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

[Jacob Nion]

So does upkeep for active ships mean that if I don't send a licenced ship out for a mission in an MRCA I don't have to pay its upkeep for that month?

[Kolonialbeamter]

8 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

So does upkeep for active ships mean that if I don't send a licenced ship out for a mission in an MRCA I don't have to pay its upkeep for that month?

Yup, upkeep will only be charged for those ships active during an MCRA run. No participation for that month - no upkeep for that month.

[Bregir]

1 hour ago, Legostone said:

I think I would rather see higher initial cost and less income, but we'll see how this plays out. Given that I don't redistribute my fleet (which might be a good idea) I'm sitting at ~500 DBs in upkeep if all MY ships are running.

@Bregir Btw, for future MRCA - will it be possible to get the MRCA result as a .xls or google sheet? It would make working with small fleets much easier.

Higher initial costs raises entry barriers for new players and (if dependent on how many ships you have) encourages scheming to license ships in a particular order. With this scheme, it is cheap to be new, and the order of licensing is arbitrary. :)

As to the xls/google, I should think so, but as we are still working out the last kinks, we will get back to you later.

Also, now it is actually a choice whether you want to send out all your ships. Choices are what makes a game interesting ;)

It may be prudent not to send out all warships in a time of peace, but also risky. So factions and players alike will have to strategize ;)

[kaiju]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

It is meant to be crazy ;)

The MRCA has been too profitable compared to the risk it entailed, adding to a hefty overall inflation in BoBS. Thus, we learn from the past and adjust it. ;)

That's a joke, in my experience.

[Bregir]

2 minutes ago, kaiju said:

That's a joke, in my experience.

I should have added that this is the case for an overall assessment. Individual experience may differ.

However, for those who only have a few ships, there will be no or little upkeep. Those with many, on the other hand, will pay increasing upkeep. That should help balance out the moguls with those less fortunate.

[Jacob Nion]

My rum-soaked brain still denies to step through the upkeep calculation (as it does by any form of calculation). Could we have a few examples for different fleet sizes?

Edited May 14, 2017 by Jacob Nion

[Bregir]

2 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

My rum-soaked brain still denies to step through the upkeep calculation (as it does by any form of calculation). Could we have a few examples for different fleet sizes?

I remember that 300 in base upkeep equals exactly 300 in actual upkeep.

More than 300 in base upkeep will be subject to a positive modifier (making it more expensive) and less than 300 will be subject to a negative modifier.

And since upkeep is 25 %, a base upkeep of 300 translates into 1200 DBS worth of licenses. :)

[Legostone]

@Jacob Nion I have a google doc here - add some ships and their classes and see the numbers develop. Feel free to enter some testships ;)

Edit: @Bregir It is 350 DBs - 2 class 7s.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Legostone

[Maxim I]

As this probably mean decreased fleet sizes for factions and players, will the NPC factions have the same?

And will their be a list of the active vessels those NPC factions have?

[Legostone]

As I said before - this system for upkeep might be cool (it is for sure!), but it is pretty complicated to implement with a sharesystem. Getting there!

[MKJoshA]

Just posted my design for the logo contest. Be sure to give your feedback!

[Bregir]

Reminder: We are their only hope!

 

[Garmadon]

Good day, everyone!  More news from everybody's favorite completely fair and unbiased newspaper!  Check out the latest news from the far seas - and the Category C results - here! 

[Sir Stig]

Is it much work to include a small picture (maybe with link to the entry) of each submitted build when posting challenge results? It is sometimes hard to remember every build, and even harder to find it again.

[Garmadon]

Category D results are in (tired of all 'o them yet?  )!  Too bad!   Check the newest developments out here!

[Garmadon]

Who won the war?  Who's the new Prince of Garvey?  And who did King Alphonso name honorary Mardierian Ambassador for their services? (Bah! )  Check all that and more out here!

[Maxim I]

Yeey :D

Married with a Princess of Eslandola and now the title of Prince of Garvey

Maybe I should restore the crown of Eslandola in ERA II...

Edited June 13, 2017 by Maxim I

[Professor Thaum]

 

Just now, Maxim I said:

Yeey :D

Married with a Princess of Eslandola and now the title of Prince of Garvey

Maybe I should restore the crown of Eslandola in ERA II...

you definitely poser !!

 

[Sir Stig]

20 hours ago, Maxim I said:

Yeey :D

Married with a Princess of Eslandola and now the title of Prince of Garvey

Maybe I should restore the crown of Eslandola in ERA II...

Congratulations!

And... Restore the crown at your own peril. Being King of Eslandola can be a hazardous job.   

[Mesabi]

So, I was looking at the properties guide, and I've got to say I think values are a little skewed. Here's a table.

Type	Cost	Size	Profit	Comparative Size	Comparative Cost	Comparative Profit	Settlement Addition
Small	25DB	16x16	5DB	x1	x1	x1	1
Medium	50DB	32x32	10DB	x2	x2	x2	2
Large	75DB	48x48	15DB	x4	x3	x3	3
Royal Factory	3000DB	>100x100	500DB	x6.25	x120	x10	5

For a building 4 times as large as a small building, you only get 3 times as much profit. For a building 6 times as large, you get 10 times the profit, but you pay a prohibitively high 120 times cost to build it. This means while other buildings will pay for themselves in 5 months, royal buildings take 6 to pay for themselves. 

Since you guys are redoing the whole MCRA system, might you consider readjusting some values? I feel like building larger buildings has diminishing returns. Why would I build something 4 times as large when I only get 3 times the profit. And Royal buildings are especially egregious because they cost so much. And then there's the fact that they require at least 4 48x48 baseplates which cost about $7.00 from bricklink, and twice that from an actual retailer. In fact, I think there have been about seven of them, half in LDD. 

There was probably a lot of thought that went into this, and I got to say, I love BoBS, but I feel like the property values are a bit unfair. If I build an awesome, huge MOC, shouldn't I get more for it? Sorry if someone has brought this up before, but this is just my 2 cents.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Mesabi

[Captain Genaro]

9 minutes ago, Mesabi said:

SNIP

I would point out that 1) Many larger builds are meant to be collabs. Sure, some people can build royal and large properties on their own, but quite a few have been done with several members. In addition, there is a limit to the number of properties someone can license in one month. Finally, don't forget the impact on a settlement's trade value and size (not sure what the ratios are here). 

That said, we really do appreciate all feedback and take it into consideration. I'm not trying to dismiss your suggestions, and it's entirely possible that the properties will be changed. The game isn't perfect, and it's good to know what issues players see with the game. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Captain Genaro

[Elostirion]

Your chart is slightly off regarding size. You would have to square the values. 16x16 = 256; 32x32 = 1.024 => factor x4. Results in factors 9 and 40 for large and royal. Your point still stands.
Also comparative profit of Royal should be 100x, right?

However what also has to be considered is the long-term-aspect. Yes, a royal MOC does take 6 months to pay off. However let's consider a two-year-period (that is how long the ago the first royal MOC has been published):
Large: Total profit is 24X15-75 = 285 DBs, for 2.304 studs => 0.1237 DBs / stud
Royal: Total profit is 24x500-3000 = 9000 DBs, for 10.000 studs => 0.9 DBs / stud

Also keep in mind that you may only license up to three properties per month. During my most active times I easily MOCed 5-8 small or medium properties per month. That alone makes it reasonable to MOC larger, less profitable structures.

I also would suggest reworking property revenues, but into another direction. The larger, the less profitable. Small structures should give starters an easy way in, but people should not be able to become as absurdly rich as for example I did.

And please don't get me wrong, not trying to talk down your point int the slightest! It's just that I have totally different perspective (that of a player who licensed a lot of expensive stuff in the EGS) on the the whole thing, and I see it's important to consider both for leaderships, that's why I explained my point of view. :-) 

 

And regarding costs of royal MOCs: I have not paid a cent for the flat baseplates, I actually used lots of 32x32 and even 16x32 and 16x16 and 16x8, but I had plates above these. The real costs came from other things, like ordering hundreds of slopes for the roof, or ten thousand light blue diamonds for the water, etc. ... Yes, doing those in non-LDD and non-collaboration will inevitably become expensive. ;-) 

 

And regarding the amount there have to be more than 7? I can count:
* MCTC Textile Factory Weelond
* Fontonajo palace near Montario
* Cotton Island near Salida Este
* Parliament Hall in Montario
* MAESTRO market place collaboration
* MCTC Cotton Plantation Bardo collaboration
* Nellisa Royal Road collaboration
* Oleon Royal vineyards collaboration (partly LDD)
* Oleon parliament hall (?) (partly LDD)
What did I forget?

Edited June 21, 2017 by Elostirion

[Jacob Nion]

 

@Mesabi  

I have to agree with @Elostirion

here. It is all about longtime balancing. If it would be that easy to establish larger properties with immense yield it would quickly destroy the game. And make smaller properties useless. And that would be sad, because it's the smaller builds one can finish in a few days or weeks of creative rush that keep this game alive. Imagine everyone would only work for month on extraordinary large dioramas. 

And another aspect. I'm sorry I have to talk like an Eslandiard now, but I think your argumentation lacks a realistic view on capitalism:

The matter is not how fast your investment pays off. Instead it is about constantly increasing your monthly income. An explanation:

Imagine you would own the 3000 db for a royal property. Following your argumentation it would be more reasonable to licence a few smaller properties instead because they pay off earlier than an RP. So you only invest 150 db and keep the rest. 

That means that 2850 db is dead capital! It is of no value for you to keep so much resources if you don't have a certain investment plan. 

But if you use it for the Royal Property it generates an immense yield of at least 500 db and that's god damn much! 500 db yield means that you can constantly licence new smaller properties every month. Or pay the upkeep for a solid fleet in the coming MRCA 2.0.

And instead of talking about the six months it takes the RP to refinance, see it like this: only six months until a RP generates enough capital to licence a second RP. That's a phenomenal profit margin. How long would it take you to gain so much money by licencing only small medium and large mocs?

Edited June 21, 2017 by Jacob Nion

[Legostone]

3 hours ago, Elostirion said:

And regarding the amount there have to be more than 7? I can count:
* MCTC Textile Factory Weelond
* Fontonajo palace near Montario
* Cotton Island near Salida Este
* Parliament Hall in Montario
* MAESTRO market place collaboration
* MCTC Cotton Plantation Bardo collaboration
* Nellisa Royal Road collaboration
* Oleon Royal vineyards collaboration (partly LDD)
* Oleon parliament hall (?) (partly LDD)
What did I forget?

 

 

 

 

 

Maxims Quay, Captain Dee's Royal Gardens and Ayrlegos hotels (?, LDD)

 

As well as that - royal properties produce absurd amounts of DB's with no risk attached. The 100x100 limit is currently the minimum size - we are glad to see bigger builds (well, this applies to all sizes of properties). I personally still believe (as someone who has been working on one in the background and owns parts of another one) that these are way too profitable for their price. 

[Sir Stig]

Just now, Legostone said:

As well as that - royal properties produce absurd amounts of DB's with no risk attached. The 100x100 limit is currently the minimum size - we are glad to see bigger builds (well, this applies to all sizes of properties). I personally still believe (as someone who has been working on one in the background and owns parts of another one) that these are way too profitable for their price. 

I have to agree, if I try to be neutral (part owner of Royal Property). I still think the size increments from small and up hinders my production on good small builds. If I throw together something just to do it, or if I try to make a smashing MOC I get the same monthly increase. If I try to build it bigger, it is often just stud fill. And often I think that can make builds worse. For me the current setup is counterproductive. I tend to try and "save" ideas in order to get a bigger property, and it often ends up with nothing (or a thousand projects that takes up parts, and hinders progress). And I think we are neglecting smaller than 16x16 builds. Think about the official sets. I want to be able to try and make realistic official size sets, and still get paid a little for them. I suggest a 8x8 at 2db/month, a 16x8 at 5db/month, and increase the pay for current sizes by 5. The size of towns may increase by accumulating these small builds (4 8x8 counts as 1 towards town size, 2 16x8 counts 1, one 16x8 +two 8x8 counts as 1). The reason I suggest this is because I think more people will have an easier time participating and enter something on a regular basis. And for TLG these smaller kind of builds can, perhaps in the future, serve as inspiration to release an official BoBs pirate set wave...? That would have been Awesome. 

I am starting to see the PIPs (and FIPs) as way more valuable than DBs, because there are no recurring income on those.

Perhaps a universal tax on bankrolls, to reflect the cost associated wealth (accountants, security, vault rent, etc etc), could help to take some money out of the game. And add realism.