try to beat that

If you want to be part of this amazing convention, let me know here or in PM!

Transport has to be arranged by yourself, but some of us can help you with a sleeping place.

Date: November 24 & 25th.

Setting up: November 23th (& November 24th before 10h).

Location: Antwerp Expo, Antwerp, Belgium

Cool EB-members attending:

@Maxim I, @Legostone, @Captain Green Hair, @Sebeus I, @kabel, @TitusV (and hopefully @Captain Braunsfeld, @Bonaparte, @Ecclesiastes and many more)

I am definitely interested. I do not know if I have the time and/or funds though yet. But I would love to attend, and give the WTC some international attention.

[Maxim I]

19 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

I am definitely interested. I do not know if I have the time and/or funds though yet. But I would love to attend, and give the WTC some international attention.

That would be really great :D I would love to meet you in person :)

Edited April 28, 2018 by Maxim I

[Captain Genaro]

Please note that there is an update to the rules. This replaces the three builds per entity rule. 

A maximum of three land-based builds by any player can be licensed in a single month. Excess builds may be licensed in future months. Participation in one royal collab per month does not count against this limit. Builds sold to other entities count against this limit. Note that players are free to build as much as they like; this limit only applies to the licensing of properties. 

 

[Darnok]

I have two questions:

1. Why does this change come now?
2. Does this affect the previous limits of "three property per month per entity", where players, settlements and trade companies could each license three properties per month?

 

[Captain Genaro]

12 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

• Why does this change come now?

Rule updates occur when the Court determines that a rule is outdated or could be improved. While we do our best to make sure the rules are perfect the first time around, this is not always the case, and the original rules may need to be updated from time to time.  

12 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

• Does this affect the previous limits of "three property per month per entity", where players, settlements and trade companies could each license three properties per month?

That rule is replaced. You may license more than three builds per month, but that would require the builds being bought from a third party. When you license a build by a third party, it will count against their limit for that month.

E.G.: Player A builds three MOCs and buys a fourth from Player B. Player A can license all four builds. Player B can only license two builds. Nonetheless, both Players A and B are welcome and encouraged to build as much as they would like for BOBS; they simply cannot license all of these builds in one month.

[Roadmonkeytj]

7 hours ago, Captain Genaro said:

Rule updates occur when the Court determines that a rule is outdated or could be improved. While we do our best to make sure the rules are perfect the first time around, this is not always the case, and the original rules may need to be updated from time to time.  

That rule is replaced. You may license more than three builds per month, but that would require the builds being bought from a third party. When you license a build by a third party, it will count against their limit for that month.

E.G.: Player A builds three MOCs and buys a fourth from Player B. Player A can license all four builds. Player B can only license two builds. Nonetheless, both Players A and B are welcome and encouraged to build as much as they would like for BOBS; they simply cannot license all of these builds in one month.

so how does this affect trade companies? 

Am I allowed to build three builds for my trade company as well as three builds for myself?

Also does this mean a Trade Company can only license three builds a month regardless of who builds them

[Bart]

I ended up with the same questions as Roadmonkeytj.

 

[Bregir]

The limit is per player. So if there are three players in the game 9 builds (excl.  A possible Royal collaboration) can be licensed regardless of the number of tc's, factions, and settlements.

I. E. The tc does not have its own limit, but taps into the limit of the player(s) building for it.

 

[Bart]

So then it's just 3 land-builds per player, regardless of who or what they build it for.

So I can do 1 builds as Rodsh, 1 build as Poppy Port and 1 for somebody else = 3 builds in total
and not 3 for Rodsh and 3 for Poppy Port which would be 6 total

Does this include A/T MCRA builds if they are licenseable ?
and what about (mini)challenges ?

 

*not to be criticising but just to be clear.

 

[Bregir]

You can build as much as you like! We want to emphasise that! :) So no one should get their stories stumped here.

However, you can only *license* three builds per month per builder. (And since a settlement or TC is not a builder, they do not add to that limit.)

If some challenges or similar have exceptions to these rules, we will do our best to publish that. Otherwise ask, if there is doubt. However, by default, they will not be exceptions.

The reasoning for this is that we want to ensure that the rules do not encourage people to maximise quantity at the expense of quality to gain an upper hand in the EGS. It is not directed at anyone in particular, but simply an optimisation of the rules after identifying a possible loophole.

[Captain Braunsfeld]

16 hours ago, Maxim I said:

Yes sir!

Antwerp Expo I read - so the new location is confirmed?

That is going to be exciting! 

[Bart]

2 hours ago, Bregir said:

You can build as much as you like! We want to emphasise that! :) So no one should get their stories stumped here.

However, you can only *license* three builds per month per builder. (And since a settlement or TC is not a builder, they do not add to that limit.)

(...)

uhm this got me more confused, what you are saying now seems to contradict what is said before.

This would imply a settlement, fraction or TC can license what ever it wants
and a player can only license 3 things in his/her name

because a player isnt always equal to the  builder which isn't always equal to license holder.

For example I build a factory, making me the builder and player
I give it to Roadmonkeytj, (player)
he chooses to licenses it in the name of the FTA (license holder)

so who gets a deduct on his quotum of 3 then?

[kabel]

On 28.4.2018 at 10:51 AM, Captain Braunsfeld said:

That makes me curious!

So we'll have more space and I can come with a lorry? 

 

Actually I think Maxim is poking fun at me for my VW T4, which in fact has lower emissions than all those crazy super-duper compressed new Diesel engines!

[Legostone]

3 land based properties by the same builder can be licensed per month. @Bart

[Elostirion]

12 hours ago, Captain Genaro said:

Please note that there is an update to the rules. This replaces the three builds per entity rule. 

A maximum of three land-based builds by any player can be licensed in a single month. Excess builds may be licensed in future months. Participation in one royal collab per month does not count against this limit. Builds sold to other entities count against this limit. Note that players are free to build as much as they like; this limit only applies to the licensing of properties. 

 

 Perfect. Thank you.

[Darnok]

Again, I wonder why this rule change is needed, and why it was implemented now. The game worked perfectly fine so far, and many builders took advantage of having three licenses per game entity. So for example individual licenses, those for trade companies, those for settlements.

 

I really do not get why this new restriction is needed. This:

4 hours ago, Bregir said:

The reasoning for this is that we want to ensure that the rules do not encourage people to maximise quantity at the expense of quality to gain an upper hand in the EGS.

... is nonsense. The EGS is favouring the TMRCA over anything land-based. If you doubt that, you never checked the profits gained from trading versus those from land properties. The difference is massive! And I did not even start to talk about return-of-investment: no land property (other than a small residence) recoups its cost in less than four months. Ships can do it in a single TRMCA, assuming the player puts minimal effort into it,

In short: you can not "game the EGS" by land properties. If anybody wants to "gain the upper hand in the EGS" he does so by ships and the TMRCA, not by land properties.

4 hours ago, Bregir said:

It is not directed at anyone in particular, but simply an optimisation of the rules after identifying a possible loophole.

When and how did you identify a "loophole"? The process being shut down now was common practice for years, and was explicitly allowed. I mself asked multiple times about whether players, TCs and settlements can each license properties, and always got the answer that it was possible to do just that. So this whole thing was openly communicated, thus everybody was perfectly aware. It definitely not some unknown "possible loophole".

And how can it not be directed at somebody, unless there where some complaints about an abuse? There must have been such a complaint about somebody first, because as explained this is not some obscure "rule issue" nobody was aware of until just recently.

A reasonable way to handle any potential abuse would be to bring up the issue directly with that player, instead of out of the blue overthrowing a part of the game that was openly handled that way for years without problems.

[Captain Genaro]

5 hours ago, Bart said:

This would imply a settlement, fraction or TC can license what ever it wants
and a player can only license 3 things in his/her name

The first part is correct, the second part is incorrect. A total of three builds by a player can be licensed in one month. It does not matter who licenses them (faction, settlement, TC, the player, etc.). Any entity can license as much as they would like, but each license will count against the builder's limit.

The prior focus was "who is licensing this build?" The new focus is "who built this build?"

5 hours ago, Bart said:

For example I build a factory, making me the builder and player
I give it to Roadmonkeytj, (player)
he chooses to licenses it in the name of the FTA (license holder)

so who gets a deduct on his quotum of 3 then?

In this case, two more of your MOCs can be licensed. Roadmonkeytj hasn't built anything. He can still license three of this builds. The FTA can license as many builds as it would like without violating the three-MOCs per builder rule. 

To take this a step further, say you had four builds instead of just the one, which you still give to Roadmonkey and is licensed for the FTA. At this point, only two more of your four builds can be licensed, but the fourth could be licensed in another month.  

Does this help? 

3 hours ago, Drunknok said:

Again, I wonder why this rule change is needed, and why it was implemented now. The game worked perfectly fine so far, and many builders took advantage of having three licenses per game entity. So for example individual licenses, those for trade companies, those for settlements.

I really do not get why this new restriction is needed.

When and how did you identify a "loophole"? The process being shut down now was common practice for years, and was explicitly allowed. I mself asked multiple times about whether players, TCs and settlements can each license properties, and always got the answer that it was possible to do just that. So this whole thing was openly communicated, thus everybody was perfectly aware. It definitely not some unknown "possible loophole".

One purpose of the rule is to encourage people to focus on the quality of builds instead of quantity. The Court felt that the original rule was insufficient in this regard. As the game develops, it is not unreasonable for older rules to be replaced even if they were effective in the past. 

[Bart]

Thanks for the additional explanations, for me it is all clear now.

[Roadmonkeytj]

1 hour ago, Captain Genaro said:

The first part is correct, the second part is incorrect. A total of three builds by a player can be licensed in one month. It does not matter who licenses them (faction, settlement, TC, the player, etc.). Any entity can license as much as they would like, but each license will count against the builder's limit.

The prior focus was "who is licensing this build?" The new focus is "who built this build?"

In this case, two more of your MOCs can be licensed. Roadmonkeytj hasn't built anything. He can still license three of this builds. The FTA can license as many builds as it would like without violating the three-MOCs per builder rule. 

To take this a step further, say you had four builds instead of just the one, which you still give to Roadmonkey and is licensed for the FTA. At this point, only two more of your four builds can be licensed, but the fourth could be licensed in another month.  

Does this help? 

One purpose of the rule is to encourage people to focus on the quality of builds instead of quantity. The Court felt that the original rule was insufficient in this regard. As the game develops, it is not unreasonable for older rules to be replaced even if they were effective in the past. 

so to drag this crystal through the mud and make it shine .... If I build three licensable properties for example the FTA ... then I since I'm on a role this month build three more properties for my IC player ... I would be unable to license my own properties this month as I was the builder on the three the FTA licensed properties?

EDIT:

Not questioning the focus of the Quality Builds more so the application ... seems an adjunction should be added for a fourth if one of those was for a TC

Edited April 29, 2018 by Roadmonkeytj

[Bregir]

Max three builds by the same builder can be licensed (by anyone) as properties per month.

So yes, if three of your builds are being licensed by someone else (hopefully with your permission ), no more of your builds can be licensed.

This seems a lot harder to explain than what we expected! (Keep the questions coming if you have any doubts. We will do our best to explain if anything is unclear.)

[Roadmonkeytj]

Just now, Bregir said:

Max three builds by the same builder can be licensed (by anyone) as properties per month.

So yes, if three of your builds are being licensed by someone else (hopefully with your permission ), no more of your builds can be licensed.

This seems a lot harder to explain than what we expected! (Keep the questions coming if you have any doubts. We will do our best to explain if anything is unclear.)

Like I said in my edit ... I guess I just question the number to me it seems that you have a choice each month you can further your (TC, Settlement ,Faction, ETC) or you can further your personal character.  Not that I have ever managed to Build four in one month but was more wondering what brought the three decision.

[Darnok]

3 hours ago, Captain Genaro said:

One purpose of the rule is to encourage people to focus on the quality of builds instead of quantity. The Court felt that the original rule was insufficient in this regard. As the game develops, it is not unreasonable for older rules to be replaced even if they were effective in the past. 

Again: why was this not brought up first? You know, talk to any player who does "mass low-quality builds", and talk about this issue, encourage "quality over quantity".

 

Instead, this rule punishes everybody. It does not even address the "problem" it wants to solve: how will any of this make somebody a better builder?

[Captain Genaro]

38 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Again: why was this not brought up first? You know, talk to any player who does "mass low-quality builds", and talk about this issue, encourage "quality over quantity".

If leadership deems it appropriate to bring this up with a player, it is highly unlikely it would be discussed in public. As such, it is entirely possible that the issue was brought up first, but very few people would know if it was. It is also possible that the rule change could be designed to preempt potential problems.

If you want me to justify the rule change with specific examples, it will not happen. Discussions about the quality of MOCs will be done via PM with the relevant parties. There is no reason for it to be public.

38 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Instead, this rule punishes everybody. It does not even address the "problem" it wants to solve: how will any of this make somebody a better builder?

By limiting the number of builds one license in a month, it discourages players from aiming for quantity over quality. In the past, you could only license three per month, but any excess builds could be licensed by related parties (TCs or towns you control, factions, friends, etc). This is no longer an option. You have three builds per month, and if they are licensed by you, fine. If they are licensed by a third party, fine. But you only have three builds, so you may as well spend time and effort on those instead of aiming to get as many builds as possible.

I am not pretending that the rule is perfect or that it can address every potential issue, but it is an improvement.

[Darnok]

2 hours ago, Captain Genaro said:

If leadership deems it appropriate to bring this up with a player, it is highly unlikely it would be discussed in public. As such, it is entirely possible that the issue was brought up first, but very few people would know if it was. It is also possible that the rule change could be designed to preempt potential problems.

If you want me to justify the rule change with specific examples, it will not happen. Discussions about the quality of MOCs will be done via PM with the relevant parties. There is no reason for it to be public.

Well, you could state if there was such a case, without going into detail as to who it was. As it is you neither confirm nor deny it. I see no reason for such secrecy, other than being intransparent "just because" - which would be a sign of bad leadership.

Quote

But you only have three builds, so you may as well spend time and effort on those instead of aiming to get as many builds as possible.

You do realise that building more makes you better, not building less? You do not miraculously get better by having more time, but by practice. "More effort" is a nice buzzword to throw around, but it does not mean anything unless you practice a lot. With this change one form of motivation to build more is taken away, without any benefit gained.

Quote

I am not pretending that the rule is perfect or that it can address every potential issue, but it is an improvement.

First: it does not have to address every potential issue, and nobody claimed that. But it should address the issue it wants to solve - and as I have discussed above it does not do that.

Second: it is in no way an "improvement". It takes away something that was not a problem before, without making anything better.

 

Please do not take this personal, you are merely the messenger. But this rules change is stupid, and I have yet to see a transparent and (even more important) logical and reasonable explanation for it. As it is now this decision is based on factually wrong assumptions, resulting in a flawed conclusion, explained badly. All for no benefit in the game at all. Well done! 

 

Edit:

Another reason why this rule change can not be explained by "we want better builds" is this: a rule to reject poor quality MOCs already exists. See this post:

Quote

Note: Plot Sizes are guidelines; neither maximums nor minimums. However, leadership reserves the right to reject any poor quality or undersized MOCs

Why does it need a rule change related to something else if this particular rule exists and could easily be enforced? As far as I know this has not happened once in the time I am around, so seemingly has not been an issue for at least the last six months. It obviously was also not an issue before (otherwise I would not have been given the answers in terms of licensing that I got - see another post of mine above). In short: this was not an issue. So it can not be used to "explain" this rule change.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Drunknok