Kings Port Advertiser and Ship List (Vol 3, Issue 2) February-March 618

[Bart]

Please let this not turn in to a man hunt for KB, let's just use the situation as an example shall we.
It wouldn't surprise me if there are other ships around too without an active guide so to say.

I'm all in favour of having a discussion about the subject, to improve the game and world of bobs. 

23 minutes ago, Bregir said:

We most definitely do not need more paperwork.

Agreed

[Bregir]

23 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

can explain how and why his ships are sailing around without him being around.

Do you understand that there are currently no guidelines in this regard? Hence, there is nothing to explain.

And as Bart says, don't make this personal against anyone. Make it a discussion as to what the guidelines should be.

25 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

There is nothing I can say politely about this opinion

Seems to happen more often than not with you. Perhaps you should strive to change this?

26 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Obviously there is a problem, what do you think this is discussion is about?

26 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

 

I maintain that I do not think that people will go against a set of guidelines for this set down by BoBs leadership as a result of this discussion. Since there are currently no guidelines, no one can have trespassed against them.

Hence, it is guidelines we need, not policing.

If players in BoBs knowingly goes against the spirit and/or rules of the game, it is leadership's duty to step in. And if a warning is not enough, I suppose exclusion will be the ultimate consequence.

I expect people to play by the spirit and letter of the rules of BoBs, and not doing so should disqualify participation.

[Maxim I]

@Bart: don't worry, I am not talking about blocking or freezing one's account. I am just talking about having the vessels be anchored for the time being inactive.

Talking about land properties: KBB receives a very nice sum every month (property income), so even without vessels he should be very lucky when returning to BOBS.

It is not a manhunt for KBB. But our leaders should recall a discussion from May 2017 where I adressed exactly the same Oleon behaviour...

Seriously, we are almost one year later and nothing changed...

If there are no steps taken, I'll really start gaming the whole EGS system. Just to screw with it. I am really pissed that all my advice is being laughed away by some leadership members (Bregir...)...

If this was correctly adressed last year, this would not be a problem now...

As said earlier, some stuff is overly protected (ship classes, which is a good thing), but then stuff like this still can happen. Rules about Royal properties are a lot more strict nowadays, but still people can use other players accounts to earn more...

The rule can be very simple: Just make sure you comment (or sign in) at least once a month in the BOBS forum... Or make a statement that you will be away for x months and after those x months, your vessels will stay anchored...

 

Again the same example:

If I use Titus his account for 4 war vessels, it would spare me a lot of db's upkeep (as I would have 8 vessels otherwise instead of 4). I can call it "an agreement where I pay Titus a sum for his services, equal to double his lost upkeep". For me it still is cheaper then having those 4 vessels in my account. ====> This is gaming the system!!! Just like making any other vessel of an inactive player be part of your fleet...

 

[Bregir]

20 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

I am really pissed that all my advice is being laughed away by some leadership members (Bregir...)...

Nothing is being laughed away. I am sorry if that is the impression. In fact, what I am trying to say here is that discussing what such guidelines should be is the proper way to go.

No guidelines have been set, because there have been no consensus (just as there was no consensus in the past). One person suggesting something does not legitimise it as general BoBS policy. A proper discussion is necessary, as this is a sensitive issue.

I am in no position to set these guidelines on my own, and have no wish to do so. Further, I am ever so slightly insulted if the absence of such guidelines should be construed as my personal short-coming. You cannot expect leadership to pick up on everything discussed in the forums, and you cannot pin it on any one member.

In this thread, some valid points for both sides have been presented, and I personally hope that this time, a set of guidelines can be agreed upon to be reviewed and confirmed by leadership. And please keep it general and refrain from any more individual names. If anything, we need general rules and examples, not a witchhunt.

• What should be the rules for use of vessels?
• Who can assign orders to vessels?
• Do we set a minimal requirement for activity?
• How about trade company and faction vessels? Are they affected?
• Is it enough to sign in or do you need to actively ask someone to fill in your forms every month it is relevant? Or do you have to sign up yourself?
• How restrictive does it have to be? What is the real "issue" we are trying to solve?
• AoB?

Personally, I do not like the idea of factions actively orchestrating the running of ships of inactive players (and have said as much in Corrington's trade pm), but I see no reason in someone with limited time asking a faction buddy to run his ships for a few months. In between those two cases are a lot of grey zones, and I do not think we should be too restrictive. Further, more moc'ed ships at sea means more options for exciting MRCA's. There is also the question of balance between the factions. While an inactive Eslandian may have little impact on faction performance due to the size of the faction, a single inactive player in a smaller faction may prove decisive.

I do not know the exact answers. What I do know is that we should identify a common set of ethical guidelines so to speak, so that people knows what is the correct behaviour.

27 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

If there are no steps taken, I'll really start gaming the whole EGS system. Just to screw with it.

Please refrain from these sort of threats. It in no way encourages constructive debate.

[gedren_y]

I have no problem with someone asking another player to run purely trading missions when they are unavailable to do so. This sort of arrangement should be made public knowledge, so as not to create confusion or animosity. It would be best to have someone of your own faction, if possible, manage the ships so as to have access to the faction convoys. Losing ships in the MRCA is always a risk, so the parties involved should discuss the amount of activity expected to take place.

[Roadmonkeytj]

There is a lot of back and forth here so let me ask this  ... As i dont know how the coding ect eould work ... Is there a way to set the Doc's to be able to ping your last active date on eb and flag the file for review?  This would solve the issue if your not active within the past 31 days it flags then leadership can hold those orders.  Simple rule for going forward.  Ships can not be active 31 days after your last active date.  

If we keep the current turn schedule it shouldnt be an issue.  However trade company ships should be allowed as they can be handled by any representative of the company.

 

Properties should keep collecting.  I would say 365 days could be a limit on that normally your absence wouldnt be longer ... Not saying delete just a hold on earnings with any sign in restarting these counts (not needing posts or more paperwork)

Thoughts?

[Bregir]

Roadmonkey:

Let's not make this a discussion about how to police it. First we need to figure out what the rules should be, and that should not be governed by what is easier to police, but instead by what is right.

I am of the firm belief that people will follow the rules.

Take away from your post is that you think players must have been logged in within a month, right?

Gedren:

Am I right in understanding correctly that you suggest only trading missions should be allowed? (No offensive manoeuvres or escort duty?)

[gedren_y]

3 hours ago, Bregir said:

Gedren:

Am I right in understanding correctly that you suggest only trading missions should be allowed? (No offensive manoeuvres or escort duty?)

Correct.

Offensive measures are inherently more risky, especially when someone is unavailable to post MOCs for new ships, recovery, or sistershipping. Both are too much like gaming the system. The majority of the benefit goes to other players. Should the missing player's ship capture a non-MOCed ship, that ship is effectively removed from the game, because the player cannot set up their own auction. Creating, in effect, a phantom seller would be going too far. It would be best to avoid the situation.

[Bart]

18 hours ago, Bregir said:

• What should be the rules for use of vessels?
• Who can assign orders to vessels?
• Do we set a minimal requirement for activity?
• How about trade company and faction vessels? Are they affected?
• Is it enough to sign in or do you need to actively ask someone to fill in your forms every month it is relevant? Or do you have to sign up yourself?
• How restrictive does it have to be? What is the real "issue" we are trying to solve?
• AoB?

I've been thinking:

Why not view it as this: 
When the owner (EB member/player of bobs) of a ship isn't present, that is sort of the same as the captain is a sleep in his cabin and cannot be woken up. The first mate is capable of handling trade on his own (that is his job anyway) But for a battle he would need the Captain present.

Gamewise that would work as followes:

• Ships are allowed to trade as they please (sent around by other players)
• Not allowed to activity seek battle
• In case a ship is attacked they have a *% deduction on their change of winning (because the captain is sleeping) *My mind says 30% but that is based on nothing.

I do agree with @Bregir that I also believe the players of BoBS are honest in the basis.

So I propose a thread to be started where players themselves can announce that they are inactive for a while and player X is managing their ship. or that their ships are anchored for the time being. This does mean that we have to trust each other, sudden inactivity due to off EB reasons isn't tackled this way. I don't know how to solve that.

As to whom can assign orders to vessels, only the owner or a representative assigned in above mentioned thread.

Trade company ships, TC's are managed by EB members aren't they? So the same applies as above.
Faction ships. as long as there is one member of a faction active, there is someone to control the ships, in my view.

It doesn't have to be really restrictive, in my opinion. I propose to give the players a thread to announce as above to make things clear and honest. and to give the game masters a handle in the rules to use in case of abuse of the system.

I don't know how to answer the other bullit points

(instead of the regular C&C appreciated lets say:) Discussion encouraged.

Bart

[Kai NRG]

It seems to me like we would benefit from more transparency on this issue.  I agree with Bregir in thinking that our players are honest, but prevention is surely better than cure and it certainly wouldn't be hard at all for someone to claim that an inactive member had given him/her permission to use his/her ships, even if the inactive member had never hinted such a thing.  And transparency would be very easy to secure if people could just state in the MCRA thread, "So-and-so, would you please manage my ships this month?  We'll arrange details in a PM."  Or even, "So-and-so, please manage my ships for the next X months."  There's absolutely no need to police this, but it would always be there in case someone suddenly wondered why an inactive member's ships kept sailing - all the curious one would have to do would be to check up on the MRCA thread that antedates the last activity of the inactive member.  Supposing that could not be discovered, it could be brought to leaderships attention.  Possibly the player managing the ships could point out an overlooked post, or if necessary the inactive player's ships could be held out of the MRCA.

The "rule" then would be: publicly state in the latest MRCA thread who it is you are asking to use your ships and for how long.  The more specific you can be as to how they are allowed to use them (trade run, escort, etc.) the better.

Previous exceptions can be grandfathered in I suppose.  I don't know how many there are, but KB at least will surely be back soon enough and able to take care of his ships again.

I kind of like the sleeping captain idea, it makes a lot of sense and could be thrown in with my idea fairly easily I think (a plus of course!  ), but I don't know if we want to add yet another mechanism to the MRCA.  It would be easy enough to add to the form though, and might prove a nice check on whether or not the player is submitting his/her own forms.  (I'd make for a funny kind of question though.  "Is this ship's captain sleeping?"  )

20 hours ago, Bregir said:

• What should be the rules for use of vessels?
• Who can assign orders to vessels?
• Do we set a minimal requirement for activity?
• How about trade company and faction vessels? Are they affected?
• Is it enough to sign in or do you need to actively ask someone to fill in your forms every month it is relevant? Or do you have to sign up yourself?
• How restrictive does it have to be? What is the real "issue" we are trying to solve?

There's my answer to question 1 above.  I'm not sure what you mean by 2 exactly but I think my suggestion may address it (any BoBS member).

3: No.

4: No - unless every member of a TC becomes inactive, I guess...

5. Actively ask someone to fill in your forms for a specified length of time.  I also think that if the time is over 6 mo. it's a little ridiculous...

6. The real issue to me is, preventing people from using inactive player's ships so long and so much at their own discretion to the point where they basically have a second account.  Also, simply being able to verify that the inactive player really did ask someone to use their ships.

2 hours ago, Bart said:

...sudden inactivity due to off EB reasons isn't tackled this way. I don't know how to solve that.

Personally it seems to me that unless you've asked someone to use your ships they should not be used.  So if you have a sudden inactivity streak, so sudden that you don't even have time to ask anyone to use your ships, then they shouldn't be used.  If you don't even have time for EB, I doubt you'll be having time to worry about whether or not your imaginary ships are making money.

[Roadmonkeytj]

A month or two strictly for the mrca figure you would have to get on to check results of last and submit this months .... Or else if your ship sank or was captured you wouldnt know

[Kai NRG]

58 minutes ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

A month or two strictly for the mrca figure you would have to get on to check results of last and submit this months .... Or else if your ship sank or was captured you wouldnt know

If someone was managing your ships for you though that person would (or at least could) know, and could submit a new one.

[Roadmonkeytj]

1 hour ago, Kai NRG said:

If someone was managing your ships for you though that person would (or at least could) know, and could submit a new one.

Yes but here is the issues i derive from this.  Perfect example : the sea rats for the most part sail together we discuss it in our planning thread ... Now say Barts real life ships sat/radio com goes down it could be 3 mo depending where they are sailing if they get held in customs not allowed to dock via port (diplomatic reasons)  they dont have fuel to reach the next port so they are stuck.  To what advantage is it to keep sailing his ship(s) around with the fleet other than once he returns his ship wont be stranded in a port three turns away from the rest of the fleet?  .... The way i see it is if a ship is to be "handled" by another entity it should be restricted to trade companies (as the success/failure) depends on ships sailing.  A personally registered ship should not be handled by anyone else.  Now there may be some exceptions to this rule (ie: my laptop is broke wont be repaired for two months) but even that I challenge as in this day and age 99% of people have smart phones ... Its a real pita sometimes on the phone but its doable (all ive ever accessed eb with).  So whats stoping me for example using kurigan's ships claiming i had a off eb convo with him and hes ok with it ... Yes he amasses the dbs but what gain is it for me? Free protection? It would be no different than if you started a second login ... While theres nothing to stop you its backhanded and unfair for those playing by the "rules"

 

I see it if two months go by thats 2 turns ... You may have already said where you want to sail with your faction so the form gets submitted but by the next turn if you havent logged in and somehow contacted leadership then it should be left in the last port ... Or assigned by leadership to sail to a friendly port in the even of outbreak of war

[Kwatchi]

All this talk of ‘taking advantage’ and ‘gaming the system’ had me curious if there was a rule change I missed.

Nope; you still can’t win BoBS.

Having the most dbs means diddly-squat.  There is no EGS champion’s trophy.  The object of the whole thing is to have fun with your bricks.

I honestly don’t care if you sail your dear departed grandma’s (god rest her soul) MOC of Roman galleon, manned by 200 hundred sweaty tanned muscle-bound pleasure slaves, that she built in 1986.  Whatever turns your crank.  It really doesn’t affect my game experience at all.

In my opinion, this whole discussion borders on the ridiculous.

[Darnok]

37 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

Having the most dbs means diddly-squat.

Both the WTC in general and myself in particular are more than happy for any donation from you.

[Mesabi]

2 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

Having the most dbs means diddly-squat.  There is no EGS champion’s trophy.  The object of the whole thing is to have fun with your bricks.,

Well obviously, but shouldn't there be some rule of law? Anyone can have fun with their bricks, but we have agreed to come together and have fun with our bricks, and we have created rules for it. Breaking said rules is bad form. And before @Bregir interjects, the rule was completely informal since it goes without saying that people shouldn't use other people's ships without permission! ESPECIALLY FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES

2 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

In my opinion, this whole discussion borders on the ridiculous.

Similar to the fact that Sea Rats and Corries aren't supposed to interact with each other because of some heated discussion 3 months ago? First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye. Matthew 7:5

Now, I would call on their being a new amendment to the rules requiring permission be posted somewhere if someone is allowing others to use someone else's ships. There could be a thread, or we could just PM our faction leaders. That would save on paperwork. 

But, I am not a leader of this game, I am a mere player. Just please clarify these rules for us. 

[pombe]

I have found Eurobricks to be an incredibly welcoming and encouraging community for AFOLs, and I would like it to stay that way.  Eurobricks very much embodies the LEGO ethos of "play well", and I am glad to have found it and become a member.

Regardless if a player is gone for one month or one decade, so long as BoBS is around, I would like the game to welcome that player back with open arms when s/he decides to return.  As for players gaming the system, Kwatchi has pointed out that BoBS, unlike a couple of the other EB rolebuilding games, has no actual win condition.

A player cannot win BoBS.

A faction cannot win BoBS.

If anything, BoBS is a huge international collaboration by AFOLs to create a fictional world.  We populate it with minifigure personalities, build settlements, and flesh out its history (and occasionally fill it with drama).  So if a player goes against the spirit of the game and the forum by creating several EB accounts and fills the BoBS world with more minifigures and more ships and more settlements and amasses an infinite amount of doubloons, I'm not sure I would have a problem with it, unless that player purposefully and deliberately ruins the game experience of another player.  I would just see it as someone who had a lot of time on their hands.

That said, I would just request that the game masters not add to the existing paperwork of the game.  Please.

And then, there's this, which I would like to see very much:

4 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

...your dear departed grandma’s (god rest her soul) MOC of Roman galleon, manned by 200 hundred sweaty tanned muscle-bound pleasure slaves, that she built in 1986...

Yes, please.

 

[Professor Thaum]

6 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

All this talk of ‘taking advantage’ and ‘gaming the system’ had me curious if there was a rule change I missed.

Nope; you still can’t win BoBS.

In my opinion, this whole discussion borders on the ridiculous.

I second Kwatchi and Pombe.

The gamemasters have enough to do with the current gaming options (and certainly IRL) to deal with childishness (I insist on the AFOL term, especially the A)

Afterall BoBs Dbs are virtual.

 

If any faction has enough dough to pay itself a mighty fleet of class 10 to roam the brick seas... no problem : please MOC it and let us have good time looking at the pics. 

It won't prevent me to MOC whatever I'm happy with !

[Maxim I]

It is kinda interesting to see the Sea Rats having no problem with it

I would be pissed if a "ghost"ship would capture/destroy my vessel... Because that is something that will happen as well that warships belonging to an inactive player will defend a tradefleet from hunters and capture the aggressor...

Without those ghosts, the hunter would have had a greater chance to capture the vessel.

Yes there are no winners in the world of BOBS. But a faction ruling the sea due their amount of Ghost ships is not encouraging for those who work very hard to maintain their fleet.

Once again, if it is just about populating the sea, then we all should do it... The Sea Rats can controll the vessels of their inactive members (Jacob Nion pops in my head), the Corries controll the amazing fleet of Tomsche (who will never come back), and the Eslandolans strengthen their fleet with the vessels of Captain Green Hair (just to name one member in every faction that is not active right now. Let's not forget there are a lot more than those).

But then I am pretty sure the Game Masters prefer a little more administration controlling the "Future Inactivity" topic then to handle 50+ more vessels in a MRCA...

And please don't get me wrong, the build vessels can always be seized/acquired/lent by the faction the inactive player is belonging to. It would be indeed a shame that those wonderfull vessels of KBB would get lost if he never returns (I really really hope he would return as I miss his amazing work).

---

So or we apply rules about ghost shipping or we allow and encourage everyone to manage the accounts of inactive members...

[Professor Thaum]

8 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

I would be pissed if a "ghost"ship would capture/destroy my vessel...

GO !

[Bregir]

Leadership is discussing the case and will issue a policy, so that everyone knows what is allowed and what is not, making it clear and fair for all.

Please note that we will try to balance the arguments here, and that thus we cannot satisfy all preferences. However, there will be common rules for all, which should prevent any gaming of the system.

[Elostirion]

Just want to drop in that I - while I personally hardly care at all - can fully understand Maxim's point of view. The EGS is part of the game, and everyone can define for himself how he wants to play and where his focus lies. In ERA 1, I was all about that EGS, and put lots and lots of effort into gaining riches. That was all that mattered for me. EGS for myself, for Nova Terreli, even for Eslandola. I fully understand if people take economic success as a motivation to MOC, and as such I can fully understand the frustration that comes from other people "gaming" the EGS. And please do not use arguments that BoBS is not about the EGS, or that the EGS does not have "winners" - because for some people it does, and for some people it's a lot about the EGS, and that is just as fine as those who ignore it.

However I also do think that to some degree helping each other out with the paperwork is absolutely fine. If I build a MOC for a group of people to share the license and the earnings, do I really have to be the only one who may transfer the money to the other accounts (because that is what this would ultimately lead to).

Also I do like an active BoBS with many ships sailing the Brick Seas. If that comes at the cost of someone managing an inactive player's account, I am fine with this. As long as people do not start setting up multi-accounts here, and as long as the gained money stays within this one account and does not go to e.g. the faction of said player, I do not have a problem.

 

Also there is no need to have too many rules. So I think a general policy from leadership will be perfectly fine here, and is what we should all accept.

[Flavius Gratian]

I agree with Kwatchi et al in that the concern about "gaming the system" seems strange to me. Dubloons aren't even the most valued currency in BoBS, but builds.

2 hours ago, Elostirion said:

And please do not use arguments that BoBS is not about the EGS, or that the EGS does not have "winners" - because for some people it does, and for some people it's a lot about the EGS, and that is just as fine as those who ignore it.

I feel that this also goes the other way around; why should players who don't care about EGS in that way be penalised? It's not affecting your struggle to earn your money.

Obviously a faction or player shouldn't be allowed to use an inactive player's ships without their permission, but I agree with Bregir that I find it unlikely that any player would intentionally break the rules.

Finally, however, I want to add that I assume that any player who decides to permanently quit BoBS would be allowed to transfer ownership and dubloons to their faction or other players so as not to lose all that content from the game. Given this, it seems strange and arbitrary to penalise players who are temporarily inactive due to life circumstances.

[gedren_y]

All I am asking for is consent of the inactive player, public notification, and reasonable limits on what can be done with the vessels. Fairness of the game is what we are trying to achieve.

I would concede that MRCA loss recovery would need to be managed by the controlling player, but that player should share in the recovery costs. If sistershipping should need to occur, the limits for such should apply to the inactive player's account. An inactive player's ship that gets captured should be sold back at regular licensing cost, with the managing player covering a reasonable percentage of the cost. Any licensable builds created for the recovery/sistershipping would go to the managing player.

In the reverse, a managing player should also share in the proceeds in the same percentage as the recovery cost for their efforts. This is a service being provided by the active player. The level of that proceeds/costs percentage could be worked out between the players, but should be included in the public announcement to keep everything above board.

Standard upkeep costs apply as normal.

[Bart]

17 hours ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

Yes but here is the issues i derive from this.  Perfect example : the sea rats for the most part sail together we discuss it in our planning thread ... Now say Barts real life ships sat/radio com goes down it could be 3 mo depending where they are sailing if they get held in customs not allowed to dock via port (diplomatic reasons)  they dont have fuel to reach the next port so they are stuck.  To what advantage is it to keep sailing his ship(s) around with the fleet other than once he returns his ship wont be stranded in a port three turns away from the rest of the fleet?  .... The way i see it is if a ship is to be "handled" by another entity it should be restricted to trade companies (as the success/failure) depends on ships sailing.  A personally registered ship should not be handled by anyone else.  Now there may be some exceptions to this rule (ie: my laptop is broke wont be repaired for two months) but even that I challenge as in this day and age 99% of people have smart phones ... Its a real pita sometimes on the phone but its doable (all ive ever accessed eb with).  So whats stoping me for example using kurigan's ships claiming i had a off eb convo with him and hes ok with it ... Yes he amasses the dbs but what gain is it for me? Free protection? It would be no different than if you started a second login ... While theres nothing to stop you its backhanded and unfair for those playing by the "rules"

 

I see it if two months go by thats 2 turns ... You may have already said where you want to sail with your faction so the form gets submitted but by the next turn if you havent logged in and somehow contacted leadership then it should be left in the last port ... Or assigned by leadership to sail to a friendly port in the even of outbreak of war

Well nice things you wish upon me. Although it was actually 4 months on my last ship after the satellite antenna broke before we could get it replaced. first had to go to a 'civilised' port to recieve one, and then figure out how to get it attop of the mast (man power, rope and pulley was the answer, but no time, so next port i.e. 3 weeks later) 

But to be honest it is of hardly any use to keep the ships going, other then get db's from trade. I would just spend a mcra turn to catch up with the fleet again from where i was stranded. 

13 hours ago, Mesabi said:

Similar to the fact that Sea Rats and Corries aren't supposed to interact with each other because of some heated discussion 3 months ago? 

Glad I missed that! otherwise I would be missing out on an most promising Ball :P