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

[Bregir]

3 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

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

No money will come out of thin air.

Example:

Trador may have a trade value of 200, and a raid may be calculated to loot 150 of these. In your accounts is 0, which is then brought down to -150.

The question is then who is to cover it, because in BoBs, an account is not allowed to be negative. Either the expenses must be cut, or someone has to pay the difference. By the rules, we may decide this is to be paid by the faction if not covered elsewhere, but internally, the faction may well decide to require the mayor to cover it, for not protecting the settlement properly, for instance.

8 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

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

You are assuming we design the rules so they can be gamed. We will do our best to avoid this, and anyone found to be acting against the spirit of the rules will be politely (at first ;) ) asked to correct their behaviour.

All of this is still being developed, but what I have outlined above seems a very obvious way to avoid the sort of manipulation you are suggesting.

[Bart]

Maxim has a point, I never realised most settlements aren't self supporting financially. I did make Poppy Port have a nice yield of 90db/mcra to self support. but apparantly i'm one of the very few who did that.

So other Mayors deposite doubloons in their settlement account each turn to pay for troops/fortresses ?

I agree with Flavius tho, raid prize should come out of settlement accounts, but not based on settlement account, based on Trade value would be a good alternative. if there is no doubloon in a settlement account, the account sheet should just show negative, and then it is up to the player (mayor) to deposite enough doubloons again to pay for the next round of troop en fortress costs.

*there was a rule btw you werent aloud to spend more then 50% of what was in the treasure chest of a settlement. 

[Bregir]

Just now, Bart said:

*there was a rule btw you werent aloud to spend more then 50% of what was in the treasure chest of a settlement.

This is old hat :)

What is in a settlement account can be spent by the settlement controller (mayor), but any negative balance will have to be covered, as you say.

 

[Bart]

Just now, Bregir said:

The question is then who is to cover it, because in BoBs, an account is not allowed to be negative.

are you sure?

Acropolis, Jan van Sud, The Dragon and, Zubilus von Wreck are all in the negative at the moment, and I've seen several others in the negative before. 

*when you make the factions pay this negative balance, the players won't feel the settlement  they own is raided. it's like paying it for them. 

Just now, Bregir said:

This is old hat :)

What is in a settlement account can be spent by the settlement controller (mayor), but any negative balance will have to be covered, as you say.

 

if it is old, then I suggest to update the By Land page as soon as possible. 

[Bregir]

8 minutes ago, Bart said:

Acropolis, Jan van Sud, The Dragon and, Zubilus von Wreck

Where is Uncle when you need him? :O

(We will look into it)

9 minutes ago, Bart said:

if it is old, then I suggest to update the By Land page as soon as possible. 

As in when we have implemented the new rules under construction, but yes, you are right. :)

[gedren_y]

I have an idea of how to fix this settlement account issue, but I don't know if the EGS automation can do it. The last entry in the Build Submittal Form is that of location. Could it be set so that the settlement listed also receives some small amount of DBs when a build is registered? This would give settlements some capital to license properties, and ships, to generate income to cover upkeep costs.

[Kai NRG]

24 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Where is Uncle when you need him? :O

The awful thing is that Uncle (or at least someone in the clan...) knew this and hasn't found time to do anything... 

[Maxim I]

Well, then I pity the mayor of everything above large settlements.

for example.

Nova Terelli

Trade value: 817

Income: 51 db's/turn
Expenses: at least 600 db's/turn for the royal fortress + some for troop upkeep + some for licencing vessels (large city, so that's probably more than 300 db's a month upkeep).

Or myself:

Trador:

Trade Value: 403

Income: 4
Expenses: troops: 1x Battalion (54 db's) + 150 db's fort upkeep + 1 class 7 vessel (75 db's). So I have to pay already around 300 db's a turn for maintaining the city, and if I am raided (loot 300 db's), I have to pay this as well. It does not take that big of a naval force to raid Trador...

I am working on upgrading the city to Large City, but that would mean more expenses and more trade value (aka more to pay after every succesfull raid)...

Edited January 15, 2019 by Maxim I

[Bart]

2 minutes ago, gedren_y said:

I have an idea of how to fix this settlement account issue, but I don't know if the EGS automation can do it. The last entry in the Build Submittal Form is that of location. Could it be set so that the settlement listed also receives some small amount of DBs when a build is registered? This would give settlements some capital to license properties, and ships, to generate income to cover upkeep costs.

To me that is a bit huh? 

Because it is very easy to license something in the settlements name, and have them get the full yield. and if the settlement is yielding more then upkeeping and you as the owner (mayor) need that doubloons for something, you can just transfer the surplus to your own account.

Just now, Maxim I said:

Well, then I pity the mayor of everything above large settlements.

for example.

Nova Terelli

Trade value: 817

Income: 51 db's/turn
Expenses: at least 600 db's/turn for the royal fortress + some for troop upkeep + some for licencing vessels (large city, so that's probably more than 300 db's a month upkeep).

Or myself:

Trador:

Trade Value: 403

Income: 4
Expenses: troops: 1x Battalion (54 db's) + 150 db's fort upkeep + 1 class 7 vessel (75 db's). So I have to pay already around 300 db's a turn for maintaining the city, and if I am raided (loot 300 db's), I have to pay this as well. It does not take that big of a naval force to raid Trador...

I am working on upgrading the city to Large City, but that would mean more expenses and more trade value (aka more to pay after every succesfull raid)...

Well that is the risk in starting your own settlement, and for me the fun. 
You could try to cover the cost with taxes :)
It also brings a lot of prestige.

For the ships, you had to pay that anyway if they where settlement or personally owned, so those cost didnt' change.
Why didn't you invest in settelement owned properties to generate income before then? now you basically created your own money sink. 

*Poppy Port will stay tax free, just saying* 

[Kai NRG]

1 minute ago, Maxim I said:

I am working on upgrading the city to Large City, but that would mean more expenses and more trade value (aka more to pay after every succesfull raid)...

Hopefully your expenses would significantly reduce the chances of a successful raid.  And at the moment, factions by default subsidize raided settlements (although factions evidently can handle that internally).

As Bart says, if you don't want to use your own DBs for Trador, then the best option is to acquire license in the city's name and make it self-sustaining, to the point of paying expenses at least, if not leaving sufficient for a raid also.

[Bregir]

@Maxim I Both Maestro and yourself have around 20.000 sitting in your accounts. I think you will be ok.

[Capt Wolf]

1 hour ago, Bart said:

Jan van Sud, The Dragon and, Zubilus von Wreck are all in the negative at the moment

Because there have been problems getting MRCA income into the NPC pirate accounts when it's supposed to.

---

Here's an idea I'll just throw out there: reduce all property yields (after final calculations for bonuses and such) by 1 DB per property size value (i.e., 1 DB for a small, 2 DB for a medium, 3 for a large), and that 1-3 DB for each property in a settlement goes to the settlement's account. For example, this would give a large town a minimum income of 31 DBs per turn, but no money is created out of thin air, and settlements get an income based on their size.  No muss, no fuss.

 

[Maxim I]

8 minutes ago, Bregir said:

@Maxim I Both Maestro and yourself have around 20.000 sitting in your accounts. I think you will be ok.

That's just the point I got enough db's, but I am sure there will be others who have less db's, but are in the same position. As said above, no settlement has more than 100 db's income, so atm, every settlement is a loss for its owner.

The reason I never licenced in name of Trador and I'll probably won't do it very quickly is very simple. As Bart said, I see settlements as the extended bank account of its mayors, so kinda pointless... If Trador has debts, I'll pay for it, simple comme bonjours.

In the end it is all the same. Licencing under a settlements name, TC name, player name... As long as I can transfer my money right away to another entity, I don't see a problem who licences what. A huge part of MAESTRO's property income is because of MOC's I made.

Oleon has no income in their settlements. Building up an income to pay for upkeep, would take them probably 1 year (a medium and small fort is alrady 150 db's upkeep, which is 10 large properties. To do this for all their settlements, they would need probably around 100 large properties at least. Divided by 5 active builders, that's 20 large properties/builder. Only 3 licenced every turn + some projects for the builders theirself... Numbers are quickly, I admit, but I hope you get my point)

[gedren_y]

37 minutes ago, Bart said:

To me that is a bit huh? 

Because it is very easy to license something in the settlements name, and have them get the full yield. and if the settlement is yielding more then upkeeping and you as the owner (mayor) need that doubloons for something, you can just transfer the surplus to your own account.

Licenses cost, and since mayors no longer receive a stipend, all that cost would fall on the players managing those accounts. I'm just suggesting that a small amount (2-3 DBs) go to the settlements accounts when a build is registered for that location to help defray operating costs. 

[Captain Dee]

.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Captain Dee

[Bregir]

25 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

Oleon has no income in their settlements. Building up an income to pay for upkeep, would take them probably 1 year (a medium and small fort is alrady 150 db's upkeep, which is 10 large properties. To do this for all their settlements, they would need probably around 100 large properties at least. Divided by 5 active builders, that's 20 large properties/builder. Only 3 licenced every turn + some projects for the builders theirself... Numbers are quickly, I admit, but I hope you get my point)

25 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

In the end it is all the same. Licencing under a settlements name, TC name, player name... As long as I can transfer my money right away to another entity, I don't see a problem who licences what

On the other hand, Oleon is the richest faction and have the highest income. And as you say, it is all the same. The courts mission is to make money in-game at least somewhat relevant again.

It may be a problem for the sea rats, who have historically been making less money, but hopefully more expensive forts (and hence less) with more profitable raiding, and some of the new adjustments we have in terms of piracy will help balance this out, but we haven't yet seen the full effects of this.

13 minutes ago, Captain Dee said:

where and how does this changing & tweaking of rules ever end?

The court needs to stay relevant! Protect our "jobs"! ;)

But to your question, probably never.

[Kai NRG]

23 minutes ago, Capt Wolf said:

Here's an idea I'll just throw out there: reduce all property yields (after final calculations for bonuses and such) by 1 DB per property size value (i.e., 1 DB for a small, 2 DB for a medium, 3 for a large), and that 1-3 DB for each property in a settlement goes to the settlement's account. For example, this would give a large town a minimum income of 31 DBs per turn, but no money is created out of thin air, and settlements get an income based on their size.  No muss, no fuss.

Personally I like this idea because I think it's way more realistic than having settlements/governments own property that makes as much money as privately owned property.

10 minutes ago, Captain Dee said:

All the doubloons in the game have came "from thin air" and not actual resources, so... where and how does this changing & tweaking of rules ever end?

  Of course DBs are always going to be meaningless in an ultimate instance.  But it's like a board game such as Monopoly, which requires time, experience, and creativity to tweak the rules and end up with something that creates, if you will, an illusion of meaningfulness which in its turn affords a funner playing experience.  BOBS is also on this road and there may after all be an end in sight.  There is a balance somewhere between land and sea property rewards, for instance, and a balance to keep in mind in introducing war mechanisms (which in part these new rules prepare for), etc.

Just now, Bregir said:

It may be a problem for the sea rats, who have historically been making less money, but hopefully more expensive forts (and hence less) with more profitable raiding, and some of the new adjustments we have in terms of piracy will help balance this out, but we haven't yet seen the full effects of this.

That's a hugely interesting point and something that may have been overlooked initially in trying to balance the game.  Why should Sea Rats be economically solvent without their raiding activities?  If they can counteract their economic disadvantages by raiding (in which they may/should have advantages), personally I think that brings the faction image closer to what it's supposed to be.

[Bart]

still baffled I'm apparently the only one who consciously made the my settlement financially independent. 

raiding has until now been a very limited and scary event.
it's actually funny people are worried about the cost of raiding, as under the current rules, no settlement has been raided.
The risk of loosing your ship and retaliation on your other ship(s) and fellow searats has put people off I dare to say.

and on those who are now faced with high settlement costs, but have a decent personal income, you may want to look into changing owner ship of some of your builds in that settlement. saves you the trouble of transering doubloons all the time. 

 

[Maxim I]

7 minutes ago, Bregir said:

On the other hand, Oleon is the richest faction and have the highest income. And as you say, it is all the same. The courts mission is to make money in-game at least somewhat relevant again.

It may be a problem for the sea rats, who have historically been making less money, but hopefully more expensive forts (and hence less) with more profitable raiding, and some of the new adjustments we have in terms of piracy will help balance this out, but we haven't yet seen the full effects of this.

The court needs to stay relevant! Protect our "jobs"! ;)

But to your question, probably never.

That is absolutely true about Oleon

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of not automatically generating money out of thin air each month for settlements (the town banks). And the increased upkeep for everything.

I am just not a fan of the losses by raiding coming out of someone's pockets. A part of it, maybe yes, but not everything. I am pretty sure that if someone raids a village, they raid everything, not only the house of the mayor Raiding is a part of the gameplay, just like trading. So it makes sense that a part of the loot comes out of thin air, just like revenues from TMRCA are coming out of thin air.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Maxim I

[gedren_y]

This is why I think settlements should get a one time small amount for each build registered at their location. The amount should be smaller than the builder gets for registering, but with all the collective building we do it could go a long way to providing for the economic basis for raids.

[Captain Dee]

.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Captain Dee

[Capt Wolf]

30 minutes ago, Bart said:

still baffled I'm apparently the only one who consciously made the my settlement financially independent.

You're not the only one.    I'll have to make some adjustments for the new fort expenditures, but Weelond has a nice little income beyond the town bank to cover ship and troop expenses.

[MKJoshA]

On 1/13/2019 at 7:33 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. Here is a full list of the adjustments:

'Royal' / Great Properties

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. 

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.

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

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)

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

Forts and Troops.

1. The faction starting forts now require upkeep to be paid. (ES = 4 large and 1 royal, OL = 4 large, COR = 2 large, SR = 2 large)

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.

Other

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

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.

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

As some of these changes will require substantial modification of the accounts system, they may take some time to implement - changes will not be instantaneous!  The goal is to have them fully implemented before the next MRCA turn.

  Reveal hidden contents

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.

- Arlinsport (needs x1 Royal)

- Mesabi Landing (needs x2 Royals)

- Weelond (needs x1 Royal)

- Charlatan Bay (needs x1 Royal)

 

Wow. I have no desire to play (even in a small way) anymore. Too many rules. Too many rule changes. Every effort seems to be made to make it harder to earn DBs and harder to understand how to earn them. MCRAs only happen 4-5 times a year. To get no property DBs because the leadership in charge of the MCRA goes missing, links to forms are lost, or other RL delays is a harsh punishment. And on top of that you want everyone to pay an arm and a leg for forts. Fewer DBs, more expenses, and more rule changes = not a lot of fun.

My opinions on the many changes in BoBS is well documented. But this is the nail in the coffin. I hope some consideration is made regarding my comments. I can't threaten to leave, because that's exactly what many in leadership want: fewer pirates. But what desire I had to see where BoBS goes is almost nil.

Thank you to everyone who has honestly wanted to make this game a success and has worked hard to do so. Somewhere during this journey the way was lost. I doubt BoBS will ever find it again.

[Darnok]

2 hours ago, Maxim I said:

Well, then I pity the mayor of everything above large settlements.

Why though? Licensing properties for a settlement is not exactly rocket science. Planning ahead and covering expenses by proper means of income is part of the mayors "job".

2 hours ago, Maxim I said:

for example.

Nova Terelli

Trade value: 817

Income: 51 db's/turn
Expenses: at least 600 db's/turn for the royal fortress + some for troop upkeep + some for licencing vessels (large city, so that's probably more than 300 db's a month upkeep).

Or myself:

Trador:

Trade Value: 403

Income: 4
Expenses: troops: 1x Battalion (54 db's) + 150 db's fort upkeep + 1 class 7 vessel (75 db's). So I have to pay already around 300 db's a turn for maintaining the city, and if I am raided (loot 300 db's), I have to pay this as well. It does not take that big of a naval force to raid Trador...

I am working on upgrading the city to Large City, but that would mean more expenses and more trade value (aka more to pay after every succesfull raid)...

You completely ignore that you have nothing to pay when you do not get raided.

 

1 hour ago, Capt Wolf said:

Here's an idea I'll just throw out there: reduce all property yields (after final calculations for bonuses and such) by 1 DB per property size value (i.e., 1 DB for a small, 2 DB for a medium, 3 for a large), and that 1-3 DB for each property in a settlement goes to the settlement's account. For example, this would give a large town a minimum income of 31 DBs per turn, but no money is created out of thin air, and settlements get an income based on their size.  No muss, no fuss.

Why complicate things? Settlements can earn income from properties, players just have to license things accordingly and plan for necessary expenses.

Taking even more away from the already abysmal low land income is a step in the wrong direction.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Dee said:

The economic game looks more and more like Whack-a-mole to me (and I'm not even playing.)

Identify imbalance. Tweak rules to correct it. Repeat...

Well, problems are addressed, which is something positive. And every change will bring new poblems, that is just the way compley systems are.

The biggest problem - and one which seems to be on nobodies screen - is that BotBS has only a very minimal midgame and no endgame at all. After a certain point all you can achieve is a higher bank account, with nothing meaningful to spend it on.

 

56 minutes ago, Bart said:

still baffled I'm apparently the only one who consciously made the my settlement financially independent.

Nah, Mesabi Landing also has had a solid income for a while (which will see significant expansion once we can license again in May).

I think what some people are upset about are expenses they never had to plan for, i.e. the previously free "faction forts". The large and royal ones cost serious money now, an unforeseen change that came over night.

 

[LM71Blackbird]

Just now, Drunknok said:

Nah, Mesabi Landing also has had a solid income for a while (which will see significant expansion once we can license again in May).

Just checked out of curiosity... and actually, Quinnsville beats out all the settlements (even Mesabi Landing) on monthly income with 99dbs a month!