Bregir

YARH, you lousy swabs!!! Landlubbers! ;)

I strongly disagree. If the classes and game-mechanics are not balanced to make all classes attractive for different purposes, it will not solve any problem, only postpone them.

The detection chance might be a good idea, although it might be hard to manage? Apart from the historical fact, that few ships were actually sunk or entirely destroyed, I think increasing the sinking risks would be a shame, as it would limit the interesting story hooks of captures, recaptures, etc. But of course, it could be a nice money sink. Althernatively, introducing a repair fee for those ships ending in a fight could give the same effect.

I agree about the faction bonuses. Diversity should be accros players, not factions. And I take your point about complexity, but you misunderstood me. A convoy will always sail as a unit, going by the speed of the slowest ship. Perhaps a special roll for convoy encounters could be made, where one outcome was to catch a straggler (and then have an encounter without escorts interfering - a very lucky outcome), atttacking normally, or being attacked by x escorts, etc., rather than the "per ship" roll we currently have. So the suggested bonuses would only accrue to solitary trade ships (who could, of course, be bringing a fast escort). The first clippers to arrive home to England with Tea would command much larger prizes than the next. (According to James Clavell's Tai Pan - excellent book, btw) The number of archetypes would depend on the moc's available, I suppose, but of course we can also use real-life examples to top it up. I prefer the use of MOC's though, although a combination might be the best choice. And yes, manageability is an important factor, but let us first seek to develop a system that works, and then make it manageable. 1. A price increase like so would be a good idea to limit players. Through the skill system, one might earn a +1, for instance, so that the extra fee is postponed to the next ship, or similar. And yes, we shouldn't restrict too much. 3. I feel that if people do not want to put in the effort of finding a route, they must contend with joining one of the planned convoys. This seems fair. 4. As there are so many player vessels by now, I hardly see the reason for so many NPC vessels. It makes everything more complex to manage, and adds many more rolls. With a higher encounter chance, each encounter would be much more interesting and likely, as it would include actual player of faction vessel. The amount of risk would be the same, but it would be between players, not bots. I really do not see the argument for all those NPC vessels, now that so many player vessels have been launched. 5. Good idea with a small bonus. 6. /signed.

An interesting character to see included - I like the cultural diversity we are starting to see. The palanquin is great, although it looks very heavy, and I sort of think the story is adequate, as it leaves us wondering - wanting more!

Nice little dock, and those cranes are real nice. I liek the story that goes with them as well, and I think this is a very cool build, both in idea, story and execution. The only thing that is lacking is the presentation, and it would benefit from a better photography setup/lightning/camera/whatever. I understand that this can be hard to achieve. (I have been there myself, due to a lack of skills, mainly ) I wonder what this Vif is - perhaps Mr. Clarke is getting a promotion, that reached him by the wrong channels first?

As I see it now, there are a few points that the "MRCA" should address. I will try to sum them up below - let me know if I forgot something. (They are not in prioritised order) Balance - Small vs. Large We need classes that are so balanced in terms of characteristics, price, etc., that large and small vessels will sail side by side, each with their advantages and disadvantages. Smaller classes should be more than just the poor man's choice. I believe this could be achieved with statistics similar to what I suggested. Further, Owning a first rate SOTL should count differently towards your vessel limit than a small sloop. Otherwise, smaller vessels are likely to be crowded out by the larger, as people grow richer. Perhaps this could be achieved by not setting a fixed vessel limit, but rather a limit of X, which denotes the sum of ratings ("rating slots"). Say for instance that the limit is 20. A class 10 (1st rate SOTL) will then count 10, and the builder might rather chose to license 5 class 2's. The value for X could possibly be increased by some achievement, for instance being unlocked by building and licensing ships of different classes. (Eg. building a class 3 (I'd suggest some "authentication" by the community that it fits) unlocks Y extra rating slots, for a maximum of eg. 20) Then Maxim (I hope it is ok to use you as an example, Maxim!) would have to build some of the smaller classes, before being able to license the larger. Perhaps even both to unlock more "rating slots" and to unlock the next class. (For instance, to license a class 3 or 4, one has to have built and licensed a class 1 or 2. And to license a class 5 or 6, a class 3 or 4 must first be licensed, etc.) This might be part of the skill system, to insure some sort of evaluation, before builders can progress? However, we would still need some limit to faction ships to avoid the system being gamed by licensing vessels by the faction rather than by players, and vice versa. The more similar the two limits are, the harder to game. Diversity - Different strategies The mechanics have to make more than one strategy viable. Currently it seems to favour heavily escorted convoys. Perhaps one way to do this, is to put a penalty on convoys, for instance in terms of the maximum trade per settlement, and/or an upfront upkeep fee for the escorts? (See below) Vessel characteristics might also be part of this, making it more profitable for some ships to sail alone. (For instance the faster ones.) Perhaps a bonus if you are the first to reach a port. Hopefully, we will see both single blockade runners (for larger profits) as well as large, well protected convoys; bounty runs; raids; and single and solitary predators, all profiting in their own way. Geographical spread Someone suggested a limit to trade value for each settlement, which I think is a good idea. Currently, sending all the tradeships in one well-protected convoy to the same wealthy ports is the best solution. But if we couple limited trade per settlement with the manouver characteristic, the fastest vessels who arrive first, will get the most valuable part of trade, depleeting some of the value for others. They will be more susceptible to attack, sailing alone, and only part of the trade value should be subject to this bonus. (So that large convoys of fast vessels do not become the new norm.) For instance: The first vessel gains 200 % modifier to trade value, the second 150 %. (Precedence calculated by some combination of manouver and sequence of journey.) I see how this could be hard to manage, though.... If we could then add a limit to the trade available from each port, it would put a limit to the size of convoys (the larger ones being limited to the largest cities), and ensure that there is value in calling at ports unvisited by others (for the bonuses of first call, as well as the availability of trading goods). Rather than a percentage of the trade value, a trade ship with Z in cargo hold would take away Z*x units of tradevalue from the port, leaving less for the next. Something like this would make the planning more interesting, and solitary trade runs more profitable. Risk and reward There should be a better balance between risk and reward of different missions and types. One thing I would suggest was fewer NPC vessels. (Currently they flood the license market...) To balance this out, making the chance of encounter, when there happens to be a player/faction vessel on a relevant mission in the zone, much higher, would mean that predators would have bigger chance of catching prizes (or being taken by any escorts, depending on the outcome), while due to fewer predators, the traders would not see this as an increased overall risk. This also adds to the story building capacities of the MRCA, as more(/all) vessels will be player/faction vessels, which will lead to more ransoming, or similar plothooks. I might suggest that some of the other nations (Garvey, Mardier, etc.) might have a limited number of vessels on missions like the player controlled vessels. With fewer NPC vessels, more likely encounters by fewer ships, this should also ease the load on Ska when it comes to managing the MRCA, with fewer necessary rolls. Advisory Some have requested some advisory quality to the vessel classes. As I have said earlier, this is a bit fishy, as for instance a cutter can be anything form a class 1 to a class 3 or 4. Perhaps chosing one or two "archetypes" from the existing moc's to put down a baseline for each class would be the best way to go? There should be plenty to chose from, and this should be sufficient to give people an idea of what is expected of each class. We can then discuss how strict we want to be with the creative license for the classes. For me the most important is hitting the "spirit" of the class, and staying within reasonable size deviations. I am certain the Naval Licensing Court will happily suggest such archetypes, when the new classes are in place. Effort over output Some have expressed that they would like to see more emphasis on effort than output. Possibly finding some way of awarding going the extra mile with your mocs (in this case the vessel mocs) would probably be a good idea. As many have pointed out, and as all agree (I should think) this is not about turning this into an elitist game, where only the expert builders can participate, but about making people attend to feedback and seek to improve in terms of techniques, presentation, realism, aestethics, and storytelling, no matter their initial level. As I see it the skill system would probably be a good avenue for this. Unlocking "rate slots" or achieving modifiers (To speed, trade value, firepower, etc) by achieving milestones approved by your peers in a University of Petraea style system, (plus titles! We all love titles! Preferably some that our characters can use in game ) should be motivation enough. Let me know if I forgot something, or if you have any comments to my issues and suggestions. It will be much appreciated. EDIT: I also think there should be wider ranges for defining what a predator mission is willing to risk attacking. It might be very well not to attack anything larger than a rate 3 vessel, but if it is in consort with two others, all warships, or escorted by the Margot, it is still a rather bad decision...

Well, as I see it, it doesn't really solve the main issue I have, as after the time has gone, everybody will still tend to build the bigger ships, and the smaller vessels will fall away. What I really want to see is an MRCA where small and large vessels sail side by side, each with their advantages. But then again, isn't this a discussion for the other thread?

Currently, you will have to pay the extra fee, no matter how you come about your fourth vessel. The only thing you can "game" is which vessel you pay it for. And Maxim: Perhaps one should pay upkeep on all vessels, when one breaks the three vessel barrier?

Have you guys seen the spreadsheet I uploaded some weeks back in the general BoBS thread? It might help you to easily keep track of your accounts... (although the new rules might call for a slight adjustment)

In the current MRCA, some have made a lot of money (Or so I am told... ), while others have made nothing, and lost several vessels. I have no overview of the general payback rate of the MRCA, but it seems to me that it serves its purposes with a large spread of risk. Fortunes are made and lost, just like in real life. Everybody here seems to basing their assesment of their own results. And thus, I must narrowly conclude that the MRCA is a veritable gold mine. But that is hardly representative. Further, I am concerned the EGS takes up so much of so many peoples minds about BoBS. I think the important thing is the community first, stories second, the moc's third, and the EGS after all that. And we should also remember that the EGS is entirely optional. I will have ships that I am not initially going to license, as they will be used for story purposes. My licensed ships give other inputs to my story (such as Montoya's rise to riches), but are not core to the story. If I find the EGS hinders my story, I am going to opt out for that part of it. Simple as that. Of course, I would prefer to opt in, and let that give inputs to my stories. As I said, I really like it as a story-building mechanism, and that is what I hope the MRCA 2.0 will also be. @Ska: Great minds might think alike, but the same could be said about the lesser gifted... I am going to go for your interpretation, though! Will be looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

Well, the good thing about making the free license a basic right is that it will keep some of the small vessels in game.

I think this might be overdoing it. Typically, earnings would probably be deposited at some bank at first possible option, rather than carry it to be lost at sea or taken by pirates.

I put up a link for a suggested chart of MRCA 2.0 vessel ratings. So yes, they are theoretical, and merely a figment of my imagination. But I hope it can spark some constructive debate, and if it can be brought in line with leadership and players, I am fine with it being adapted for official use.

No worries, Tuben - I can't imagine it lead to any inconvenience for the rest of us! You are only required to participate as much as you like and have time for!

@Maxim: About upkeep: It is a way of keeping the smaller vessels attractive, which I think is a good thing. But this was just a basis for discussion, and upkeep is one of the things that are easy to change. Maybe upkeep could be decided by something else, other than class. For instance upkeep if you have more than three vessels? Then you loose some of the advantage of smaller vessels, though. Of course a SOTL would have cargo capacitiy, but this would be taken up by provisions, ammunition, etc. For simplicity of the game, I suggest we keep the trading capacity of warships to 0. That also makes the WR class more interesting. (Which is also where I see Treasure Galleons and the likes fit in) Making SOTL good traders would make them a bit overpowered, I would say. And in reality, they were rarely, if ever, used for trading. if you assume the "gun-rating" x 4, I see how you get to 48 guns, but I think that measure is rather unhelpful. I would rather see the rating as a measure of broadside weight, instead of a specific number of guns. It is there for the game mechanics, and all the builder needs to know is that there is a LOT of guns! (The issue with raising the numbers too high is that the die rolls lose significance (unless you have very high numbered dices), which would make the game too deterministic, leaving no room for luck, tactics, weather-gage, etc. )

@Legostone: Conversion: We will see how this will end up being done - your offer of assistance is noted Vessel types: I don't like the idea of adding for instance "Armed Xebec" or "Brig" or "Schooner", etc. Those are rigging types, and an armed xebec can be both rather small (rate 2, perhaps) or large (rate 6 for a xebec-frigate). My experience from the moc's so far is that it has confused more than it has helped. Broadside weight: Well, actually, I didn't consider my measure for broadside weight, as it was really hard to make the numbers balance out. That measure was just an initial thought. Perhaps we should just leave it vague at "broadside weight: A measure for the firepower of your vessel"? Prices: Yes, these would definitely need to be adjusted, and the current are just an example on how the progression could look. I think there should be some degree of exponentiality in the pricing, making the larger vessels relatively more expensive. (And if you check it again, I don't just add up the characteristics, I also square the rate# ) I haven't gone through all the prices to see if there are some discrepancies - the focus was first on getting balanced characteristics for the different classes. And thanks for the feedback - it is all appreciated!

It has a cargo value of 0 - I thought that was what decided this? How do you figure the 120%? It is very possible I ahve overlooked something!

@Kabel: I do see your point, Kabel, and I too think we could benefit from raising the bar for effort somewhat. I am somewhat surprised that so many seems to be under pressure to reach the two freebuilds, plus one MRCA. I would not think those 10 dbs were so important. Perhaps the freebuilding bonuses should be suspended in months where there is a challenge deadline? I agree with Gideon that there are so many new builds, that it is hard to comment on all. But all things equal, this is a sign of the success of BoBS, isn't it? Perhaps we could encourage people to make fewer comments, and instead give deeper feedback, where they have something relevant to say? I have tried focusing on giving elaborate constructive feedback to all ship-mocs, but even that has been a lot of work... I think this is a hard nut to crack - I don't think we should tell people to stop building, but rewarding quality and effort over quantity in some way would probably be a good idea. Not sure how, though. EDIT: And how about those that put in "sufficient effort" in their first iteration? Should they be punished for not improving on a hypothetically "perfect" moc?

OK, first of all - I love the MRCA - more so as a story building mechanism than anything else. As to the questions: 1) Restricted starting point. I would suggest we do this. It will make the disposition of vessels, both merchant and warships, much more strategic. And actually give factions with fewer warships better chances of making brilliant strokes in unprotected zones. I think it will give a new depth and balance to the MRCA. (And make the life of Pirates and Privateers easier.) I should say it could be managed by a gentlemen's agreement, where we all agree to follow it. That will be selfcontrolling, then, not putting extra strain on leadership. 2) Conversion I would suggest a full refund of all license fees (free licenses being worth 0), and then a tougher judgement on the class of ships for when they are relicensed under the MRCA 2.0. As a member of the Naval Licensing Court, I should think we would happily assist in this. This might also push for more quality, as you will actually have to hit the "right note" for the class, rather than building a moc, and then have very wide creative license as to what to license it as. Instead, you will have to accept the license based on the moc you actually created. 2A) Quality Maxim (I think) suggested somewhere that those who take feedback and incorporate it into the moc should be rewarded with another x dbs. (E.g. 10, similar to a MRCA result moc). These extra dubloons could perhaps also be earned by taking preposting peer reviewing? However, I am of the opinion that if some are driven only by dbs, I will leave them to it. I will give honest (and constructive, of course) feedback, and I believe most people are driven much more by factors extrinsic to the MRCA when it comes to the quality of the MOCS. And there is still the fail-safe of leadership telling people to redo the moc, if it seems to be made only for the sake of gaming the system. Perhaps this is the mechanism to intensify, if you feel that quality is dropping? Personally, I think most people have taken their feedback well, and that people's 2nd vessel is generally better than their 1st. And the skill system is definitely a great mechanism too. Especially if it gives ingame bonuses. (Although I feel they shouldn't be too strong.) 3) The MRCA I love it, but have a few suggestions for adjustments, and have made a suggested list of new classes for feedback and discussion. (See link below - everybody can edit in it - but I have a copy ) It was a tough puzzle to make come together, but I think it worked out reasonably for a draft. My main purpose was to balance the classes better, so both a swift sailing class two, and Maxim's Margot makes sense. Changes: 1) Larger classes I have included vessels up to 1st rate ships of the line. 2) "Speed" split into two new new characteristics. I have split "Speed" into Seaworthiness and Manouverability. Seaworthiness is the amount of zones the vessel can travel, and how resistent it is to bad weather. Bigger vessels are better provisioned and built for long sea-voyages Manouverability is how well a vessel handles in the case of a chase. This is spread more evenly amongst the classes, meaning that some class 2's will easily outsail some class 5's. The manouverability generally peaks around classes 3, 4, 5, and 6, as should be close to historically accurate, and leave the "fastest" vessels available to most. 3) Balance of classes I have tried to introduce some degree of exponentiality to the prices, and included 5 % upkeep costs for vessels of class 6+. Currently, I have left in the formulas for easy manipulation, but some numbers should be rounded, and some anomalities should be fixed. (Such as the price for class 0) Further, the manouverability introduces a balance, where some smaller vessels get an advantage in case of a chase, while others will definitely be best suited for escorted runs. https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=62FBFEDADE9230D1!281513&authkey=!AAL7kGcRfIwk1DM&ithint=file%2cxlsx Looking forward to hearing feedback.

Great work, Maxim! I would like to put your forward for a paid position (5 db's each month, like other official positions?). I don't know what the title should be, though. I think current owner is necessary information too. And the War Dwarf has been renamed HMS Kite, and is owned by the crown of Corrington.

Well, I like this idea, but would think that those much attached to their creations would like to have a preferential option to buyback a vessel. Perhaps a combination would be the solution: The original owner can ransom it for 100 % of the license value, otherwise it goes on auction starting at 50 %. Then the original owner can consider gambling that noone else will bid, or take the safer, but possibly more expensive option.

I agree, Ska. We just need to find a reasonable way of calculating the ransom for these kinds of cases, and those were my suggestions for such a mechanism. It should be fair for all, and not too different from when negotiating with human players.

Well, well, it looks like I can keep my title! :P And I am happy to see the HMS Kite (formerly War Dwarf) did well as an escort. A shame it made no captures, though! ;) Btw, always, great write up - It really makes for fascinating reading! I suppose you could ransom her from sea rat leadership? Or if they are not considered capturers, we could either do a prize roll, let her sail to be captured next time, or agree on a fixed ransom for vessels captured by NPC (eg. 80% of license value) As long as the rules are the same for all and not too different from the outcome of ransom negotiations with a player.

Please do! I didn't quite understand it from our previous conversation.