Capt Wolf

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

Recommended Posts

Great writing Captain Wolf, nice job!

We've captured a pirate! Yeah, can't we just hang him?:devil:

If I understand correctly, these captured ships represent free licenses, and I have now 4 of them, one class 5, one class 4 and two class 3 and I remember I still have a free class 2 unmocced earned from recent MRCAs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Bodi said:

If I understand correctly, these captured ships represent free licenses, and I have now 4 of them, one class 5, one class 4 and two class 3 and I remember I still have a free class 2 unmocced earned from recent MRCAs.

 

Saleté de riche ! Frimeur ! :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Professor Thaum said:

 

Saleté de riche ! Frimeur ! :tongue:

Moi, riche, dis donc, je ne connais pas quelqu'un plus gueux que moi:pir_tong2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bodi said:

Great writing Captain Wolf, nice job!

We've captured a pirate! Yeah, can't we just hang him?:devil:

If I understand correctly, these captured ships represent free licenses, and I have now 4 of them, one class 5, one class 4 and two class 3 and I remember I still have a free class 2 unmocced earned from recent MRCAs.

 

I know that, I also have a pile of unmocced licenses; I've lost count, but I think I still have 2 class 5 and at least 2 class 4 licenses... Catfish Supreme(4), El Tigre(5), Mac Quinnes(4), Merry Merfish (5)... 

Currently if you capture a vessel you get to keep the old stats, but there might eventually be a solution to change the stats of captured vessels. I think if you are really unhappy with what you end up with we can find a solution before we have a proper implementation of that done.

Edit: I've updated the ship owner for the following vessels:

Supreme captured by LeColeon (NPC) (mocced)
Black Star captured by ETTC (COR) (not mocced)
Executioner captured by Oleon (not mocced)
Poisoned Peach captured @Bodi  (OL) (not mocced)
The Athena captured by Harrison Torn (NPC) (mocced)
Blue Bayou captured by Oleon (not mocced)
Thunder captured by MKJoshA @MKJoshA(SR) (mocced)
FTA The Gargoyle captured by Terraversa (mocced)
Palmetto captured by kaiju and Roadmonkeytj @kaiju @Roadmonkeytj (SR) (I've transferred it to Kaiju Roadmonkeytj, if you want that changed PM me) (not mocced)

You can check the vessels stats in your faction summaries; if you can't for some reason shoot me a PM and I'll get the stats for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bodi said:

We've captured a pirate! Yeah, can't we just hang him?:devil:

Yes, you certainly can. Gregory Decker is a name NPC pirate from the beginnings of BoBS, so capturing him is a big event, and I will be sorely disappointed if we don't see an MOC this month dealing with his capture. I might even go so far as to say that if I don't see an MRCA-result MOC on his capture by somebody in Oleon, that he might very well manage an escape. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2018 at 9:18 AM, Legostone said:

I know that, I also have a pile of unmocced licenses; I've lost count, but I think I still have 2 class 5 and at least 2 class 4 licenses... Catfish Supreme(4), El Tigre(5), Mac Quinnes(4), Merry Merfish (5)... 

Currently if you capture a vessel you get to keep the old stats, but there might eventually be a solution to change the stats of captured vessels. I think if you are really unhappy with what you end up with we can find a solution before we have a proper implementation of that done.

Edit: I've updated the ship owner for the following vessels:

Supreme captured by LeColeon (NPC) (mocced)
Black Star captured by ETTC (COR) (not mocced)
Executioner captured by Oleon (not mocced)
Poisoned Peach captured @Bodi  (OL) (not mocced)
The Athena captured by Harrison Torn (NPC) (mocced)
Blue Bayou captured by Oleon (not mocced)
Thunder captured by MKJoshA @MKJoshA(SR) (mocced)
FTA The Gargoyle captured by Terraversa (mocced)
Palmetto captured by kaiju and Roadmonkeytj @kaiju @Roadmonkeytj (SR) (I've transferred it to Kaiju Roadmonkeytj, if you want that changed PM me) (not mocced)

You can check the vessels stats in your faction summaries; if you can't for some reason shoot me a PM and I'll get the stats for you. 

For sake of clarity, I captured two unknown faction/pirate attackers last October - class 3 Silver Surfer (now the FTA Fluttering Petal armed trader) and class 5 Marvel (unmocced presently).  The latter has never shown up in the account page - I always assumed these were just a "free license ticket" tbh and treated them as such.  I guess I'll stop that practice.

Also our internal SR discussion had Professor Thaum & the FTA ending up with the captured Thunder, as loss compensation.  You and I should probably have a private discussion about that one. :wink:

Edited by Kwatchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

has never shown up

I think we started transferring licenses maybe 2 MRCAs ago, given that we haven’t been running the new MRCA for that long. The old captures didn’t have stats after all (beyond the class); so if you captured it and didn’t use it yet you are still free to use them as free licenses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Legostone Thank you for the explanation, in fact these captures are very welcome, they will allow me to build more ships, without asking constantly a loan.:grin:

@Capt Wolf We surely don't want him to escape so easily, no, sir. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 8:34 AM, Bodi said:

Moi, riche, dis donc, je ne connais pas quelqu'un plus gueux que moi:pir_tong2:

Messieurs, je ne parle pas français, mais avec l'aide de Google, j'ai ri assez fort à ce sujet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

Messieurs, je ne parle pas français, mais avec l'aide de Google, j'ai ri assez fort à ce sujet.

:laugh: And Thaum has surely much more Dbs than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I finally struck it rich!  I had begun to despair of that ever happening... :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kai NRG said:

Wow, I finally struck it rich!  I had begun to despair of that ever happening... :laugh:

Spoilt rich brat ! That's scandalous !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really really hate myself for asking this again, but can someone explain me how the vessels of KolonialBeamter are supposed to sail?

His absence is very prominent in this forum, but still his fleet manages to sail around...

Last time he visited Eurobricks was January 8th...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe he asked someone to handle his vessels in his absence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Or maybe he asked someone to handle his vessels in his absence?

I could live with that, but last time I heard someone of Oleon leadership, they had no idea where KBB was...

Anyway, everyone plays the way they want to play the EGS, but it is not the first time I think this is gaming the system when players manage the vessels of other players who are not active.

It is forbidden to licence a vessel a class higher than leadership thinks it should be, but then it is absolutely no problem to have the vessels of an inactive player sail along your ships... (bonus: free protection for your vessel + income for the faction)...

I think the least a player who wants to join the MRCA should do (while being in a lesser active period) is to announce it in the topic that they will participate. Just give a sign of participation...

Ghost ships are not good for keeping it fair for everyone.

If this would be no problem for leadership, then I can send ships in name of Titus, Kabel, Captain Green Hair, etc... I have contact with them almost every day in real life and they would not mind. I do hope you see how this is gaming the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with @Maxim I here.

 

It is one thing to miss a MRCA deadline by a day for whatever reasons and ask somebody to do "the paperwork" instead. An obviously (even if only temporarily) inactive player is a different case entirely though. You are not active in game terms, so your ships should not be either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Maxim I I'd like to share my personal opinion on this issue, I can follow your reasoning here, KB has been absent for quite a while, it's normal that you see him as an inactive member. And as to how to determine a member is either active or nor, I don't think we have a rule that stipulates clearly the timelimit, and considering all the situations we may encounter in real life, I think it may be rude to require a member to report to the forum on weekly, monthly or yearly basis. To be honest, I don't know where is KB now, but he never said that he won't come back, so handling the MRCA formalities in his absence, I think it's the least we could do, just consider it as a gesture of courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bodi

But where does it stops? As said, there are at least 3 other members I can handle their ships for in the hope they will ever come back (and Titus for example will come back). But what is the advantage for Titus? None as he can’t spend the db’s as long as he is not active.

What is the advantage for me? Well I can licence in his name 4 big warships and use them as my escorts... No upkeep for me (hooray!!!).

I hope you do see how easy it is to game the system with accounts of inactive members. I really understand that life can jump in and demands all your attention, but when that happens (it already did in the past), the last thing on my mind are some vessels in an imaginary world... And if I am only inactive because I don’t have time to build, I still follow this forum. So reporting for duty should not be so difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maxim, you've definitely touched on a sensitive subject and I respect your views. I would like to share with you another perspective though since most of the time this is not a black and white topic. For me, BoBS is strictly something that is fun and enjoyable. It can't be treated like college where you address things such as attendance, participation etc. After I've had several life changing events happen to me in the last year, it's always been comforting when I'm welcomed back rather than trying to figure out how to continue or start over. It was greatly appreciated for those who held down the fort for me while I suddenly diverted my focus on my current situation. I just hope everything is OK with those who left suddenly and, if possible, look forward to their return. 
Reporting can be perceived in several ways. I'm sure some communicate outside of EBs and if you know someone is taking care of business then you can focus your energy on more pertinent things. As far as handling other's accounts, I don't think anyone is going to force you to do so. If you choose to stop, things may not be taken care of for you in the event you really need them to be though. I think so long as someone is willing to handle another person's account that they should continue to be allowed to do so. I don't think it would be unrealistic for leadership to establish a freeze, account delete, etc, if someone has been gone for some established time(maybe a year or more?).

Edited by Dukesc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Drunknok and @Maxim I

52 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

 

What is the advantage for me? Well I can licence in his name 4 big warships and use them as my escorts... No upkeep for me (hooray!!!).

I hope you do see how easy it is to game the system with accounts of inactive members. I really understand that life can jump in and demands all your attention, but when that happens (it already did in the past), the last thing on my mind are some vessels in an imaginary world... And if I am only inactive because I don’t have time to build, I still follow this forum. So reporting for duty should not be so difficult.

This basically sums it up for me. 

1 minute ago, Dukesc said:

Maxim, you've definitely touched on a sensitive subject and I respect your views. I would like to share with you another perspective though since most of the time this is not a black and white topic. For me, BoBS is strictly something that is fun and enjoyable. It can't be treated like college where you address things such as attendance, participation etc. After I've had several life changing events happen to me in the last year, it's always been comforting when I'm welcomed back rather than trying to figure out how to continue or start over. It was greatly appreciated for those who held down the fort for me while I suddenly diverted my focus on my current situation. I just hope everything is OK with those who left suddenly and, if possible, look forward to their return. 

The thing is, that's not what this is about, Dukesc. This is about someone using someone else's work in a way that is unfair to others. It's not really fair, and as far as I can tell, against the rules to submit someone else's ships in a webform without their permission. Unless @Kolonialbeamter told someone, online or offline Eurobricks that they were okay to use his vessels, they are using his ships illegally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a difficult thing.

I myself have been away a long time, without much notice, perks of the job. I didn't have any ships sailing around then so that didn't influence others.
But my buildings kept receiving yield all those time. 
And I was very very happy that when I return I could just pick up the bricks where they dropped and step right back in the game, I had little more db's (not much with 3 builds :P) which made the re-start easy.

I wasn't in the ability to give notice of my leave, so by current idea's I could have been frozen out. Which would have most likely blocked my return to bobs. (seriously if it wasn't for the tag about the era 1 medals (by KB if i'm not mistaken?) I probably wouldn't have returned when I did.)

I understand what Maxim I is pointing out. in some ways it is unfair to other players. BUT that really depends on how the ship is managed, is it sailing a regular trade run. or is it sailing in escort duty, or in a pirate hunt?
If it is just sailing a regular trade, I see it as no different then a build getting yield. 

And for the idea to use inactive players ships as a protection, so you don't have to pay the upkeep. well they have to pay upkeep then, and therefor also need an income. if the db's dry out the ships cannot sail. 

Avoiding any abuse could be hard, the way we've set up the game, with the google doc's, as they can be accesed outside of the forum, which is a good point, for ships of several players sailing in convoy can be filled in by one, to avoid any errors for example, but may indeed be a week acces point for unfair play.  

To sum it up, I understand Maxim I 's point, but I've no idea how to avoid any abuse of the way we manage things now.

I am strongly against blocking/freezing players out who are (temporarily) inactive.

Bart

 

*oh and if you are looking for an example of someone who doesn't have any contact with EB members other then via EB, read the name above this line:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion there is a huge difference between active and passive priorities - ships being the first, land properties the second.

I see absolutely no problem with passive properties generating income regardless of the players activity. Those land properties have been set up at some point, and need no further "player input", so of course they keep running for inactive players - and why not? Think of it as if you had a farm, went on a trip for half a year and returned: the farmer would have continued working, with the profits ending up in your pockets. I see no issues with this, this is just as the game has been set up to work.

On the other hand, active pieces should require active control. This is less about profit generation, and more about player interaction - because those ships, in contrast to land properties, directly interact with other players ships. It is one of the more challenging aspects of the EGS to manage trading routes and orders for ships, so you can get the maximum profit as well as the maximum security possible. Then there is "aggressive interaction", meaning you can lose ships due to other players choices and actions. To play this specific part of the game, active control should be mandatory.

 

On the topic of general player inactivity: everybody has the right to play this game on his or her own terms. If you have no time, and want or need to take a break for whatever amount of time, that is perfectly fine and should not be questioned by others at all. But for that time(s) you are not an active player, and that should come with some restrictions, one of which is the handling of ships.

 

I agree with @Bart though, enforcing this is impossible with the current system, and I for one would not like to change the existing mechanisms for MRCAs.

One solution I can think of would be a "confirmation thread" for both MRCA types, one for each installment. Meaning: once you have handed in "the paperwork", you simply post in that thread what ships you have assigned actions to (without details of course). If players are unable to post for some time, or let their ships sail in convoys controlled by others, they also post this in there. This enables others to see where the orders come from, making the whole thing more transparent. It would also prevent a situation like this one, where nobody knows if @Kolonialbeamter has agreed to the use of his ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

One solution I can think of would be a "confirmation thread"

We most definitely do not need more paperwork.

And we do not need policing - if we can agree on a set of guidelines, we can also expect people to follow them.

It is the guidelines that should be questioned and debated, not how to police them, as that really will not be a problem. I do not believe anyone will knowingly go against the rules and guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bregir said:

We most definitely do not need more paperwork.

Aye. But it would solve the problem. And I am obviously not the only one having an issue with it.

Quote

And we do not need policing - if we can agree on a set of guidelines, we can also expect people to follow them.

There is nothing I can say politely about this opinion, so I will not comment.

Quote

It is the guidelines that should be questioned and debated

This is exactly what is happening. That of course includes suggestions on how to solve the perceived issue.

Quote

not how to police them, as that really will not be a problem.

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

Quote

I do not believe anyone will knowingly go against the rules and guidelines.

If you are correct, I am sure @Kolonialbeamter can explain how and why his ships are sailing around without him being around.

Edited by Drunknok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.