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

[Maxim I]

8 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Question regarding royal residences: is "Royal Palace" a title only, or does it indeed have to be somewhat "palac-ish"? I just want to know if a "normal" residence quarter (multiple buildings, summing up to at least 10000 studs) of a high enough quality would be eligible for that type of license.

I understand your question and the reason behind it, but I honestly hope the court Will make Royal palaces as expensive as other Royal properties, with the current income staying the same (15 db’s?)

I would even pay the difference (2700 db’s) to keep my palace. This would be an awesome money sink (which makes Sense as palaces are moneysinks irl as well).

The other reason is that I fear people Will only build Royal palaces to meet the number of Royal properties (sorry Drunknok)

Edited January 14, 2019 by Maxim I

[Darnok]

Just now, Maxim I said:

The other reason is that I fear people Will only build Royal palaces to meet the number of Royal properties (sorry Drunknok)

There is no secret agenda here - of course people will build royal residences in case of a necessity for royal properties. It is still a 300DB "price" to pay for a settlement upgrade, on top of all the effort that went into the build itself.

[Bregir]

39 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Question regarding royal residences: is "Royal Palace" a title only, or does it indeed have to be somewhat "palac-ish"? I just want to know if a "normal" residence quarter (multiple buildings, summing up to at least 10000 studs) of a high enough quality would be eligible for that type of license.

I think if it is residential, covers 10000 studs, and is of sufficient quality, it would qualify.

[Darnok]

1 minute ago, Bregir said:

I think if it is residential, covers 10000 studs, and is of sufficient quality, it would qualify.

Is that the Courts decision? I will not push out the build associated with this tomorrow (and can not license it before May anyway ), so I guess there is time to discuss this behind the scenes. I agree with you here, I just want to know the definite ruling.

 

As for something a bit different...

 

While we are on the topic of weird aspects of settlement levels... why is automatic settlement growth still a thing? It was never that automatic to begin with as far as I know, so means more work behind the scenes. And while it is without doubt a very thematic rule, it also needlessly rewards those that are "on the top" already.

Take Breshaun as the most prominent example. It has seen as little as four new player properties in 2018, and only seven in 2017. Yet it has grown quite a lot over that timeframe. Due to the growth factor being a percentage, this effect will only grow stronger. And none of this is due to player input, i.e. not related to any building in a game that is supposedly about building.

 

P.S.: See, back then people could brag about settlement levels without getting hit by an earthquake.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Drunknok

[Captain Dee]

.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Captain Dee

[Maxim I]

4 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

While we are on the topic of weird aspects of settlement levels... why is automatic settlement growth still a thing? It was never that automatic to begin with as far as I know, so means more work behind the scenes. And while it is without doubt a very thematic rule, it also needlessly rewards those that are "on the top" already.

Take Breshaun as the most prominent example. It has seen as little as four new player properties in 2018, and only seven in 2017. Yet it has grown quite a lot over that timeframe. Due to the growth factor being a percentage, this effect will only grow stronger. And none of this is due to player input, i.e. not related to any building in a game that is supposedly about building.

 

P.S.: See, back then people could brag about settlement levels without getting hit by an earthquake.

I still see us being only a small part of a big world full of NPC's. It would be kinda selfish to think that only a few people in every factions have the right to determine who is going to live in the new lands. So natural growth is in my opinion a very good thing for keeping this whole game realistic.

That being said, I honestly don't want to build 50 different houses for one and the same settlement... and what is the point in having a Large city, if there are only 10 residences in that city?

[Ayrlego]

3 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

While we are on the topic of weird aspects of settlement levels... why is automatic settlement growth still a thing?

A question I have asked in court myself. It's something else under consideration. But for now baby steps :)

Just now, Captain Dee said:

Auto growth is strictly residential, right? Meaning some settlements might have enough to never require another one be built to meet parity? Or do I have it figured wrong?

No, you are absolutely correct. Another concern of mine.:)

4 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

 

P.S.: See, back then people could brag about settlement levels without getting hit by an earthquake.

Just to be very clear, it was not the OOC bragging that brought on the earthquake.

[Professor Thaum]

Just now, Captain Dee said:

Auto growth is strictly residential, right? Meaning some settlements might have enough to never require another one be built to meet parity? Or do I have it figured wrong?

You're right

[Maxim I]

Just now, Captain Dee said:

Auto growth is strictly residential, right? Meaning some settlements might have enough to never require another one be built to meet parity? Or do I have it figured wrong?

Yes indeed. Which is a good thing (see above).

[Professor Thaum]

Arf so many people at the same time

[Darnok]

24 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

That being said, I honestly don't want to build 50 different houses for one and the same settlement...

16 points of residences are required for a "Large City" - that is eight builds of medium size. I know you are exaggerating, but even assuming small residences, you only ever would need 50 way beyond "Grand City" (you would need 64 points - not individual properties - for "Capital City" only).

Really a non-issue for any settlement so far.

 

Also - and I am strictly playing devils advocate here - what would be the big issue with 50 different houses? Assume that each house has surroundings, walls, decorative elements and a roof. You can hardly get more basic than that. Further assume three colour options for each category, not much by any stretch of the imagination either.

You end up with 3*3*3*3=81 different combinations. All of that is before taking into account different types of architecture and whatnot.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Drunknok

[LM71Blackbird]

@Drunknok Quinnsville thread edited!

 

Just some questions and my 2 cents on the whole matter at hand:

'Royal' / Great Properties

Quote

1. Ownership of Royal properties will now be limited to factions, settlements and charted organisations. Royal Palaces (residences) are exempt from this rule and may be licensed by individual players. The five current players who own Royal (non-residential) properties will be contacted via separate correspondence. 

A question about Royal properties... I may have miss understood this but, is one of the rule changes that players can't have royal properties (Except for houses)? So, for example, if I build a Royal property for Quinnsville, the settlement has to license it because I can't? If that's the case then that would mean I'd have to transfer the money to Quinnsville, and then license it... seems like it would just make it more complicated to me...

Quote

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.

This seems fair. I assume that the faction bonuses on properties is still in effect though, correct?

Quote

3. Royal properties will now increase settlement values by 10 points (previously only 5).

Quote

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)

This is a FANTASTIC addition!!!

Forts

Quote

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.

Hmm… this is nice as well, I guess... Forts can still be dismantled though correct? Because if they can't Quinnsville will be bankrupt before summer.

Other

Quote

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

This is a good idea.

Quote

2. Mayoral pay will be eliminated.

I don't really see a need for this... If you rely on mayors pay to buy stuff in BoBs then you already have a problem...

Quote

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.

Nothing really to say. Kinda indifferent to this one...

Quote

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

This seems a bit extreme... do you want people to keep building ships? This isn't really used abundantly to start with but what about a 1 1/2 cost instead of double?

[Legostone]

Just now, LM71Blackbird said:

A question about Royal properties... I may have miss understood this but, is one of the rule changes that players can't have royal properties (Except for houses)? So, for example, if I build a Royal property for Quinnsville, the settlement has to license it because I can't? If that's the case then that would mean I'd have to transfer the money to Quinnsville, and then license it... seems like it would just make it more complicated to me...

yeah, thats what you'll have to do if you aren't part of any TC and don't want your faction to license it. The royal properties have caused a fairly significant impact on some players accounts so pulling one income source away from them is one of our measurements to combat this.

Just now, LM71Blackbird said:

This seems fair. I assume that the faction bonuses on properties is still in effect though, correct?

This part should remain untouched, yeah.

1 minute ago, LM71Blackbird said:

Hmm… this is nice as well, I guess... Forts can still be dismantled though correct? Because if they can't Quinnsville will be bankrupt before summer.

There are plenty of ways to get some DB's into the quinnsville account by then ;)

1 minute ago, LM71Blackbird said:

I don't really see a need for this... If you rely on mayors pay to buy stuff in BoBs then you already have a problem...

If its already irrelevant in a game where inflation is a big issue why not eliminate another source of (small) income? 

3 minutes ago, LM71Blackbird said:

This seems a bit extreme... do you want people to keep building ships? This isn't really used abundantly to start with but what about a 1 1/2 cost instead of double?

well, off course we want people to keep building ships  But right now there is still enough money in the game for this to be a non-issue. If it ends up being to expensive it might get lowered at some point, but currently ship costs aren't in line with their potential reward anyways...

[LM71Blackbird]

9 minutes ago, Legostone said:

yeah, thats what you'll have to do if you aren't part of any TC and don't want your faction to license it. The royal properties have caused a fairly significant impact on some players accounts so pulling one income source away from them is one of our measurements to combat this.

This part should remain untouched, yeah.

There are plenty of ways to get some DB's into the quinnsville account by then ;)

If its already irrelevant in a game where inflation is a big issue why not eliminate another source of (small) income? 

well, off course we want people to keep building ships  But right now there is still enough money in the game for this to be a non-issue. If it ends up being to expensive it might get lowered at some point, but currently ship costs aren't in line with their potential reward anyways...

Thanks Legostone!

Yeah, now that I put some more thought into it, Mayoral pays can go...

Right! Certain people have 5 figures in their accounts... More expensive sister-ships would be a way to combat it. Just knowing it kinda, shorta, maybe will be lowered eventually clears up my doubts.

[Kwatchi]

@Bregir @Phred @Legostone

What is the proper procedure to transfer property ownership (and yield) from a player to a colony or faction?  Between my brother and I, we have nine properties we want to pass over to Charlatan Bay in order to help keep it afloat financially (because the new rules essentially bankrupted it overnight).

Not complaining about the rule changes btw - us Sea Rats are just scrambling to come up with ways to make sure forts are paid for.

[Bregir]

8 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

@Bregir @Phred @Legostone

What is the proper procedure to transfer property ownership (and yield) from a player to a colony or faction?  Between my brother and I, we have nine properties we want to pass over to Charlatan Bay in order to help keep it afloat financially (because the new rules essentially bankrupted it overnight).

Not complaining about the rule changes btw - us Sea Rats are just scrambling to come up with ways to make sure forts are paid for.

I think Legostone and/or Genaro and/or prhed can help you, so if you send a lcommon pm to them, I am sure they will be obliging.

[Maxim I]

13 hours ago, Drunknok said:

16 points of residences are required for a "Large City" - that is eight builds of medium size. I know you are exaggerating, but even assuming small residences, you only ever would need 50 way beyond "Grand City" (you would need 64 points - not individual properties - for "Capital City" only).

Really a non-issue for any settlement so far.

 

Also - and I am strictly playing devils advocate here - what would be the big issue with 50 different houses? Assume that each house has surroundings, walls, decorative elements and a roof. You can hardly get more basic than that. Further assume three colour options for each category, not much by any stretch of the imagination either.

You end up with 3*3*3*3=81 different combinations. All of that is before taking into account different types of architecture and whatnot.

I am not sure a Large City would only need 8 medium residences and that's it. I don't see people sleeping in factories or educational buildings, neither in art & cultural buildings, so that would mean, that if a city has 8 medium residences, 8 medium commercial buildings and 8 medium artisans, and let's say that a medium property gives 4 people a bed, a large city would have 116 citizens.

I don't think the numbers for parity should increase, but please keep one of the more realistic parts of the game: the natural growth.

Trador (city status) has 71 residences right now, which is already much more realistic than if only player built residences would count (which would be 1 palace, 1 mayor's office and 1 small residence).

Another point in this discussion is simply the fact that residences are not interesting in the EGS. They yield almost nothing. I just lost 600 db's each MRCA turn, so I want to keep focused on interesting properties. I know I am filthy rich right now, but I am pretty sure that once wars are possible, that amount will be gone before I even noticed. (considering the upkeep costs of some class 6+ vessels, the upkeep of troops, upkeep of forts, lowered MRCA income due more piracy, lowered income in general,  ... ).

Yes I am the same guy that says I don't mind if I have to pay 2700 db's more for a palace, because that's a one time thing. If I have to licence 3 residences every turn, that's no prestige and it makes it difficult to licence more interesting stuff (as there is a 3 property licence limit each turn)

As an example: why residences are not popular: even Oleon prefers to licence a royal palace as an art & culture instead of a residence (which it clearly is).

Let's be honest, if a settlement wants to pay for the upkeep of its 2 medium fortresses, you would prefer to build 13 large properties over 40 large residences

Edited January 15, 2019 by Maxim I

[Flavius Gratian]

Oh my, many interesting discussions!

I think these changes are overall very good! At the moment I have two points, though:

1. The fact that royal palaces still only cost 300db undermines the intended purpose of the royal properity requirements for increasing settlement size. This should be solved either by increasing the price or excluding them from counting towards the settlement limit.

2. I think money earned in raids should come from the settlement account rather than the faction account, as that is more realistic and makes it more of a game for the mayors if they are the ones paying the costs.

[Maxim I]

29 minutes ago, Flavius Gratian said:

2. I think money earned in raids should come from the settlement account rather than the faction account, as that is more realistic and makes it more of a game for the mayors if they are the ones paying the costs.

If the mayor transfer every month all his belongings to an official bankaccount, it would be a silly raid

The only way this would work is if money transferring is really happening by transportation, but it would need an extra well-advanced spreadsheet to keep track which part of the money of an account can be found where. Theoretically seen, it makes no sense that I can spent the money earned in Breshaun in Trador for example, without that money reaching Trador. I proposed a game mechanic for this a while ago, but it would make the game very complicated...

[Flavius Gratian]

I'm not sure I see the problem. Obviously, it would not be allowed to game the system.

If formal rules are required you could cap the amount of money settlements can transfer, or prevent it entirely if the settlement isn't getting anything in return. Also, if the mayor were to move all the money out from the account the settlement wouldn't be able to pay for it's expenses, which are now increasing.

[Maxim I]

Not sure if I follow you on this one then.

Do you mean that raiding should come from the pocket of the mayors or just the account of the settlement?

Some settlements have almost no income, only expenses, so there is nothing to raid there from now.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Maxim I

[Bregir]

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

Trador (city status) has 71 residences right now, which is already much more realistic than if only player built residences would count (which would be 1 palace, 1 mayor's office and 1 small residence). 

That only a certain number counts for the EGS is not the same as saying that there are not residences for all residents. You are the one saying our player built additions are only part of a whole, so why do you insist on a literal reading in this specific spot? ;)

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

As an example: why residences are not popular: even Oleon prefers to licence a royal palace as an art & culture instead of a residence (which it clearly is). 

The court made a ruling here. Bringing it up again is pointless, so please refrain from this.

43 minutes ago, Flavius Gratian said:

1. The fact that royal palaces still only cost 300db undermines the intended purpose of the royal properity requirements for increasing settlement size. This should be solved either by increasing the price or excluding them from counting towards the settlement limit. 

Good point. I tend to agree, and will suggest we raise the price somewhat (although probably not to full Royal price).

44 minutes ago, Flavius Gratian said:

2. I think money earned in raids should come from the settlement account rather than the faction account, as that is more realistic and makes it more of a game for the mayors if they are the ones paying the costs. 

Hmm, to me it is all the same, but you do have a point.

 

6 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

If the mayor transfer every month all his belongings to an official bankaccount, it would be a silly raid

Not if raid value is determined by for instance trade value, and not by how much is in the account.

[Flavius Gratian]

Just now, Maxim I said:

Not sure if I follow you on this one then.

Do you mean that raiding should come from the pocket of the mayors or just the account of the settlement?

Some settlements have almost no income, only expenses, so there is nothing to raid there from now.

The the account of the settlement. I havn't actually looked at the accounts, just assumed that they would have some money. If they only have enough to meet expenditure then it's not practically feasable, though it would be interesting if a successful raid one turn limits the ability to maintain upkeep of forts the next, and so on until the settlement is ruined and there's not point in raiding it.

[Maxim I]

Just now, Bregir said:

Not if raid value is determined by for instance trade value, and not by how much is in the account.

But then money comes out of thin air again if you don't get the money from the faction's account?

Just now, Flavius Gratian said:

The the account of the settlement. I havn't actually looked at the accounts, just assumed that they would have some money. If they only have enough to meet expenditure then it's not practically feasable, though it would be interesting if a successful raid one turn limits the ability to maintain upkeep of forts the next, and so on until the settlement is ruined and there's not point in raiding it.

 

To point out what I mean: only Corrington and a few Eslandolan settlements have an income. The highest income in a settlement is 100 db's (Mesabi Landing). This is a medium fort, no extra troops or vessels licenced by the settlement. So a smart mayor makes their expenses the same as their income (or higher) and reduces the money in the settlements account. And every turn, the mayor makes sure the settlement will not be bankrupt by feeding the settlements coffer (transfer).

I think within 3 MRCA turns, there is no money left in most settlements to raid.

[Flavius Gratian]

Just now, Maxim I said:

But then money comes out of thin air again if you don't get the money from the faction's account?

I may have misunderstood how settlements and factions earn money, I assumed that both had to do it through in-game means and just get it out of thin air