Jump to content

Darnok

Eurobricks Dukes
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,529

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Darnok

  1. Darnok
    I think this is a fantastic initiative, thank you for putting the effort into setting this up! One question regarding the titles: they seem to be character centered, but does that mean I have to include my main character in every build? Am I supposed to send my character on some kind of "world tour" if I want to do a variety of these tasks?
  2. Darnok
    Is that the Courts decision? I will not push out the build associated with this tomorrow (and can not license it before May anyway ), so I guess there is time to discuss this behind the scenes. I agree with you here, I just want to know the definite ruling. As for something a bit different... While we are on the topic of weird aspects of settlement levels... why is automatic settlement growth still a thing? It was never that automatic to begin with as far as I know, so means more work behind the scenes. And while it is without doubt a very thematic rule, it also needlessly rewards those that are "on the top" already. Take Breshaun as the most prominent example. It has seen as little as four new player properties in 2018, and only seven in 2017. Yet it has grown quite a lot over that timeframe. Due to the growth factor being a percentage, this effect will only grow stronger. And none of this is due to player input, i.e. not related to any building in a game that is supposedly about building. P.S.: See, back then people could brag about settlement levels without getting hit by an earthquake.
  3. Darnok
    There is no secret agenda here - of course people will build royal residences in case of a necessity for royal properties. It is still a 300DB "price" to pay for a settlement upgrade, on top of all the effort that went into the build itself.
  4. Darnok
    Question regarding royal residences: is "Royal Palace" a title only, or does it indeed have to be somewhat "palac-ish"? I just want to know if a "normal" residence quarter (multiple buildings, summing up to at least 10000 studs) of a high enough quality would be eligible for that type of license.
  5. Darnok
    I had a lot of these - this is awesome!
  6. Darnok
    How is that not already covered in the builds needed to "level up"? I am looking forward to those other effects.
  7. Darnok
    I think land income works more or less fine as it is now, synchronising it with the MRCA turns was a good move. Lowering the income from land properties any further should not happen: it could discourage building due to little or no ingame incentive. I think encouraging building is the most important goal of the game, so leaving land properties as they are (at least for now) is the way to go. Now trade income needs to be addressed. I have no solution ready, but currently the "risks" are ignorable when weighted against the much higher possible income. But... One part of a solution could be to give players (much) more things to spend their money on. Something meaningful in terms of prestige, with possible ingame rewards.
  8. Darnok
    Royal residences only cost 300DB, affordable for anybody.
  9. Darnok
    That it is then, thanks! @LM71Blackbird: Could you please add it to the Quinnsville settlement summary?
  10. Darnok
    Would this not be somewhat countered by the judging process? I mean: there are only a few people doing the judgement, and they will spread their attention between players equally (or so I assume). So somebody doing masses of poor builds would get as many builds judged as somebody with good ones - essentially nullifying the effect the "mass building" could have. An alternative could be a specific number of builds that can be entered into the judging process per person per month (similar to licensing in BotBS). In the end I think only time will tell.
  11. Darnok
    As Bregir says, it should be something meaningful. Any solution that translates to "basically a chunk of your money is just gone" should not even be considered. My first suggestion would be to cap individual accounts - other than the factions, so this includes (trade) organisations and settlements - to a certain amount. Maybe 10000DB, maybe 6000DB (the latter being two Royal residences in cost, for something a bit less arbitrary). Nobody needs that amount of money anyway. Any account having more has to spend it in a given timeframe (no transfer shenanigans, actual spending) between announcing this change and it coming into effect (three months? more?). After that, any money - at that time or earned later - over that treshold goes into a "price pool" from which ingame prices for (mini-) challenges are paid in the future. This way no longterm players are "robbed", and accounts that regularly earn more contribute to something that benefits the community at large. Well, taxes are a good thing as long as they pay for things that benefit the community - but that is another discussion. Just removing money without any kind of return is a big no-no though. See above. P.S.: The list of settlements with too few Royals is missing Quinnsville (having none, being a City). Or did I miss something (again)?
  12. Darnok
    Aye, and I appreciate the effort. If the goal is to make ingame money somewhat meaningful again, then trade income has to be reduced dramatically. With the current change a ship can make between ten times and a hundred times (!) more per turn than a large land property. Land income has just become much more unprofitable - any less and you could just as well remove it completely (don't! ). I would be very careful with that. While some individual "bank accounts" might look way off, those players have earned it over time.
  13. Darnok
    I just asked because the cost/income balance has changed so drastically (it was bad before, but now...). Some ingame benefits would be nice. A reasonable argument, and I support all of it. I think that either trade or land income need to be adjusted though, because now the proverbial pendulum suddenly swung so hard in the direction of trade it is not even funny. One could make much more money by (admittedly mildly risky) trade before this change, and now land income has gotten a massive reduction. Also note that all these changes make it much harder for starters to build up, while longterm players have full pockets from years of the older system. Ah, I see. Thanks for the extremely quick update of the land rules thread!
  14. Darnok
    The overall scene is fine, some of the detail placement is off in my opinion though. I would: remove the dolphin (as hilarious as the idea is, with its fixed pose it just does not work in this position) maybe replace it with a couple of fish here and there lay down the bucket, teacup and bottle (standing upright makes no sense) place the torso on its back (same) add some bigger structure in the background (maybe a ruined archway spanning over the rails?) Other than that, the direction of the build is definitely good. The pictures should be done differently for the "final version", @gedren_y has some solid suggestions.
  15. Darnok
    Wow, some substantial changes, and a definite shake-up of the current meta. Some things I like, some things raise an eyebrow - well done overall I would say! All of the following is my personal opinion of course: At what date are these updates "operational"? Immediately? Will the price remain the same? I accept that Royals are "for prestige" mostly, but 3000DB in cost for 100DB in return per MRCA is laughably bad. Interesting, and making Royals properly valuable all of a sudden, even if only for settlement upgrades. I hope for some proper benefits, as right now they are comically overpriced. There might be a typo somewhere here, because that is only an increase for Royals (by 100DB). For all others, these are the current upkeep costs. Eh. On the one hand, ingame money has become pretty meaningless for most players, so something had to be done about it. This might be a bit drastic though, as land income already paled in comparison to what could be done by trading. Now it is almost pointless. Good call, both of these served no real game function anymore. Ouch. People will get a lot more careful now I guess. I assume the ruling above about "settlement keep their current status" applies as well? Other than that: still ouch, especially due if Royals' price remains as it is. With the current ban on licensing this also means nothing can be done before May...
  16. Darnok
    So would I. Similar to how Europe was considered the "old world", but not India or China. On the other hand, the game is clearly intended to focus on "the colonies" in the Sea of Storms and anything east of it - which would put everything else into the "old world bucket". This discussion is not for me to decide, I am just looking for a clear ruling here.
  17. Darnok
    That is exactly what I linked to in my post. I asked because I was unsure whether Kemblarsi would be considered "Old World" - it is about as far away from Corrington as Terraversa.
  18. Darnok
    @Bregir @Mesabi @Roadmonkeytj To avoid any confusion, the characters split as follows: the Nipper has Pip, Thaum and all of "Black Squad" the Cranky Parrot has Captain Riley and his crew Also, since I really want the Nipper to make it to Mesabi Landing the coming turn, my argument for why that is feasible and fine:
  19. Darnok
    Sorry for yet another bunch of questions... Would "building in the Old World" apply to properties to be licensed in Kemblarsi? I want to expand on this storyline established by @Mesabi and build around this WTC trading outpost. How would the licensing be handled for such builds? How much background is done for the Kingdom of the Lotus already? And in what amount would I have the "right" to build a Loti presence in, for example, Mesabi Landing? There are some background rumblings spread over AMRCAs lately, and I do not want to interfere with an upcoming NPC storyline. On the other hand I would like to play around with my Ninjago collection, something like a "Chinese Quarter" would be a cool side project.
  20. Darnok
    Thanks. About the "little bit late" part: the "Twelve Days of Christmas" are actually from December 25th to January 6th. There are parts of the world that celebrate Christmas on the 6th, and what the so-called "western world" celebrates as Christmas season is really only the time leading up to Christmas Eve. In short: not late at all.
  21. Darnok
    A question regarding the "four big islands" in the New Haven Sea: Has this statement been filled with some life yet? Just asking for the friend of a friend...
  22. Darnok
    My AMRCA entry is now up, on the 12th as discussed.
  23. Darnok
    Voting is now open. You have until the 27th of January of 2019 to cast your vote.
  24. Darnok
    The latest Merrynight Mini-Challenge is over, now it is time to vote! We have three entries. In order of posting: "Merrynight Celebration in Jameston" by @Ayrlego "The Guemain Hunt" by @Ross Fisher "Merrynight in the homeland" by @Keymonus For judging these builds, remember the challenges set-up and criteria: Voting will be public, with the poll being open until the 27th of January 2019 - if it is the 27th anywhere on the world, you will still be able to vote. Please note that voting for yourself will disqualify your entry.
  25. Darnok
    Well, any Promethean would see this differently.
×
×
  • Create New...