Brethren of the Brick Seas (BoBS) Introduction and Starting Thread

[Maxim I]

I think the limit of 3/2 licences each month is good and should not be changed. One can always let another player, TC or the town itself licence a building.

However, I do agree that prospecting scenes should not count toward the 2/3 licences as the setting up cost will count as licencing.

[Sir Stig]

12 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

I think the limit of 3/2 licences each month is good and should not be changed. One can always let another player, TC or the town itself licence a building.

However, I do agree that prospecting scenes should not count toward the 2/3 licences as the setting up cost will count as licencing.

I agree. or else you have to pay 2 times of your allotted 2/3 slots. One when you prospect, and once more when you license. Either that or it should not count towards the 2/3 when/if you license it.

[Elostirion]

24 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

I think the limit of 3/2 licences each month is good and should not be changed.

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.

[Kolonialbeamter]

44 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

Has someone in leadership discussed the limitation to the amount of properties?

Öhh... not to my knowledge... not yet, that is

44 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

I think many players here have proven that it's possible to MOC more than two or even three quality MOCs per month.

And I see you've understood the reasoning for this rule. Quality. This rule is/was meant to act in the interest of those with less time on their hands, not to be 'steamrolled' by more ambitious builders - or more precisely, not to have them 'rush-build' in reaction to this. Is it still necessary? IMO, it has proven to be working. Hmm... to be honest, now that I think about it, I'd rather have it encompass ship-MOCs, too. But then, as Maxim said - you can always license your builds to benefit other entities - and most of us are part/members of more than one economic entity.

44 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

There was supposed to be a skillsystem to add to the amounf of properties you can license... but that thing has never come.

Hmm... there is something in the making... and it might address this issue... and it could be announced soon(TM)... 

44 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

"one location"

Oh, that's simple - the option you regarded as most likely answer: one location is one settlement (plus what used to be regarded as its hinterland) as they are listed in the account sheet.

44 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

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

It doesn't sound too unreasonable, but it'd be another rule, complicating things yet a bit more. Ask yourself: would this be worth the extra effort to work it out, explain it, etc.

 

44 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

I would love to hear a leadership-statement on this thing? :-) 

I think leadership oninion is one thing. But more importantly, I'd like to hear what we all think of this. Is there a demand for such a rule update?

[Elostirion]

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.

[Maxim I]

55 minutes ago, Elostirion said:

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.

As KolonialBeamters said: to keep the game balanced for those with lesser time...

If one can build a decent property every day, it would benefit the game more if he donates/sells properties to other players (with lesser building time) to keep the system in balance. If he licences those 30 builds himself every month the fun would be gone for those who try to keep up, but lack the time...

It is very great that you produce multiple quality builds every month, so please keep continue with them! :)

As said already, also settlements can licence buildings.

And not licenced buildings are also contributing to the trade value of a settlement!

[Garmadon]

3 hours ago, Elostirion said:

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? :-) 

Actually, I do really like this idea and can totally understand your reasoning (especially as to the settlement rule hurting diversity) - I've never had any problem running into the rule myself (since only about half of my builds are licencable, and I only licence something like once every three months! ), but I've always thought that if I had the time it would definitely be an annoying rule (and of course, it probably is for the others of you who do have the time!)

The additional percentage of licencing cost should provide a far better limit, I would think, than the current rule, as far as those with a get-rich easy and quick schemes too (I don't think anyone needs to worry about Maxim's hypothetical situation of 30 licences a month anyways, but the 800% licence costs should be a good deterrent for anyone who wanted to try it!  - though of course, if they are quality builds and the builder has the time and DBs, I don't think it would be a problem, and such activity should be rewarded!), and should be no problem to automate 

I'll bring it up more in the leadership, anyways!

[Legostone]

Regarding ship licensing - what is the reason for the price hike after 3 ships anyways? It is easy to delay anyways (I currently have 4 ships licensed myself (and the fourth one was free for me thanks to Challenge IV), out of around 20 that I've built), and currently benefit from almost all of them. I would have preferred licensing many of them myself, but currently it is far more reasonable to let others license them...

[Bregir]

@Legostone: The ship limits will be remade with the new ship classes, and I think we will find a solution for the issues you are raising.

@Elostirion: Since we don't have limits to how many properties you can own, but do have for ships, I don't think we can draw those parallels. Leadership is discussing a solution to your issue now.

[Kwatchi]

I honestly thought the license rule applied to ships as well properties and I have played by the rule of 3/2 with ship incl. since the start.   It hasn't impeded my enjoyment at all.  In those first few months of my colony when I had a "backlog", I simply left properties unlicensed until I had a slow month free free slots.  The present rule system works just fine in my eyes.

And tbh, what started this conversation worries me a bit.  If you are building a prospecting MOC, I  expect you to build a mine afterwards regardless of the result.   It isn't a lottery ticket that you throw away if you don't get a winning result; it's the first part of a story line.  I realize persons participate in BoBs for different reasons, and if you are one of the ones that measures the enjoyment by their Db count by all means build/scheme to that effect to your hearts content.  But keep in mind the more rule-bending that happens, the more other people who are in this for various reasons can get turned off.

Frankly, at this point there are two specific players I wouldn't agree to do a joint project with based on some previous EGS actions I felt broke the spirit of BoBS' systems.   It doesn't hurt me in the least, but I feel they are examples of poor sportsmanship and my limited free time is worth too much to deal with persons like that.

My 2 coins.

[Bregir]

1 hour ago, Kwatchi said:

And tbh, what started this conversation worries me a bit.  If you are building a prospecting MOC, I  expect you to build a mine afterwards regardless of the result.   It isn't a lottery ticket that you throw away if you don't get a winning result; it's the first part of a story line.

Well, Kwatchi, storywise, doesn't it make sense not to set up a mine, if your prospecting didn't find anything valuable? Isn't that as good a story-driver as setting up the mine?

I am not sure we have seen any mines not being set-up so far, so I am not sure if this is really an issue.

1 hour ago, Kwatchi said:

But keep in mind the more rule-bending that happens, the more other people who are in this for various reasons can get turned off.

This is very true. That is always something we try to consider in leadership in creating rules that does not lend to bending. The first iteration did naturally have some issues, but for all the rules we review or introduce, we try to ensure they are not open for interpretation or bending.

If anyone finds a rule open to bending, let us know and we will try to take it into consideration, and clarify or redo the rules.

1 hour ago, Kwatchi said:

Frankly, at this point there are two specific players I wouldn't agree to do a joint project with based on some previous EGS actions I felt broke the spirit of BoBS' systems.   It doesn't hurt me in the least, but I feel they are examples of poor sportsmanship and my limited free time is worth too much to deal with persons like that.

You are of course free to choose who to cooperate with in BoBS, but if someone is bending or breaking the rules, perhaps it would be proper to alert someone from leadership to fix a misunderstanding or address an outright break of rules? Or talk to the person in question in a polite and constructive tone?

[Kai NRG]

I think Elostirion has brought up some decent points: the 3-2 limitation on properties probably doesn't really increase quality (does the lack of such a limitation decrease ship quality?): it could do the reverse, by encouraging people to hurry up and finish their builds this month, so they don't end up having too many next month (that may have happened to me actually).  Also the one location 3 vs. two locations 2 is something I do think should be reconsidered by leadership please.  Does it make sense to encourage builds in a single location?  Flipping the rule would in fact make more sense from a OOC perspective, to encourage diversity and the growth of multiple settlements.  IC, arguments could go either way: multiple locations in one month means more travel time, but then, a single location may strain that locations resources.

I believe I have only been forced once to wait to license thanks to that rule, but especially early on it was an annoying something I had to juggle, and I really don't think anyone is concerned about me just pumping out builds without regard to quality...

If there were any likelihood of someone building 30 builds a month, it might be a good idea to impose limitations, but we're probably talking at most an additional 2 or 3 licenses, and even that is not something anyone is going to be able to keep up consistently for very long.

38 minutes ago, Bregir said:

I am not sure we have seen any mines not being set-up so far, so I am not sure if this is really an issue.

Well, I'm behind on mine, but that's been lack of time, not lack of intention! 

[Kwatchi]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

Well, Kwatchi, storywise, doesn't it make sense not to set up a mine, if your prospecting didn't find anything valuable? Isn't that as good a story-driver as setting up the mine

I think you may have missed my point.  My brother got a salt/stone mine result for his exploration back in June.  He has no interest in following through on it and that is his prerogative.  Building does take some inspiration after all.

My raised concern was that someone would simply build a dozen or so small exploration MOCs one month (as there is now a question on how many one can submit per month) in an effort to get a yield result they wanted through a brute force effort.  If that is the case, we are going to be inundated with 10 x 10 MOCs of rock work, most of which head off to slag heap afterwards (pun intended).  If I wanted to see that much grey brick, I'd be in GoH.

As for the rest, I am participating at a level I feel comfortable with and enjoy.  I don't expect others to feel exactly as me and I do my out most to respect their play style to the extent I can.  As a completely fictitious example, if you want to license a white 2x4 block as a Royal Factory I am not going to tell you 'no' or tattle-tale to the council; but at the same time I am going to associate/collaborate with player's with my point of you more than yours.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Kwatchi

[Bregir]

3 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

If I wanted to see that much grey brick, I'd be participating in GoH.

But ok, get your point. Not sure I agree it would be a problem, really, but I understand where you are going. (Of course, if the mocs aren't sufficiently different or doesn't show sufficient effort, then we would have a problem.)

And, just to be clear, I am not asking people to rat out on each other - just to make an effort to ensure the sportmansship of BoBS doesn't suffer because the rules are being bent to someone's advantage. Also, we should all be able to get along (Not with the Greenies, obviously, but the rest of us! )

Other than that, I agree with your 2x4 example. And hopefully, leadership would stop that specific issue ;) But I get your point! (I think... )

[Capt Wolf]

38 minutes ago, Kai NRG said:

Does it make sense to encourage builds in a single location?  Flipping the rule would in fact make more sense from a OOC perspective, to encourage diversity and the growth of multiple settlements.

Flipping this rule makes sense to me. As it is now, the rule encourages players to focus only on "their" settlement.

6 hours ago, Elostirion said:

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.

I disagree. Active builders can already "win" (are already "winning") in the EGS, and the limits prevent them from "winning" by so much that nobody else is interested in playing. Isn't "winning" within the existing rules enough?

[gedren_y]

Having read the various arguments, I would like to give my opinion.

This is about the freedom to license more builds in a single month than the rules currently allow. The cost multiplier idea does seem reasonable. Depending on the property size and type, this extra cost for the license may take longer to recoup, especially for smaller builds. There would be no real incentive to build a large number of easy builds to be licensed in the same month, because the costs would outweigh the benefit for too long.

About @Kai NRG's proposal of inverting the 3-2 rule, that too seems reasonable. We have some islands that have little to no licensed builds set on them. An incentive to spread out our builds is something I do think we need. The in-character solve for the spreading of builds is simple; create more characters. I have a number of them, and I have none that are mayors, governors, or council members.

@Kwatchi's concerns about junk prospecting builds are valid, so a limit on prospecting makes sense here. I have to reread the current rules to before I make any more suggestions on the matter.

[Elostirion]

1 hour ago, Kwatchi said:

My raised concern was that someone would simply build a dozen or so small exploration MOCs one month (as there is now a question on how many one can submit per month) in an effort to get a yield result they wanted through a brute force effort.  If that is the case, we are going to be inundated with 10 x 10 MOCs of rock work, most of which head off to slag heap afterwards (pun intended).  If I wanted to see that much grey brick, I'd be in GoH.

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!

[Jacob Nion]

I am against flipping the 3/2 rule.

This would perhaps be reasonable for the Imperial factions in which it is common that the leadership has partial control of settlement founding, and all towns are supposed to be community builds (or part of a company=team of players). 

But Sea Rats are an anarcic bunch of illegal immigrants; all our settlements are supposed to be squatter colonies of some sort. So it's more reasonable for us to build in our own little pirate hideout instead of working together on one shared city as it would be planned and run by a professional organized company or government.

Not that some wouldn't do that; it just seems more unlogic for pirates. Also perhaps not every member of an imperial faction likes to be part of a company or share a city with others, and be it just because he wants to design the settlement completely by himself, and not because of the EGS.

It is just a matter of personal preferences. Maybe you should just make it 3/3. Everything else would either punish people who like to make their own way or disadvantage those who prefer team play. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Jacob Nion

[Elostirion]

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?

[Jacob Nion]

That sounds a bit harsh. I said nothing about special rules for Sea Rats. The best rules are those which work for every player regardless of his strategy. And if someone collaborates with other people in one city or works on his own is no matter of faction. 

Therefore I suggested to just abolish the whole rule.

But if you are unwilling to play the game without strict reglementation for every triviality to defend the peaceful landlubber economy from the way too overpowered game spoiling sea rats, @Elostirion I have another suggestion:

-a player can license up to 3 properties per month, but not more than 2 of them in the same settlement

Would this be more to your taste?

Edited January 16, 2017 by Jacob Nion

[Bregir]

If anything, I think we will be looking for a simplification, such as max 3 properties, regardsless of position, each month. :)

[Elostirion]

13 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

That sounds a bit harsh. I said nothing about special rules for Sea Rats. The best rules are those which work for every player regardless of his strategy. And if someone collaborates with other people in one city or works on his own is no matter of faction. 

Therefore I suggested to just abolish the whole rule.

But if you are unwilling to play the game without strict reglementation for every triviality to defend the peaceful landlubber economy from the way too overpowered game spoiling sea rats, @Elostirion I have another suggestion:

-a player can license up to 3 properties per month, but not more than 2 of them in the same settlement

Would this be more to your taste?

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.

[Kwatchi]

First off my apologies to Elostirion.  Ruffling the feathers of our resident mineral magnate was not my intention.  I was trying to bring up the fact that here we have a property type that is/may be ungoverned by the present licensing rule but still counts as property when calculating a colony's size, and is relatively simple to build.  The fact that there is a 25 db cost associated as a deterrent is somewhat lessened when you look at some of the high player balances in January.  The potential for abuse is there and I expressed my opposition to it.  This will be my last word on it.

As to the 3/2 rule, I'm of two minds.  I presently sit on the third largest colony in size (yes, I am as shocked as you are) and I did so by personally taking advantage of that 3 license rule some months, so my talking against would make me hypocritical.  My defense is that I misinterpreted it and consider it all encompassing: I counted any license action against the limit, including ships, soldiers, and prospecting. It worked perfectly fine that way, and when I had more MOCs that legal slots I simply waited a month.  Patience is a virtue and all that.

I'm honesty not sure why anyone feels the 3/2 needs to be changed.  I worked within a more strict system due to poor reading skills and it didn't hinder me at all.  However if some are that concerned, a 3 anyplace-you-like rule is fine by me at this point, as no one is then penalized for their style of play.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Kwatchi
I no write gud

[blackdeathgr]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

If anything, I think we will be looking for a simplification, such as max 3 properties, regardsless of position, each month. :)

That would be the best. Either way, as said above, the matter has been transferred at BoBS Court and we will be with you shortly. 

@SkaForHire I have prospected at Breshaun in search of silver. Can I have the results of prospecting pretty please???  Thanks in advance!

[Sir Stig]

58 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

First off my apologies to Elostirion.  Ruffling the feathers of our resident mineral magnate was not my intention.  I was trying to bring up the fact that here we have a property type that is/may be ungoverned by the present licensing rule but still counts as property when calculating a colony's size, and is relatively simple to build.  The fact that there is a 25 db cost associated as a deterrent is somewhat lessened when you look at some of the high player balances in January.  The potential for abuse is there and I expressed my opposition to it.  This will be my last word on it.

As to the 3/2 rule, I'm of two minds.  I presently sit on the third largest colony in size (yes, I am as shocked as you are) and I did so by personally taking advantage of that 3 license rule some months, so my talking against would make me hypocritical.  My defense is that I misinterpreted it and consider it all encompassing: I counted any license action against the limit, including ships, soldiers, and prospecting. It worked perfectly fine that way, and when I had more MOCs that legal slots I simply waited a month.  Patience is a virtue and all that.

I'm honesty not sure why anyone feels the 3/2 needs to be changed.  I worked within a more strict system due to poor reading skills and it didn't hinder me at all.  However if some are that concerned, a 3 anyplace-you-like rule is fine by me at this point, as no one is then penalized for their style of play.

 

 

Ahah, I did not realize that both the prospecting scene and the mine both, counted towards colony size. That seems strange, since one turns into the other. Frankly I don't care about the dbs, it is the ideas and creative flow that triggers me. In that regard, I think a 3 anywhere rule, would allow for less factors to considerate in relation to the EGS. That means more freedom to create stories, and opens up for diversifying different build styles, and placing them wherever they fit best. Whatever gives us the best stories and inspiration :) I wish I had more output, and I keep stalling my many projects in order to get 3 for one settlement. That has not worked out well. I could have licensed everything, if I just finished and posted 2 or even 1 each month. Consistency is not my strength...

Edited January 16, 2017 by Sir Stig