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

[Darnok]

Just now, Ayrlego said:

For reference the rule can be found here. I had to find it recently for something else :)

That is exactly what I linked to in my post.

I asked because I was unsure whether Kemblarsi would be considered "Old World" - it is about as far away from Corrington as Terraversa.

[Ayrlego]

23 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

That is exactly what I linked to in my post.

I asked because I was unsure whether Kemblarsi would be considered "Old World" - it is about as far away from Corrington as Terraversa.

Ah, my apologies, I missed that. I just remember I had to really go searching for it!

[Maxim I]

2 hours ago, Drunknok said:

That is exactly what I linked to in my post.

I asked because I was unsure whether Kemblarsi would be considered "Old World" - it is about as far away from Corrington as Terraversa.

I consider the Old world to be the original known world. So everything south of Mokolei would be new in my eyes...

[Darnok]

11 hours ago, Maxim I said:

I consider the Old world to be the original known world. So everything south of Mokolei would be new in my eyes...

So would I.

Similar to how Europe was considered the "old world", but not India or China. On the other hand, the game is clearly intended to focus on "the colonies" in the Sea of Storms and anything east of it - which would put everything else into the "old world bucket".

 

This discussion is not for me to decide, I am just looking for a clear ruling here. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Drunknok

[Ayrlego]

@Drunknok, @Maxim I

While your reasoning is sound, game wise at this time the 'old world' is anything not in the island chains of the Sea of Thieves or Prio Sea area (and hopefully soon the New Haven Sea area) .

[Ayrlego]

We are currently working on implementing a number of rule adjustments to help combat inflation. These adjustments focus on settlement and property rules (particularly regarding forts and royal builds). The biggest effects most players will experience is a slowing of their property income, and increased expense to sistership lost ships. A full list of the adjustments can be found in the post here:

 

[Captain Dee]

On 1/13/2019 at 8:46 PM, Ayrlego said:

We are currently working on implementing a number of rule adjustments to help combat inflation. These adjustments focus on settlement and property rules (particularly regarding forts and royal builds). The biggest effects most players will experience is a slowing of their property income, and increased expense to sistership lost ships. A full list of the adjustments can be found in the post here:

 

.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Captain Dee

[Mesabi]

I appreciate the changes the court has implemented. The only thing I would suggest is that settlement raids should take money from the Mayor as well. 

 

[Kwatchi]

Whoa ho ho.  You guys just turned the game on its head.  I love it! 

 

I hope colony owners will be able to turn forts off though - those are are some high costs for players caught unawares.

[Roadmonkeytj]

1 hour ago, Ayrlego said:

We are currently working on implementing a number of rule adjustments to help combat inflation. These adjustments focus on settlement and property rules (particularly regarding forts and royal builds). The biggest effects most players will experience is a slowing of their property income, and increased expense to sistership lost ships. A full list of the adjustments can be found in the post here:

 

I have two questions. 

First with regard to Charlatan Bay.  Can this be any property as long as its a royal in size? 

Second with regard to sister shipping.  Why double?  Are we trying to do away with Sisterships? It seems to me one would just build another ship.   I guess I could understand an additional fee but double seems a little out there.

 

 

[Mesabi]

10 minutes ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

Second with regard to sister shipping.  Why double?  Are we trying to do away with Sisterships? It seems to me one would just build another ship.   I guess I could understand an additional fee but double seems a little out there.

While I am not the court.... 

To be honest, ships are hard to build for most of us. And even our best shipbuilders take weeks to build ships. And if you're unlucky, the MCRA chews your ships alive. So, sistershipping is entirely necessary in my opinion. 

[Capt Wolf]

28 minutes ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

First with regard to Charlatan Bay.  Can this be any property as long as its a royal in size? 

If you're referring to the requirements for advancing to the various city levels, yes, any type of property as long as it is a royal property.

 

28 minutes ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

Second with regard to sister shipping.  Why double?  Are we trying to do away with Sisterships? It seems to me one would just build another ship.   I guess I could understand an additional fee but double seems a little out there.

 

10 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

ships are hard to build for most of us. And even our best shipbuilders take weeks to build ships. And if you're unlucky, the MCRA chews your ships alive. So, sistershipping is entirely necessary in my opinion. 

We're not trying to do away with sisterships, just making them more expensive. This was all about finding ways to reduce players' income and to spend players' money.

 

51 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

I hope colony owners will be able to turn forts off though - those are are some high costs for players caught unawares.

The thinking is that the factions can step in and help if a settlement needs time to adjust for the expense. And there are always loans available from in-game banks and rich characters/players.  But settlements need to plan for income streams now, which means settlements either need to tax players who build there, or more properties need to be licensed by settlements rather than players.

 

56 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

I appreciate the changes the court has implemented. The only thing I would suggest is that settlement raids should take money from the Mayor as well.

We took the mayors' money pre-emptively by no longer paying mayors a salary. Mayor is now more of an administrative role now than an EGS role.

[gedren_y]

I have had a Royal sized Education build (LDD) in the works for some time now. I was planning to have it licensed by either Eslandola or the settlement, and have it described as a not-for-profit institute.

[SilentWolf]

3. The 'Town Bank' will be eliminated from the game. Properties will now no longer automatically contribute money to a 'Town Bank'. Settlements must now find other ways for financing expenses. In the case of a successful raid, funds will now be deducted from faction and not settlement accounts.

Does this mean all the money in the various town banks is going to vanish or that it won't continue to grow?

[Captain Genaro]

8 minutes ago, SilentWolf said:

Does this mean all the money in the various town banks is going to vanish or that it won't continue to grow?

It will not continue to grow. All existing funds per the monthly summary remain unchanged.

[Capt Wolf]

11 minutes ago, SilentWolf said:

3. The 'Town Bank' will be eliminated from the game. Properties will now no longer automatically contribute money to a 'Town Bank'. Settlements must now find other ways for financing expenses. In the case of a successful raid, funds will now be deducted from faction and not settlement accounts.

Does this mean all the money in the various town banks is going to vanish or that it won't continue to grow?

I don't think we specified that. I would be in favor of the current balance being transferred to the settlement's regular account, but we need to sort that out.

Edit: what CG said. The town bank funds already show up in the account balance. 

[LM71Blackbird]

In regards to the royal properties... my initial reaction was - "this sucks!" However, I really like the idea that a settlement needs some royal properties to advance to the next level. It would be unrealistic to have a capital city with hundreds of small properties everywhere. 

But overall, I think these are all great additions to the game and I'm looking forward to seeing the fully implemented!

[Maxim I]

5 hours ago, Mesabi said:

While I am not the court.... 

To be honest, ships are hard to build for most of us. And even our best shipbuilders take weeks to build ships. And if you're unlucky, the MCRA chews your ships alive. So, sistershipping is entirely necessary in my opinion. 

Especially if one takes his time for decent rigging The rigging of the Gotheborg took me much more than 20 hours...

6 hours ago, Mesabi said:

I appreciate the changes the court has implemented. The only thing I would suggest is that settlement raids should take money from the Mayor as well. 

 

As long as one can transfer its funds to a Bank without thinking about transportation, there is no point in that. A few months ago, I suggested a very updated system of money circulation, which would benefit raiding (long story short: one would actually have to transfer funds and revenues from one place to another)

Edited January 14, 2019 by Maxim I

[Darnok]

Wow, some substantial changes, and a definite shake-up of the current meta. Some things I like, some things raise an eyebrow - well done overall I would say!

 

All of the following is my personal opinion of course:

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

We are currently working on implementing a number of rule adjustments to help combat inflation. These adjustments focus on settlement and property rules (particularly regarding forts and royal builds). The biggest effects most players will experience is a slowing of their property income, and increased expense to sistership lost ships.

At what date are these updates "operational"? Immediately?

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

'Royal' / Great Properties

2. The income from Royal properties will be reduced to 100DB per MRCA turn. Income from Royal residences will remained unchanged at 15DB per MRCA turn.

Will the price remain the same? I accept that Royals are "for prestige" mostly, but 3000DB in cost for 100DB in return per MRCA is laughably bad.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

4. To increase a settlement in size to 'City' at least one Royal Property is now required. To increase to 'Large City' two are required. To increase 'Grand City' three are required. To increase to 'Capital City' five are required. (Note: existing cities will keep their current size despite the number of royals, but cannot progress to the next level without meeting the requirement of that level. Cities effected by this ruling are listed in the spoiler below)

Interesting, and making Royals properly valuable all of a sudden, even if only for settlement upgrades.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

Other incentives for building Royal properties are being considered and will be introduced in due course.

I hope for some proper benefits, as right now they are comically overpriced.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

Forts and Troops.

2. Fort maintenance costs will increase to 50DB for a small fort, 100DB for a medium, 200DB for a large, 600DB for a Royal per turn.

There might be a typo somewhere here, because that is only an increase for Royals (by 100DB). For all others, these are the current upkeep costs.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

Other

1. Property income will now only be paid each MRCA turn rather than monthly.

Eh. On the one hand, ingame money has become pretty meaningless for most players, so something had to be done about it. This might be a bit drastic though, as land income already paled in comparison to what could be done by trading. Now it is almost pointless.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

2. Mayoral pay will be eliminated.

3. The 'Town Bank' will be eliminated from the game. Properties will now no longer automatically contribute money to a 'Town Bank'. Settlements must now find other ways for financing expenses. In the case of a successful raid, funds will now be deducted from faction and not settlement accounts.

Good call, both of these served no real game function anymore.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

4. Sister-shiping costs will be doubled. eg. You will now pay double the original license fee for that class to sister ship.

Ouch. People will get a lot more careful now I guess.

8 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

The following settlements do not meet the modified 'Royal' property requirements. These settlements will not be able to advance to the next level until requirements have been meet.

- Mesabi Landing (needs x2 Royals)

I assume the ruling above about "settlement keep their current status" applies as well? Other than that: still ouch, especially due if Royals' price remains as it is. With the current ban on licensing this also means nothing can be done before May...

[Bregir]

7 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

At what date are these updates "operational"? Immediately?

The rules are in place as of now when it comes to our actions as players, but it will take some time for the automation team to implement them. We expect it to be in place before the next MRCA.

8 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Will the price remain the same? I accept that Royals are "for prestige" mostly, but 3000DB in cost for 100DB in return per MRCA is laughably bad.

Yes, for now. One way to see it is like a "wonder" in AoE or Civilisation, for instance. It is something built for prestige, and should be considered more of a challenge than an investment. (And a necessity for settlement levelling)
But we will be looking into other functions of royals at a later date to give them other non-monetary benefits.

8 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Eh. On the one hand, ingame money has become pretty meaningless for most players, so something had to be done about it. This might be a bit drastic though, as land income already paled in comparison to what could be done by trading. Now it is almost pointless.

Now everything can be balanced evenly, as everything is turn based rather than a mix of turn based and time based. Now you have to look at turns rather than calendar time, regardless of whether you look at troops, ships, or properties. The idea is also that costs for warfare, for instance, is all linked to turns, so so should income.

8 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

There might be a typo somewhere here, because that is only an increase for Royals (by 100DB). For all others, these are the current upkeep costs.

I think those are the new corrected values - and the typo is that 500 has been written instead of 600 in the "by land" topic ;) @Ayrlego

9 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

I assume the ruling above about "settlement keep their current status" applies as well? Other than that: still ouch, especially due if Royals' price remains as it is. With the current ban on licensing this also means nothing can be done before May...

No settlements change status based on this. But if a settlement wants to progress to the next level, it has to meet the requirement of that level. So this has no impact on ML before it is about to progress to "Capital City", which is when it will next have to meet these requirements.

[Ayrlego]

Just now, Bregir said:

I think those are the new corrected values - and the typo is that 500 has been written instead of 600 in the "by land" topic ;) @Ayrlego

Correct, my bad. Previously upkeep was 10, 20, 60 and 200.

[Darnok]

9 minutes ago, Bregir said:

The rules are in place as of now when it comes to our actions as players, but it will take some time for the automation team to implement them. We expect it to be in place before the next MRCA.

Quote

Yes, for now. One way to see it is like a "wonder" in AoE or Civilisation, for instance. It is something built for prestige, and should be considered more of a challenge than an investment. (And a necessity for settlement levelling)
But we will be looking into other functions of royals at a later date to give them other non-monetary benefits.

I just asked because the cost/income balance has changed so drastically (it was bad before, but now...). Some ingame benefits would be nice.

Quote

Now everything can be balanced evenly, as everything is turn based rather than a mix of turn based and time based. Now you have to look at turns rather than calendar time, regardless of whether you look at troops, ships, or properties. The idea is also that costs for warfare, for instance, is all linked to turns, so so should income.

A reasonable argument, and I support all of it.

I think that either trade or land income need to be adjusted though, because now the proverbial pendulum suddenly swung so hard in the direction of trade it is not even funny. One could make much more money by (admittedly mildly risky) trade before this change, and now land income has gotten a massive reduction.

Also note that all these changes make it much harder for starters to build up, while longterm players have full pockets from years of the older system.

 

4 minutes ago, Ayrlego said:

Correct, my bad. Previously upkeep was 10, 20, 60 and 200.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the extremely quick update of the land rules thread!

Edited January 14, 2019 by Drunknok

[Bregir]

Just now, Drunknok said:

I think that either trade or land income need to be adjusted though, because now the proverbial pendulum suddenly swung so hard in the direction of trade it is not even funny. One could make much more money by (admittedly mildly risky) trade before this change, and now land income has gotten a massive reduction.

Agreed. We are constantly working on adjusting the balance of risk and reward in the MRCA, and it has been too profitable. This takes time, and some things may have to be reworked. And yes, hereby I am also saying that it will likely be the trade that will be adjusted.

Just now, Drunknok said:

Also note that all these changes make it much harder for starters to build up, while longterm players have full pockets from years of the older system.

While I am not sure I agree it will be harder for new players to build up, be assured that we are also considering the "stock" of money, not just the "flow".

10 minutes ago, Ayrlego said:

Correct, my bad. Previously upkeep was 10, 20, 60 and 200.

Thanks :)

[Ayrlego]

Just now, Drunknok said:

 while longterm players have full pockets from years of the older system.

Very true and something we have considered. Next we are looking at ways to drain those accounts..... the term 'money sink' has been used. Any creative ideas are welcome! I have suggested a one-time income tax tiered by your current balance, but that wasn't very popular! (taxes never are...)

Just now, Drunknok said:

I think that either trade or land income need to be adjusted though, because now the proverbial pendulum suddenly swung so hard in the direction of trade it is not even funny. One could make much more money by (admittedly mildly risky) trade before this change, and now land income has gotten a massive reduction.

This is how it is meant to be. Land income was always meant to be slow but guaranteed. Trading (and pirating) was always meant to be risky but rewarding. After 3 years we are still trying to find the right balance but I think this will be a huge step in the right direction. We ran some figures and in theory it looks good, but we need a couple of MRCAs for real data. I do however also agree with you and Bregir here, trade will probably need to be adjusted....

[Darnok]

Just now, Bregir said:

Agreed. We are constantly working on adjusting the balance of risk and reward in the MRCA, and it has been too profitable. This takes time, and some things may have to be reworked.

Aye, and I appreciate the effort.

Just now, Bregir said:

And yes, hereby I am also saying that it will likely be the trade that will be adjusted.

If the goal is to make ingame money somewhat meaningful again, then trade income has to be reduced dramatically. With the current change a ship can make between ten times and a hundred times (!) more per turn than a large land property.

Land income has just become much more unprofitable - any less and you could just as well remove it completely (don't! ).

Just now, Bregir said:

While I am not sure I agree it will be harder for new players to build up, be assured that we are also considering the "stock" of money, not just the "flow".

I would be very careful with that. While some individual "bank accounts" might look way off, those players have earned it over time.