Kings Port Advertiser and Ship List (Vol 1, Issue 2) MAR 616

[Fuzzy MacFuzz]

'Should be 25 +10 = 35 DBs then' (Celes)

I think Celes is right according to the published rules:

'A starting challenge: This is open to everyone to complete once, and 25DBs will be awarded to the builder for completing the task. Build your sig fig and place them in a setting in our world. It can be in the colonies, in the motherland, at sea, anything you would like, but make sure to show the figure clearly and demonstrate the profession you have chosen for them in some way.'

But Bregir very kindly pointed out to me that these are not the operational rules. The operational rules are:

Join up = 25 DBs

Build any free build, including your starting challenge scene = 10DBs.

So in fact a join up with a starting challenge build is worth 35 DBs, if registered as a free build.

Therefore Nivremis earned 25DBs for joining + 10 for first free build (starting challenge build) + 10 for second free build = 45DBs.

Obviously the operational rule is better as we all earn more lovely gold!

Perhaps somebody could change the published rules to reflect the reality?

Edited March 4, 2016 by Fuzzy MacFuzz

[Bregir]

First: Yay, I am still rich! Then me not being the sharpest tool in the shed is of little consequence. ;)

Second: On introduction and dbs.

Joining up by posting your sigfig gives you 25 dbs for starting cash, one free class 0, 1, or 2 vessel license, and a free small property license.

*If* you choose to introduce yourself with a build (which is exceeding the formal requirements) you can be awarded for that freebuild by registering it and get 10 dbs.

Third: On price zes (captures)

Yes, you need to moc that vessel to be able to use, unless it is already moc'ed. (which would be the case for a vessel capture from another player.) The exception to this is the 5 free class 5 warships each faction can have without mocs. (Not applicable for single players, obviously.)

While you can under-license a moc (the vessel may be damaged, sparsely crewed or have some cannon removed), I do not hink you should be able to undermoc a license. At least not then to later upgrade. This makes it too hard to follow, but more importantly, it breaks immersion, if a different moc is suddenly the same license. It simply couldn't be done in real life, so we shouldn't do it here.

In short, I am rich, b*****es ( ;) ), introduction with a build can yield 35, and you need a moc to use a license.

Yours truly

Don Isaac "Rockefeller" Montoya ;)

[Puvel]

Well isn't it impertinent that Corrington once again is that unusually lucky!

The captain of The Mercator was lucky indeed!

He got to see the world from a completely different perspective when he was lifted up by the hurricane.

I hope that view was worth 100DBs

[blackdeathgr]

It was about time Oleander money machine started working...!

[Kolonialbeamter]

First: Yay, I am still rich! Then me not being the sharpest tool in the shed is of little consequence. ;)

While you can under-license a moc (the vessel may be damaged, sparsely crewed or have some cannon removed), I do not hink you should be able to undermoc a license. At least not then to later upgrade. This makes it too hard to follow, but more importantly, it breaks immersion, if a different moc is suddenly the same license. It simply couldn't be done in real life, so we shouldn't do it here.

Why should one work, but not the other? From a logical perspective, that is.

Wouldn't it be equally 'hard to follow' that a ship suddenly has a different trade/fighting value when applied with a higher license? We separate the physical MOC from the role it is allowed to play within the game (=license). We allow a larger ship to sail with a smaller license, even to 'upgrade' when possible, which means you have to buy a full new license and get back the old one, when done with the paperwork. So why not allowing to make use of a big license to the limit of ones ship MOC?

I mean in 'reality', if the trader comes to the port authorities and says 'Hey, I'm entitled to go on a trade mission, I have this charter here granting me huge trade values (=big license), so yeah, let's get it on!' But the official responds that his ship was to small to leave port at all. And that he should try again once he has a bigger ship. Where's the logical sense?

A different question is of course, if such a procedure should be allowed in the game. But from a logical perspective I don't see any trouble.

Oh, and congrats on hauling in the riches, Bregir! Your MCRA build could be you mimicking Scrooge McDuck diving into his gold

But doesn't it seem odd to anyone that so many ships of the 'Merry Lyric' convoy, among them a 'Class 2F', ended up with a 256DB haul? *X-Files theme starts playing, suspicion intensifies*

[Maxim I]

I support underlicencing a ship (I mean it is always possible to carry lesser cargo/crew/guns) as it makes sense.

But I am veto'ing against overlicencing a ship. A small trade cog is no mighty galleon. The only stupid explanation is a small trade cog is sailing like a mother duck with behind her all small rafts filled with tradewear. Still makes no sense :p

In all seriousness, the whole idea is to play a game and tell that story in Lego. I understand not everyone has a huge collection of bricks, but there are other ways as well like LDD and micro building.

But honestly, even that would make it too bad for people who do invest in bricks so they can make a beautifull class 10 :)

So underlicencing: yes

Overlicencing: no

[Legostone]

Hm, I did 2 free builds and just have 35 DBs even though I just signed up in February. I registered both of them(well, one of the ships got captured though...

[Captain Dee]

And I have 1 freebuild to go with my signup, but have 45 DBs... Hmmmm.

[Kai NRG]

Use the adjudication form, fellas!

[CelesAurivern]

And I have 1 freebuild to go with my signup, but have 45 DBs... Hmmmm.

Aren't you an office holder somewhere? Monthly stipend?

[Bregir]

Why should one work, but not the other? From a logical perspective, that is.

Wouldn't it be equally 'hard to follow' that a ship suddenly has a different trade/fighting value when applied with a higher license? We separate the physical MOC from the role it is allowed to play within the game (=license). We allow a larger ship to sail with a smaller license, even to 'upgrade' when possible, which means you have to buy a full new license and get back the old one, when done with the paperwork. So why not allowing to make use of a big license to the limit of ones ship MOC?

I mean in 'reality', if the trader comes to the port authorities and says 'Hey, I'm entitled to go on a trade mission, I have this charter here granting me huge trade values (=big license), so yeah, let's get it on!' But the official responds that his ship was to small to leave port at all. And that he should try again once he has a bigger ship. Where's the logical sense?

A different question is of course, if such a procedure should be allowed in the game. But from a logical perspective I don't see any trouble.

Oh, and congrats on hauling in the riches, Bregir! Your MCRA build could be you mimicking Scrooge McDuck diving into his gold

But doesn't it seem odd to anyone that so many ships of the 'Merry Lyric' convoy, among them a 'Class 2F', ended up with a 256DB haul? *X-Files theme starts playing, suspicion intensifies*

I thought I had made a pretty good point for how a ship could have attributes smaller than what appears, due to damages, lost/removed cannons, hull space taken up by other stuff.

But the license represents the cost of building/buying a vessel. When I buy a vessel, lets call her "The Gold-Laying Hen", that ship has to be represented by a moc. I can underlicense her, for the reasons stated above, and repair, upgrade, refit her for the cost of a bigger license. That makes sense in the IC world.

However, if I have captured a 3A, it works just like having bought a 3A (Assuming it is not already a moc'ed (player) vessel). You cannot utilize that license before you have represented it in a build. In my book, that is the end of it.

And the Corlander run was a very risky one, through many zones. Together with the mysterious loss of a lot of first borne sons in Bellson recently, and the strange lights in the sky, that should perfectly explain our great profits, with out the need for

I support underlicencing a ship (I mean it is always possible to carry lesser cargo/crew/guns) as it makes sense.

But I am veto'ing against overlicencing a ship. A small trade cog is no mighty galleon. The only stupid explanation is a small trade cog is sailing like a mother duck with behind her all small rafts filled with tradewear. Still makes no sense :p

In all seriousness, the whole idea is to play a game and tell that story in Lego. I understand not everyone has a huge collection of bricks, but there are other ways as well like LDD and micro building.

But honestly, even that would make it too bad for people who do invest in bricks so they can make a beautifull class 10 :)

So underlicencing: yes

Overlicencing: no

Well, you can never overlicense a moc, but the point was to use a 3A license (example) as a 2A, if you only had a 2A moc. And then later, when you have a more fitting moc, move the license over to another ship.

But that ruins IC continuity, as licenses aren't number plates, but represents building or purchasing a vessel. (Plus, imagine what pains it would cause the poor guys trying to maintain a ship index! )

And I completely agree with you - this is first and foremost a building community, with the augmentation of the EGS. Therefore, the IC logics of the building community should always take precedence over the cold, economical logics of the EGS.

[Kolonialbeamter]

And the Corlander run was a very risky one, through many zones. Together with the mysterious loss of a lot of first borne sons in Bellson recently, and the strange lights in the sky, that should perfectly explain our great profits, with out the need for

The IC logics of the building community should always take precedence over the cold, economical logics of the EGS.

Haha, two splendid explanations Should the rest of us be corried worried for the future development of Corrington's headcount?

Agreed, in the spirit of a building community 'underusing' a license just shouldn't be done.

[Bregir]

Haha, two splendid explanations Should the rest of us be corried worried for the future development of Corrington's headcount?

Agreed, in the spirit of a building community 'underusing' a license just shouldn't be done.

I believe I have just come agreement with an Oleander!

Is this healthy? Aren't we supposed to be warmongering? If I had my bricks with me, I would suggest a small duel, just to put things back on tracks!

For now, I suppose, we will just have to.... dare I say it?.. agree!

[Mike S]

Kings Port Advertiser and Ship List

MAESTRO Destroyed! The almost famous Green Viking Trade route met an infamous end rather quickly this month. Rumor has it that the small squadron sailed straight into Hurricane Helga, when the Knight of Stedor was lost in the swell. Fleeing the winds, La Defensora had to fight off a pirate boarding at high seas, but made it to New Terelli and made a profit. Unfortunately the Wringe I and its escort, The Fallen Angel met up with the infamous pirate Zublious Van Wreck. The two vessels were last seen manned by prize crews on their way to the Nest of Thieves. We can only assume that this is the end for the young trading company. We expect stocks in the MCTC to sky rocket now that their chief competitor is crushed. We think that Elysabethtown will be sold to MAESTRO’s creditors, and once again the price on Apples will come back down to normal rates now that the company’s reign of terror in the fruit market is over!

Haha, I think MAESTRO may have some problems with Kings Port Advertiser spreading these horrible rumors.... from my calculations, MAESTRO did better than "another" trade company...

It seems the Coyle Shipping Company was once again neither extremely unfortunate nor extremely fortunate, so Aiden is satisfied with the results.

[Maxim I]

Haha, I think MAESTRO may have some problems with Kings Port Advertiser spreading these horrible rumors.... from my calculations, MAESTRO did better than "another" trade company...

It seems the Coyle Shipping Company was once again neither extremely unfortunate nor extremely fortunate, so Aiden is satisfied with the results.

Yup indeed :p you know we had an 351 db income this month in total :D and we have right now 55 db in our coffins :) so not that bad at all! But ofourse, it could have been better if we didn't lose two ships (again) :p

[Legostone]

Haha, I think MAESTRO may have some problems with Kings Port Advertiser spreading these horrible rumors.... from my calculations, MAESTRO did better than "another" trade company...

It seems the Coyle Shipping Company was once again neither extremely unfortunate nor extremely fortunate, so Aiden is satisfied with the results.

We might not be satisfied with this months result, but look at how much all ships from the ETWC brought home(hint: it is just 0 DBs)

[Mike S]

We might not be satisfied with this months result, but look at how much all ships from the ETWC brought home(hint: it is just 0 DBs)

--->

MAESTRO did better than "another" trade company...

[Legostone]

--->

I was just dropping a block of salt into their wallets.

[Mike S]

I was just dropping a block of salt into their wallets.

I honestly expected the rumor to be about ETWC. I was shocked it was MAESTRO....

[Tomsche]

But never the less, we are still alive and kicking

Though personally, I think I'm going to be barricading myself up behind the city walls this month until some 'correction fleet' deals with those very hazardous waters first.

That and I need to finish a lot of buildings first

[Legostone]

I honestly expected the rumor to be about ETWC. I was shocked it was MAESTRO....

Indeed. But it is definitely not most fun if a single trade company loses 3 ships in 2 months - about 3 times as many as Corrington which has 30 ships; we had 8 licensed ones (including the Appleseed which already sunk last month). I guess we are just really unlucky on that...

Short: MAESTRO has lost 37.5% of their ships.

Edit: funny, Eslandola has lost the Fallen Angel and captured the Blessed Angel - I hope thats a good omen, as the Fallen Angel has fallen, lets hope the Blessed Angel is blessed.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Legostone

[Garmadon]

Haha, I think MAESTRO may have some problems with Kings Port Advertiser spreading these horrible rumors.... from my calculations, MAESTRO did better than "another" trade company...

We might not be satisfied with this months result, but look at how much all ships from the ETWC brought home(hint: it is just 0 DBs)

Ahem! On the contrary, our shipyards are hard at work, not to mention on land construction Wait for it...

At least our ship survived though!

[Vedauwoo]

Well, you can never overlicense a moc, but the point was to use a 3A license (example) as a 2A, if you only had a 2A moc.....

I think the bigger picture to look at here is a 2A and a 3A are different types of ships....So, of course one license cannot be applied to the other...

A better solution might be an option to "earn DB value (or reduced portion thereof) of license by turning it in the Faction leaders..." or something along that line....so if you have a 2A built, capture a 3A and don't want to build, perhaps you could get 75% of the license value in DB for "turning it in." Then those funds could be used to purchase the license you need.

[Legostone]

Ahem! On the contrary, our shipyards are hard at work, not to mention on land construction Wait for it...

At least our ship survived though!

We still have 5 ships that work and our shipyards are working too...

[gedren_y]

I'm guessing that the Coyle Shipping Co. is grateful that Dearji the Windsong, Wandering Acolyte of the Triuri, insisted on doing a formal blessing on all ships in the Quick Wing trade run before they got underway.