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

[Puvel]

13 hours ago, Drunknok said:

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.

You can still build more and only post your 3 best builds. I haven't posted anything in months, that doesn't mean I haven't been building. That means I didn't think the builds were good enough to take pics of.

Also, you can still post everything you build, just not license them, so you can still practise building as much as you want.

If you only build to make money in the EGS you're doing it wrong.   

 

[Darnok]

29 minutes ago, Puvel said:

You can still build more and only post your 3 best builds. I haven't posted anything in months, that doesn't mean I haven't been building. That means I didn't think the builds were good enough to take pics of.

Good for you. Why should that be the standard for anybody else though?

Other people prefer to post what they get done, both for feedback as well as recognition. With this approach they appreciate any encouragement they can get. Positive feedback is one factor, but especially for beginners the EGS rewards are another form of such encouragement. By cutting that second part out this motivational factor is out, as well as other options for progression in the EGS.

This is nothing the long-time players care about of course - their coffers are already filled, so to speak. But this game is not only for these players, unless it wants to die a slow death. Encouraging beginners in any way possible should be a prime objective of the rules - this change does the opposite.

29 minutes ago, Puvel said:

If you only build to make money in the EGS you're doing it wrong.  

I have yet to experience even one player here who does that. But even IF there was such a player: why is it up to you to decide if he or she does it "wrong"? The EGS is an integral part of this game, so playing for the EGS alone is a reasonable approach - if you want to do so. Again, there is no such case as far as I know, so this is no issue to begin with. But it is pretty arrogant to claim that there is a "wrong" way to play the game in a way you simply do not appreciate.

[Puvel]

Looks like I didn't take myself clear, here's the simplified version:

This is a hobby. That means you enjoy building and will do so whether you post your builds or not. If you only build to make money in the EGS, it's a job. 

This is of course my arrogant way of thinking, my apologies to all professional builders 

 

 

[Maxim I]

A difficult one. I do see why this rule has been declared. Am I a big fan of it? Not really, but then again, I understand this rule is easier than having to discuss with a player time after time that he should invest in quality over quantity.

I do understand the frustration of Drunknok as this lowers the possibilities of newer players (and it are mostly them who are being hit by this rule, as 90% of the landbased MOC's are coming from new players lately). It hits them directly as it will take longer now to grow financially.

And honestly, I do follow Drunknok in this, as landbased properties' income is still peanuts considered to the marges of the TMRCA.

But, the growth of Mesabi Landing (just to name it, as I think this is the subject of Drunknok's reaction) can't be called natural. It is an awesome team effort of both Drunknok and Mesabi, but not every MOC has been built towards its fullest potential. And I guess this is why leadership came up with this rule...

I think the rule would be more fair (and interesting for the development of all settlements), if it was adjusted to:

No more than 3 properties built by a player can be licenced in the same month in the same settlement by him or by any other entity.

So if a player still wants to build 10 MOC's of decent quality in a month and licence it (with the max of 3 licences / a month / entity still counting), it would benefit multiple settlements and not just one.

Anyway, these are my 2 cents...

Edited April 30, 2018 by Maxim I

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

But, the growth of Mesabi Landing (just to name it, as I think this is the subject of Drunknok's reaction) can't be called natural. It is an awesome team effort of both Drunknok and Mesabi, but not every MOC has been built towards its fullest potential. And I guess this is why leadership came up with this rule...

If that is the reason - and so far nobody has suggested that - I once again would like to raise this point: why did nobody talk to either myself or Mesabi? The settlement did not grow overnight and nobody ever questioned the quality of the builds, especially nobody from the leadership team.

Again: if the above is indeed the the reason (or one of the reasons), the reasonable solution would have been to approach the players in question, i.e. myself or @Mesabi. I can not speak for him, but I was never contacted concerning this. Instead we got this overreaction, punishing everybody.

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

I think the rule would be more fair (and interesting for the development of all settlements), if it was adjusted to:

No more than 3 properties built by a player can be licenced in the same month in the same settlement by him or by any other entity.

So if a player still wants to build 10 MOC's of decent quality in a month and licence it (with the max of 3 licences / a month / entity still counting), it would benefit multiple settlements and not just one.

This is a compromise I would support.

[Mesabi]

On 4/28/2018 at 4:16 PM, 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. 

 

Alright, I'm not going to beat around the bush here. This rule is clearly targeted at @Drunknok and I. We're the only builders that really go above the old 3 a month rule. 

First off, I completely and utterly disagree with this rule. the Economic Game System basically needs to be taken advantage of to do anything of note. Let's say I want an Army. Well, That means I need 4,500 Dbs, at 1,000+ upkeep a month. A class 8 ship costs an obscene amount as well, and makes near nothing if its a warship. Anything cool is expensive. And so, to get said cool things,  one needs to put a lot of work in. 

So why don't I build bigger things? For a while I couldn't, and it was only by buying a ton of lego for my dorm that I was actually able to. Now, I suppose I can go back to building larger projects, but the rewards for them aren't great. Not factoring Factional bonuses, most properties are the following:

Size	Profit	Cost
16	5	25
32	10	50
48	15	75
100	500	3000

If I build something 4 times as large, I get twice the profit. If I build something 9 times as large, I get three times the profit. But that doesn't factor in the cost, which, for the first 3 sizes, take 5 months to pay for itself. So for 5 months in game, I've essentially lost money by building. So generally, I've just put out a lot of medium properties because it's basically the most efficient. 

And additionally, I've wanted to make my settlement, and my trade company the best in game. To do so, I've built for them as well with the help of Drunknok. I can't just say that Mesabi Landing or the WTC is the best. I need to make them the best to say so. And to do so requires builds. Lots of them. You have essentially taken away Drunknok and I's ability to do so. 

Finally, there's the fact that this rule is almost entirely based upon Drunknok and I. I am not at all pleased with how leadership has treated us over the past few months. I do not know how to express the amount of discourtesy that has been shown to us. Between @Bregir screaming at Drunknok for his comments on the delay of the challenge results, to @Ayrlego telling me he would have prefered me to be in a different faction because of how I play the game I am tired of the discourtesy. I have worked hard to foster communication, to be as nice as possible, and to support collaboration. But if leadership does things like this, than I don't know what to say. 

 

If your goal is to bully us into leaving, you might actually succeed. While I cannot speak for Drunknok on the matter, I am completely and utterly sick of the abuses of power in leadership, and might simply take my bricks elsewhere. 

[Legostone]

2 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

That means I need 4,500 Dbs, at 1,000+ upkeep a month

The whole troop system is gonna be changed very soon, and to my knowledge armies were always intended to be used by the richest of the rich - the factions themselves. Many longterm players could already afford to keep a regiment afloat for a long, long time now, and 300 troops are already quite impressive.

7 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

A class 8 ship costs an obscene amount as well, and makes near nothing if its a warship. Anything cool is expensive. And so, to get said cool things,  one needs to put a lot of work in. 

The MRCA is a really good active source of income - land properties are a slow, steady income (a 5 month ROI isn't bad either). As for large ships - they are meant to be uncommon - we have 1 class 10, 6 class 8, 25 class 7, 25 class 6, 58 class 5, 52 class 4, 56 class 3, 54 class 2, 21 class 1 and 12 class 0 vessels. If you look at real stuff its also gonna be expensive the larger it gets - and keeping it intact is also gonna get more expensive.
(yes I know this is coming someone who has been able to fairly reliably get 2000-3000 DBs per MRCA - it took me a while to get to this. Honestly - I'm surprised nobody except for DukeSC has decided to go for half a dozen class 2 vessels for his MRCA ventures, I suspect that could work well if they take care of all the smaller, undersupplied ports (going to large undersupplied ports has also proven effective, but its far more difficult finding those))
Also a quick note - current upkeep rules are outdated, and we have been trying to find a well balanced system. Actual rules will be published very soon, but its far more forgiving then the original system.

30 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

But that doesn't factor in the cost, which, for the first 3 sizes, take 5 months to pay for itself. So for 5 months in game, I've essentially lost money by building.

 

I'm not gonna say much about the part before that - its just how it stays balanced. And no, you haven't lost money by building - you have invested in something with a really quick ROI.

33 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

And additionally, I've wanted to make my settlement, and my trade company the best in game. To do so, I've built for them as well with the help of Drunknok. I can't just say that Mesabi Landing or the WTC is the best. I need to make them the best to say so. And to do so requires builds. Lots of them. You have essentially taken away Drunknok and I's ability to do so. 

You can still do it - you joined later then most, but you still have time to catch up. Nobody is stopping you from building more builds then you can license and save those for exam season or other times when you are busy. You can also build multiple smaller vessels instead of more land properties, we don't have a limit how many vessels you can license per month (and if anyone wants to change that I'll fight them for it!)

 

For the last two paragraphs - if you guys want to message me and tell me what is wrong with Leadership (I'll keep that information to myself unless you want me to share parts of it) and how we can solve this, I would gladly help out. I would rather get a peaceful solution then scare away people with drama in some of the most important topics.

[Darnok]

I wanted to keep a numerical analysis out of this for the time being, because anybody above fourth grade can see that the land-based EGS is a really SLOW way to generate income.

I can not let this part stand though:

Just now, Legostone said:

And no, you haven't lost money by building - you have invested in something with a really quick ROI.

You are breaking even after five months for most land properties, counting after the month the build was licensed. That is half a year. How can you call that "a really quick ROI"? With some basic number crunching you can recoup the investment on a ship in the month it was licensed. There is hardly a real comparison, land EGS and ship EGS basically play in different leagues.

[Legostone]

Just now, Drunknok said:

You are breaking even after five months for most land properties, counting after the month the build was licensed. That is half a year. How can you call that "a really quick ROI"?

Given that currently properties can't be lost, and after the 5 months its permanent income, I dare calling it quick ROI. Just look at some long-time players - @Elostirion can speak for himself what ROI means in this game.

[SkaForHire]

21 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

I wanted to keep a numerical analysis out of this for the time being, because anybody above fourth grade can see that the land-based EGS is a really SLOW way to generate income.

This was the point.  Safe but slow.  Ships are fast but dangerous.  Look at the original MRCAs, whole nations' commerce fleets were decimated quite easily.    I think we can look at the output of licenses now again, it may be able to be adjusted upwards.

[Captain Genaro]

@Mesabi We are considering the current economic balance right now. There are some areas that will likely be tweaked in the near future. Please note that all leadership is done on a volunteer basis, and it may take a little time to get everything right. 

In regards to properties, land-based are supposed to provide a steady income stream. It's not a get-rich-quick scheme, but by properly utilizing trade company monopolies and island bonuses, you can get a steady source of income to support your operations. Ships are supposed to be high risk yet high reward. We have seen very little piracy, thus much of the risk for ships simply isn't there. 

We are aware of these issues and are working to try and resolve everything.

1 hour ago, Mesabi said:

I am not at all pleased with how leadership has treated us over the past few months. I do not know how to express the amount of discourtesy that has been shown to us. Between @Bregir screaming at Drunknok for his comments on the delay of the challenge results, to @Ayrlego telling me he would have prefered me to be in a different faction because of how I play the game I am tired of the discourtesy.

There are currently 10 people in leadership roles, including a regulator and moderator. They can easily be identified by the leadership tag. If you have an issue with the way you are being treated by anyone in leadership or any other player, please feel free to send a PM to one of the other leaders. I am sure the issue can be resolved. 

 

 

[Darnok]

39 minutes ago, SkaForHire said:

This was the point.  Safe but slow.  Ships are fast but dangerous.  Look at the original MRCAs, whole nations' commerce fleets were decimated quite easily.    I think we can look at the output of licenses now again, it may be able to be adjusted upwards.

I understand that, and have nothing against this principle.

What I have a problem with is the needless removal of a rule that allowed for flexibility as well as supporting other settlements on top of growing your individual economy. This new restriction will make licensing much more "selfish". I for one can not see me support other settlements in the way I have done before. Which is a shame really, because I believe the last thing leadership wants is to reduce interaction and support between players and IC entities. With this change they have done exactly that though.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Drunknok

[Capn Frank]

4 hours ago, Drunknok said:

What I have a problem with is the needless removal of a rule that allowed for flexibility as well as supporting other settlements on top of growing your individual economy.

You've definitely made your objections to the rule update known.   
You are really pushing it and trying to force others to exhaustively justify why the update is needed. Your approval is not required for rule updates.  Your and other's ideas are taken into consideration.  I believe the leadership team and others have been more than patient with your questions. BoBS is not perfect, and it's leadership is not perfect.  Not everything is going to make sense or be realistic. 

If you don't like the way the game is run, then don't play.  Continuing with a poor attitude and snide comments is not helpful and is a sure fire way to get yourself removed from the game or worse.  I would ask that you simmer, try to enjoy the game, and be genuinely helpful.  

[Elostirion]

Regarding land-based EGS vs. ship-based EGS: In the long run - even in the medium run - land based EGS is far more profitable. Just look at the account sheet: I am the richest player by far (3x the money of the second richest player, even though I donated away most of my shares in collaborations, so I could probably have 20-30% more money by now), and I haven't been running ships for many, many months. In the early months I have had some great success with ships, which gave me a head-start, for sure. But for long-term wealth and riches land-based might actually be the only way to go in my opinion. I earn 1.6k with my properties per month, 0 upkeep. Who does that with ships? Consistently, every month? Right: Noone does.

Land-based is by far the most profitable option in the long run. Any other statement just ignores the numbers from the Account Sheet.

For quick profits the TMRCA may be the best option, yes, and every player may participate. Easy as that. On top the new upkeep-rules clearly discourage having a very large fleet.

Also every new player may ask for loans from the older playerbase - and will definitely get a loan from some source, to make getting started easier.

[Bart]

Other news item;
I'm finally going home, after 6 months on this ship, I'll be flying home tomorrow.
So you may see some brick build contraptions from me :O
Although my improved skill in LDD and the possibilities of LDD do outweigh the amount of bricks I have so LDD will stay a part of my buildings for the game.
So if you don't hear from me the next week or two, I'll be getting to know the family again. But I just as well could be back online Thursday :P

 

[Roadmonkeytj]

19 hours ago, Bart said:

Other news item;
I'm finally going home, after 6 months on this ship, I'll be flying home tomorrow.
So you may see some brick build contraptions from me :O
Although my improved skill in LDD and the possibilities of LDD do outweigh the amount of bricks I have so LDD will stay a part of my buildings for the game.
So if you don't hear from me the next week or two, I'll be getting to know the family again. But I just as well could be back online Thursday :P

 

Good luck and safe travels my friend ... Look forward to your tinkerings in plastic

[Bregir]

Will be looking forward to seeing your stories continue, Bart, now that they can do so in both real and virtual bricks! :)

How long leave do you have after 6 months at sea?

[Bart]

Should be something near three months. So in August back to a ship.

[Mesabi]

Alright, I'm finally getting over mono. Life tip: Don't get mono. 

I'm not trying to dreg this topic up more that I have to, and I only have to, because mono and finals, but I still have a few words left on the matter. 

On 4/30/2018 at 8:39 PM, Phred said:

You are really pushing it and trying to force others to exhaustively justify why the update is needed. Your approval is not required for rule updates.  Your and other's ideas are taken into consideration.  I believe the leadership team and others have been more than patient with your questions. BoBS is not perfect, and it's leadership is not perfect.  Not everything is going to make sense or be realistic. 

What the problem, that we have here, is that this really only impacts Drunknok and I, meaning, at some point in the process somebody had to have thought, this will mostly affect 2 members of BoBS. Now we can go on and on about the economics, or about how this affects stories, all of which does affects me, or we can talk, which no one has addressed, how this is targeted against Drunknok and I. Now Drunknok and I currently have life circumstances that allow for more building. So, we build more. Do we deserve to be punished for that? That's what I'm asking. And leadership has decided yes.

On 4/30/2018 at 8:39 PM, Phred said:

If you don't like the way the game is run, then don't play.  Continuing with a poor attitude and snide comments is not helpful and is a sure fire way to get yourself removed from the game or worse.  I would ask that you simmer, try to enjoy the game, and be genuinely helpful.  

And This is what I'm talking about. It's the constant threats against Drunknok that I can't stand. Yes, he's snide, and sometimes rude. But I honestly think that his criticism adds a lot to this game. If we don't have our critics, how could we know if what we're doing is wrong?

[Darnok]

All I can say at this point: I agree with Mesabi, and this whole "do not speak up, or we might kick you out" attitude from most of "leadership" is really alarming. Stuff like that kills communities.

[Bregir]

Just now, Mesabi said:

And This is what I'm talking about. It's the constant threats against Drunknok that I can't stand. Yes, he's snide, and sometimes rude. But I honestly think that his criticism adds a lot to this game. If we don't have our critics, how could we know if what we're doing is wrong?

This topic is closed, Mesabi. Everybody is welcome to ask constructive questions, but similarly, everyone is also required to respect the response. Nobody has ever said that players cannot ask a question. But it has to be in a reasonable tone. (From both sides.)

As to whether this was targeted at anyone: It was not. Yes, the WTC is possibly the only recent group to have bordered, or crossed it. (I haven't checked) But in the past others have done so too. And we design rules to encourage certain behaviours and ensure balance, not attack players. If someone was pushing rules, we would approach them directly. Sometimes, chnages will have an impact on some types of players, but believe it or not, we try to act in the interest of the whole game. ;)

And nobody is being punished for anything, BTW. (Keeping in mind Phred's warnings, of course) is

There are also several ways to build more within the limits, as had been mentioned before, eg. in size. So if you are in the lucky position of being able to build more, go for mediums or large builds. Or even royals. You could for example build 2 small and a medium each month, as well as part of a royal. Once you have the full stud count and quality of a royal, you can license that. Studs to profit, it may be more optimal to build a quantillion small builds, but perhaps that is one of the reasons for the rules? (Hint: it is ;).) Or you could spent more time on each build, trying out new techniques and improving your skills. Here are plenty of options.

Further, we are currently processing a clarification of the rules, which may include a bit more flexibility. Don't expect a revolution, though, as our initial reasons for the limits still stands.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please address them in a pm to me or someone else in leadership. Thank you. :)

[Darnok]

So essentially: "just shut up, and do not question us". Yeah, that surely leaves a good impression...

Edited May 7, 2018 by Drunknok

[Bodi]

2 hours ago, Mesabi said:

Now Drunknok and I currently have life circumstances that allow for more building

Good for you! And please don't feel you are going to be punished because you guys have more time to build, I understand that the leaders are just putting emphasis on quality over quantity. The Bobs, besides the economic system, is a good place to improve our building skill. This limitation on monthly license should allow us spend more time on refining the building quality, it's a good thing, isn't it?

[Capn Frank]

5 hours ago, Mesabi said:

What the problem, that we have here, is that this really only impacts Drunknok and I, meaning, at some point in the process somebody had to have thought, this will mostly affect 2 members of BoBS.

It actually doesn't impact just you two.  It impacts myself too, and others I'm sure. I've got a backlog of builds to be licensed.  I don't think of it as a big deal, and completely agree with the rule's intent. There has always been a variation of the 3 property licenses a month rule. As Bregir has said, build bigger or better.  

 

5 hours ago, Mesabi said:

I honestly think that his criticism adds a lot to this game.

Do you think the leadership team wants to constantly deal with criticism with snide comments and poor attitude?  Such attitudes will actually kill the game. Leadership exhaustively defending rule updates and complaining will cause leaders to quit and regular members to leave who don't want to deal with a bunch of complainers and constant drama. 

I'm perfectly fine with criticism. In fact, you figure out a slick way to drastically streamline the rules, I'm all ears!  And if you genuinely try to help, I'll even work to add you to the Brethren Court.  However, continuing to be offensive and constantly debating rules that have been established after a fair warning, is a sure-fire way for me to escalate the situation. I really don't want you or Drunknok to go down that road.

Mesabi, I don't find your response offensive in any way.  As Bregir said, no one has been punished in the game, and no one has had their warn level increased as EB members. If you find my recent comments threatening, perhaps you need to chill out and realize we are playing a game with made up points using a children's toy, Lego.  I think the game is really enjoyable and exciting and dedicate a lot of time and effort.  

 

[LM71Blackbird]

So, I've got a quick question for you about MRCA profits. Last month I made 1204 in profits, so does that mean I should get 1204 Dbs? Or is there a different multiplier for that?

Thanks a lot!