Elostirion

These are some absolutely fantastic micro-ships. I really love the effort you have put into elaborating on those MRCA-results. Fantastic, really.

Goldilocks 265 DBs

And one more: 205 for the Tango Kid.

Goldilocks - 170 DBs Should have read the thread -> 220 DBs then.

Amen. And if the same applies to all other aspects and varieties and different takes on the game (and be it the guy who wants to do nothing but rockwork and mining-scenes), then the result of BoBS as a whole will be even more fantastic.

Very nice MOC, Bregir. The various colours in the rockwork with the small patches of sand work out fantastically. The ship looks exactly as a quick messenger, just like you describe it, great work. The water with the waves looks superb, though I think it would have been even better to have the waves break at the ship? Great MOC overall, and nice story alongside it - Montoya just wanting to leave that horrible war-torn island behind is great. About licensing: I am quite certain Eslandola would love to have the property licensed. Would you want to license it yourself or have Eslandola license it? And do you consider it a fortification or commerce, because I think it could be both?

"Colonel Oystridge", Román Fontonajo started, "you bring up some very important points. And if the recent report of attacks of Mardierian raiders on our beloved towns - I am glad they didn't come here, or else many brave Councilmen might have died defending our country - if those recent attacks have given us a lesson, then this lesson is that we need to look after our fortifications! Even more so! Sure, as Willem Guilder pointed out, we shouldn't haste into decisions, but we need to at least sum up the status quo. So who is willing to support us in this committee? Even if you know someone from outside this Council and can invite him or her to our glorious halls - I would warmly welcome all help!" He made a pause, when a scroll was brought: "Ahhhh. All votes have been cast and counted. I just got the results. We have agreed on all thre proposals, so not only does Monezterell have a new position - which I feel we might need more than ever before - but we also have decided to sponsor both new ships and new land based properties. I have heard many concerns and calls for amendments. Feel free to discuss those amendments, and bring them to a vote after some directed discussion - everyone!"

Voting 1 has finished. All three proposals have been accepted by the council and are now in full effect. Proposal 1-A: We, the Colonial Council of Eslandola, agree with the Continental Council's suggestion to confer the title of Secretary of the Navy, and all the responsibilities that infers, upon Jerome Monezterrell. Result: passed (20 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) Proposal 1-B: We, the Colonial Council of Eslandola, enact the following funding of properties licensed by any Eslandolan in any Eslandolan settlement in the Colonies from January 17th, 617 AE to April 17th, 617 AE: - 15 Dubloons for every small property - 30 Dubloons for every medium property - 50 Dubloons for every large property - 500 Dubloons for every royal property (only 150 Dubloons for private palaces) - 15 Dubloons for prospecting - 20 Dubloons for setting up any mine Result: passed (11 for, 10 against) Proposal 1-C: We, the Colonial Council of Eslandola, enact the following funding of ships licensed by any Eslandolan from January 17th, 617 AE to April 17th, 617 AE: - 10 Dubloons for ships rated class 0 or class 1 - 25 Dubloons for ships rated class 2 - 45 Dubloons for ships rated class 3, or 80 Dubloons if sold to Eslandola - 75 Dubloons for ships rated class 4, or 150 Dubloons if sold to Eslandola - 100 Dubloons for ships rated class 5 or higher, or 200 Dubloons if sold to Eslandola Result: passed (20 for, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

1-B: Román Fontonajo: YES (4x) Joaquin Seramon Fontonajo: YES 1-C: Román Fontonajo: YES (4x) Raphael Fontonajo: NO

[ooc: Only 19,5 hours left for voting] After the Councilmembers had paused for the night, taken some drinks, had some talking etc., Román Fontonajo opened the next session: "My fellow Councilmen, I want to remind you that the voting is still in progress. Please don't forget to cast your votes." "Regarding my personal choice", he continued, "while you could convince me that we might want to exclude residences from the suggestion about land based properties (vote 1-B) - or at least change the amount of fundings you can earn - I think this argument is by far not strong enough to make me vote against the proposal. I am, however, open to support an appropriate amendment in the future. Also I understand that the ship-proposal might need an amendment on small classes. However what I totally cannot understand is how you can argue that both proposals need an amendment, but for one of them you vote YES, and for the other you vote NO, while the same argument still holds true for both? While you may not agree with my choices, at least I am consistent with them. The same applies to the other representatives of the Sea of Thieves region, as both assured me earlier on. Also I just sent a messenger to the representatives of ETWC, who seem to be the only ones who haven't caste their votes yet?" Monkey business, again?

I hope you didn't mistake my post for sarcasm? It wasn't intended to be! I think Sea Rats have some serious disadvantages in the EGS, and I am in favour of every rule that makes off for a bit of that disadvantage. And I personally really like differentiation between the nations. Your choice does have an impact.

Good point, @Jacob Nion. There are already many exceptions to the rules for Sea Rats, that match their theme and give them a slight advantage - why not another one? e.g.: * Players may license up to three land-based properties every month, in case they are split between three settlements. * If players focus on one settlement, the license limit decreases to two. This limitation does not apply to Sea Rats, who may license three properties per month, regardless of the location Why not?

A dozen small exploration MOCs would still cost 300 Dubloons. I (as some kind of powergamer regarding the EGS) wouldn't do that without the intention of licensing most of them. Sure, with that strategy it might be worth to not license some of them, but still only licensing one would just be a waste of money. Also prospecting scenes can really bring variety. If you look at my three last recent ones, not only did they take lots of effort, I also tried to depict the most specific features of the respective new islands (e.g. the one from Otono to my best knowledge still is the only one with the characteristic red-leafed tree, same goes for the lemon tree on Isla de Victoria or the depiction of the creepy waters around La Sombra). If I built one of these for every island those would be far more than 10x10 rock work. And others have made great prospecting scenes already as well. Also I am always trying to figure out new ways for prospecting. Recently I have developed a small prospecting-storyline, e.g. prospectors getting equipment, prospectors staking a claim, prospectors transporting home the minerals, and then investigating in a labratory. Four propsecting scenes, and none of them have to involve rock work. Please don't make prospecting worse than it is. Though I definitely do get your point: If everyone just does some small boring rockwork, well, we might as well ignore the prospecting thing as a whole. But that's really not what people do here in BoBS, do they? Or do you have any examples of low-quality mass-prospecting? Also I really think the suggestion of switching the 3-2-rule from @Kai NRG would bring massive benefits to the world of BoBS!

I currently have four licensable MOCs ready and waiting, which I couldn't license yet, due to the rule. Also I have a total of six MOCs which were licensed by other entities than myself. That all comes from the last three months. So a total of 10 MOCs. Reasons I can see for the rule: 1) Realism ingame 2) Assure quality 3) Prevent mass-builders to run away in the EGS I also see three things for debate: A) Limitation in general B) No limitation for ships? C) Difference between one settlement and several 1-A: Ok, I could understand that, but the realism-limitation is money and MOCing time. Why shouldn't Román hire ten building-teams at the same time? Also the MOCs are there anyways (so someone has built the houses ingame), the limitation is just towrads licensing. And licensing is at best, talking about reality, bureaucracy, which you can also solve (at least with bribes -> additional fee). So I really don't see a reason why the limitation for licenses per month should add to realism. Also... I could license three Royal Factories in Nova Terreli within the same month, but licensing two small residences in Nova Terreli and one in Pontelli would not be possible? Take that, realism! 1-B: See 1-A. But if there is a limitation, then, regarding realism, it must apply to ships as well. 1-C: I can somehow see this point, that if you focus your efforts it makes sense that you can achieve more in one place (no travelling-times etc.). But then again: The structures exist in the game world once the MOC was published, not when the license is bought. 1 summary: I don't see "realism ingame" stand as an argument - au contraire! The current rule, neither including MOC-size nor ships, is contra-realistic. Either not at all, or fully. 2-A: Sure, this argument stands. But for freebuilds we had a voting-system when we started, for this very purpose, and found it's not neccessary. Also speaking about myself, the limitation does not result in me MOCing more or less. When I did my Admius Legistrad storyline, the driver was not to produce many licensable MOCs. And when I build for the licenses, I look for quality anyways. The only issue is when at the last days of the month I have to finish sth. so I can license it. But that has happened regardless of the limit. Currently I am working on a MOC which you might consider ready already (like 20 minutes and it's done), but I am still finetuning it just for the quality, no benefit at all. I could MOC more licensable objects, but I prefer spending another some days to optimize my current project. And I think almost everyone here thinks alike. The limitation does, in my opinion, not change anything regarding quality. Also the rule makes me (personally) want to reach the limit every month. If it wasn't there I would maybe NOT build the third MOC in Nova Terreli within one month at all cost. 2-B: Ship quality is the best proof - it's great, really. And there is no limitation. 2-C: I would rather see a qualified builder MOC in Nova Terreli, Lavalette and Stormhaven in the same month, than being limited to one of the three. Speaking for me personally, the 3-in-one-settlement-rule has often made my builds less diverse, because I stayed in e.g. Nova Terreli for the whole month - which I think reduces overall quality. 2 summary: I don't see "quality" stand as an argument - au contraire! For me personally the rule has slightly decreased quality. 3-A: Absolutely true. BUT: If I want to be a powergamer, then I will just MOC three Royal Cotton Plantations / Royal Textile Factories every month to make best use of the MCTC monopoly. Or at least large ones if I cannot afford the Royals or don't get the charter. Or would license commerce as an Eslandolan. But I don't, anyway, nor does anyone else. We diversify our MOCs anways. And also in my opinion the EGS is definitely not there to reward quality - that is what challenges do - but to reward activity, consistency and especially reward constructing the world of BoBS and filling it massively with life. And that's what we do. So yes, the rule does (very slightly) help to keep quality-MOCers in the EGS, but that's - for me - not the point of the EGS. And if I wanted to powergame really hard I could. But I don't, nor does anyone else. Sure, some do it more than others, but those others usually don't care about the EGS as much either. And really, noone wants to see me MOC three large cotton plantations - every month. Do you? 3-B: There are some people who have massively MOCed and licensed ships and have become rich this way. So if we accept this argument, we MUST limit ship-construction as well. I don't think we should, but if we do: Then both! 3-C: Sure, it does prevent me from becoming even richer in the EGS, but see 3-A. It also reduces my diversity, as I will just stay in one town, MOC there for maximum profit, if I want to. 3 summary: Sure, if you think the EGS should not over-favour the more active, then the limitation is a good idea. But then for ships as well. I don't think you should do either. Challenges are for quality-builders who want to progress the world (see Ayrlego, who seems to be winning every challenge, but is far less active in the EGS), EGS is for the active ones who love to setup the stable world and also love the monetary aspects (I consider myself a prime-example of those). Summary: A) Limitation in general -> Does not add to realism, does not add to quality. Can prevent active builders from "winning" in the EGS, but for me that's the whole point of the EGS in the first place. B) No limitation for ships? -> Either or. If there is a limitation for properties, then for ships as well. If there is no limitation for ships (which I think is great), then please don't have one for properties either. C) Difference between one settlement and several -> Does not add to realism, reduces quality, does not prevent anyone from running away with the EGS. Conclusion: First) Take away the difference between MOCing in one or two locations, it's just bad. Second) Treat ships the same as properties. Limit both or none. Third) The limitation in general should be taken away, or at least should be adapted.

Care to explain why you think so? The only reason I see is to avoid low-quality MOCs, and I think this really is not neccessary and can also be achieved in other ways.

Has someone in leadership discussed the limitation to the amount of properties? I think many players here have proven that it's possible to MOC more than two or even three quality MOCs per month. There was supposed to be a skillsystem to add to the amounf of properties you can license... but that thing has never come. In other wors: I really don't like that limitation. There is no such limitation for ships, either. Sure, there is an additional licensing cost for every further ship, and that might be the solution to the monthly property limit as well. Also I think the rule is quite unclear, as it states "one location". Location could be anything from the same area of a town (most likely not), one settlement and its hinterland (propably what is meant), one island (maybe? Would make most sense to me) or even one region (e.g. Sea of Thieves, probably not). My suggestion is as follows: * A player may license up to two properties per month, or up to three if they are all on the same island. * Every further property license costs an additional 25%, so the third one (if not on the same island) costs 125%, the fourth 150%, the fifth 175%, and so on * The only exception from this rule are prospecting scenes. They don't count to the limit, and they don't require additional fees. (Mines and also forts count as normal properties, though) I would love to hear a leadership-statement on this thing? :-)

In my mind I was 100% convinced about this (for months, that was kind of my backup-plan when running against the license-limitation). This means that I have either read it somewhere at some point in time, or that I interpreted it (e.g. from limitless prospecting scenes, or from the fact that mines don't belong to settlements, while the property-limitation is linked to settlements). However I couldn't find it anymore, anywhere.

To my best knowledge even the amount of mines you can setup per month does not count towards the limit - however this is something I am not sure about...

1-A: Román Fontonajo: YES (4x) Raphael Fontonajo: YES Joaquin Seramon Fontonajo: YES 1-B: Raphael Fontonajo: NO 1-C: Joaquin Seramon Fontonajo: YES rest still undecided

Raphael Fontonajo, Román's uncle, took the word for the first time since the council had started: "Senor Paraja, your words state a real concern, with which I can only agree. While I don't think it would neccessarily harm our nation to fund pay for residences as well, it still is not the right way. And while I agree with Román, that this council needs to stay agile and make quick decisions, it is also our duty to make our enactments solid and accurate. Which this proposal, unfortunately, is not. I will vote against 1-B. However I am not yet sure whether I think 1-C is a good enactment or not." "But great-uncle", Joaquin Seramon Fontonajo, Román's son, bursted out, "don't you remember my voyage with the canoe, where we found that incredible old pirate treasure? We sold the treasure for 445 Dubloons. and of course we sent 89 Dubloons as taxes to the crown back then. We could almost finance nine ships of class 0 from that one voyage with father's proposal. So really no argument stands strong against strengthening our navy, be it with the smallest canoes or with another Queen Margot!" Román Fontonajo added something totally different: "While we should definitely wait before we announce publicly, I think it is safe that within this hall we can already congratulate Jerome Monezterell for his new title as well as ourselves for having our first successful voting. 12 votes for you, none against, with only 9 votes not cast yet - you cnanot not win."

While I don't agree with all that "Vive le Roi", I agree that - as always - your creation looks wonderful! I especially like the idea for the semi-cobbled, semi-grassi path, really clever!

It's really quite simple, but the atmosphere of the first pic is really, really good! Great work!

Fontonajo rose from his chair: "Thanks, Captain Whiffo. That was a great depiction of our financial situation." After a brief pause he continued: "While discussion is always healthy to all decisions, it should be made in time, when the proposal is made, not when the decision is already in process. But I guess we have all learned from this for the future...", he said, looking in Guilder's direction. "As we have just heard, our finances are miraculous! I will add some more specific numbers regarding my last suggestion. We have just heard that we have monthly expenses of around 750 Dubloons. Our steady income from running land-based business is around 1.000 Dubloons. Even without any licsensing, any trading ships successfully making their way, or anything else... we are still profitable by 250 Dubloons. And have a huge treasury. Now let's talk about my numbers. Let's take factories as an example, as well as commercial properties. Also let us assume we are not talking about MCTC settlements. For small factories Eslandola earns 12,5 Dubloons from the builder, and would be 15 Dubloons, so a net "loss" of 2,5 DBs for the national treasury. For medium factory it would be 5 DBs, for large it would be 12,5 DBs. For a royal factory Eslandola would still earn 1.000 Dubloons, though. As commercial properties cost 20% less, Eslandola only earns 10 Dubloons for a small, 20 for a medium, and 30 for a large, resulting in net losses for the national treasury of 5, 10 and 20 Dubloons. Regarding mines the funding of prospecting would result in 2,5 DBs net loss, however as most mines cost 75 DBs to setup, the funding of their setup would mostly still result in a net gain for Eslandola. If we assume that 20 small, 10 medium and 10 large properties (I don't think we have ever been this active) will be licensed by Eslandolans within a month, and half of those will be commercial, this would result in 313 Dubloons net loss for the national treasury (25 + 50 + 25 + 50 + 62,5 + 100). However in the month after our citizens would earn 385 DBs more per month (50 + 60 + 50 + 60 + 75 + 90), 20% of which would go to our national treasury, which is 77 - so within four months the national investment would have paid off already." Fontonajo made a pause, while some servants entered the hall and handed out some sheets to the Council members. "As you can see I had the numbers ready - my proposals don't come of thin air but are well thought-out. Please keep that in mind. Always. And as you can easily see, this initiative is far from being a large threat to our national treasury!"

Fontonajo: "Voting is now in progress!"

1st Voting of the Colonial Council Román Fontonajo: "The first voting of the Colonial Council is in progress. Please put your votes in the ballots." [OOC: Post your votes for every character here. Please vote for each of the three votings. Voting will be possible until Tuesday, 17th January 617 AE, 18:00 CET] Voting 1-A: We, the Colonial Council of Eslandola, agree with the Continental Council's suggestion to confer the title of Secretary of the Navy, and all the responsibilities that infers, upon Jerome Monezterrell. Please cast your vote as YES, or as NO, or as ABSTENTION. Voting 1-B: We, the Colonial Council of Eslandola, enact the following funding of properties licensed by any Eslandolan in any Eslandolan settlement in the Colonies from January 17th, 617 AE to April 17th, 617 AE: - 15 Dubloons for every small property - 30 Dubloons for every medium property - 50 Dubloons for every large property - 500 Dubloons for every royal property (only 150 Dubloons for private palaces) - 15 Dubloons for prospecting - 20 Dubloons for setting up any mine Please cast your vote as YES, or as NO, or as ABSTENTION. Voting 1-C: We, the Colonial Council of Eslandola, enact the following funding of ships licensed by any Eslandolan from January 17th, 617 AE to April 17th, 617 AE: - 10 Dubloons for ships rated class 0 or class 1 - 25 Dubloons for ships rated class 2 - 45 Dubloons for ships rated class 3, or 80 Dubloons if sold to Eslandola - 75 Dubloons for ships rated class 4, or 150 Dubloons if sold to Eslandola - 100 Dubloons for ships rated class 5 or higher, or 200 Dubloons if sold to Eslandola Please cast your vote as YES, or as NO, or as ABSTENTION.