New features to the MRCA

[Bregir]

So, the 1st rate SOTL can haul 120% of a settlement's trade value.....isn't that a fiscal impossibility?

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!

[CelesAurivern]

So, the 1st rate SOTL can haul 120% of a settlement's trade value.....isn't that a fiscal impossibility?

That's the crew rating. All warships have 0 cargo and cannot trade to save their lives. Class 7T is the largest trader with 100% value.

[Vedauwoo]

My two cents for whatever it is worth.

I strongly disagree in putting any form of reward or penalty on build quality. Lego is an art not a skill. What is better to one may not be to another. EB is a place to display your MOCs online no matter what quality, not a school for becoming the next Lego designer. If you don''t like something, don't comment on it. I have personally found comments useless as they are usually out of my current control- more time, different pieces that I don't have, etc. If you are not going to keep your model on display, what is the point of improving it? Just build something better next time. I cannot emphasize enough that building Lego is an art. It is expressing what you want to portray using the modular medium of Lego. There is no right or wrong way of building. It is 100% subjective and a matter of personal taste. Let people be free to express themselves in whatever form they want no matter how rudimentary it turns out to be. The game aspect in my opinion is only to add some extra fun and to add a unifying factor to the pirate community where all builds have some sort of relativity to the next.

This is an approach I use as well.....perhaps because I started out in AG, where all builds are generally secret and posted at the last minute each week before the deadline....

I tend to take comments and critiques and apply them to my NEXT build.....as often a build has already been scrapped for parts by the time the pictures are posted....I like to Bricklink when I can...but I can in no way afford the parts and space to keep every build assembled for "tweaking."

I would propose going in the opposite direction....a build is posted once....no upgrades...if you need to improve, show that on the next build....

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!

Whoops...lol, was looking at crew rating...

[Legostone]

My point was that people are not working on the mocs they have already posted in order to improve them. In the early phases of GoH you could rework your moc until the challenge deadline. That really improved things considerably. Here I'm seeing a "get the job done and move on" kinda attitude which is kinda sad as it leaves us with a lot of mocs that are not living up to their fullest potential. And, I also think feedback in Bobs could be more critical. What's the point of ten people saying "yeah your stuff is cool" when there still is room for improvement?

I kinda tried to do that in the beginning when MAESTRO asked for a charter for Elisabeth town, when I told Titus to go back and do better. However, I'm not seeing much of this being done anymore as the incentive is to build as much as possible for the EGS instead of building as good as possible. In the end it doens't matter whether you put a minifig on a plate or whether you build something really elaborate. You still get the same amount of DBs. And, in the end being lucky in the MRCA eventually leads to more income than proper mocing.

I have to agree to this - and say I'm guilty of doing the same thing that is being complained about, at least the part about not improving existing builds. The biggest problem with improving existing ship builds is often - at least in my case - the rigging. If you change something, you might have to spend a few hours redoing the rigging, which is, as many of you might know - rather painful doing again. I think we could have something along the lines of a BOBS Shipyard, where everyone who wants to posts his ship before doing their rigging so we can give him some hints what to improve before doing the rigging. This would work even better now, as approvals are not needed anymore, and a comment in that thread wouldn't be worth any less than one in your own topic, if you are one of those people;)

Oh yeah - the MRCA, where some people make over 200 DBs with their free ships while others get almost none. I guess that is one of the reason why to revisit it...

How could we solve it that improved builds - and builds, that are can not be improved - fall into the same category? And how do we do all this without putting to much work on the shoulders of the organisers?

I second that. Right now this forum is spawning way too many threads to keep up on reading, let alone comment everything... If it would be possible, it would be great if there was some MRCA gain to listening to feedback and improving MOCs and/or their presentation.

That would definitely motivate me to further improve my builds - I've said some other stuff before. Maybe a few extra DB if the build was posted in WIP form and changed a decent bit since then? But only once, otherwise people could easily game the system there.

@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?

Now it is the time to see what is more important - more FB or the MRCA:P I already try to give feedback on what to improve whenever I comment, but very few here seem to do that sadly. Approvals were a great idea, but the way they were included was kinda unfitting I think. But that is to much effort for the organisers which I can totally understand.

OK, first of all - I love the MRCA - more so as a story building mechanism than anything else.

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.

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.liv...thint=file,xlsx

Looking forward to hearing feedback.

2.Conversion - if you need some help in the naval licensing court I could also jump in for the point when we have to reclassify most vessels. But how do we deal with auction - won licenses? I think those should straight up stay in an equal class.

1. Yes please - but maybe we should also add some other vessel types to the list, just so everyone has a better idea where to expect their planned vessel (like: Xebec/armed Xebec etc)

2.I really like this idea and I would like it included.

3.I feel like the prices for the classes up to class 3 or 4 can stay as they are - I think it is just right that even someone who didn't get anything from his first months MRCA can afford a smaller ship in the second month. However, I think these prices with just adding up the features of the ships and multiplying them by 9 is a little bit to simple - it doesn't do much justice to the stronger guns in Warships for example. However, for estimating the rough price of the stronger vessels this is just right.

However - I don't think your broadside weight calculation works that well - for some larger East Indiaman you easily get values of 30+ - maybe that part should be thought about again. Again, if you need any help trying to find some better values I can give some suggestions after thinking about it.

I also think the large merchant vessel (class 4T) is way underpriced compared to the 5LT, 5F and 5T. If you want I can go through the whole list and write something about every class, but lets continue that in another place.

[kabel]

I have personally found comments useless as they are usually out of my current control- more time, different pieces that I don't have, etc. If you are not going to keep your model on display, what is the point of improving it? ...

Okay, now that's were we are going opposite ways. I actually like getting constructive feedback on wips. But I can understand why you wouldn't.

[Bregir]

@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!

[Maxim I]

So between class 5 and class 6, there suddenly is 30 db upkeep. That's why I suggest upkeep for al classes. it is fairer and faction, cities and tradecompanies have to pay upkeep as well.

Another thing. I am pretty sure a class 7 HA has more cargo possibilities than a class 1T, so maybe a minimum cargo for those big ships? Especially when they are so expensive in upkeep.

Also, 48 guns for a first ship of the line is very few. Margot is historically seen a third ship of the line and has already 55 guns

[Bregir]

@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. )

[Capt Wolf]

I'm not entirely sure what this means.

"We will have a new ship list with the new MRCA, which method of conversion do you prefer?"

Means all ships will be reclassified? With the exception of the free ship, your other ships licences will be refunded and then you may repurchase under the new classification?

I second this query. I'm not sure what's being discussed. Since I just lost my ship to the hurricane, I need to a license a new one. Is it ok for me to go ahead and file a free license for a new class 2 ship at this time?

Also, I keep reading comments about ships greater than class 5 and upkeep costs. Are these theoretical, or is there a new ship chart I'm not seeing?

[Vedauwoo]

....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. )

Not to mention the expense and hassle of having to Bricklink order 50-60 cannons.....

[Bregir]

I second this query. I'm not sure what's being discussed. Since I just lost my ship to the hurricane, I need to a license a new one. Is it ok for me to go ahead and file a free license for a new class 2 ship at this time?

Also, I keep reading comments about ships greater than class 5 and upkeep costs. Are these theoretical, or is there a new ship chart I'm not seeing?

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.

[CelesAurivern]

I second this query. I'm not sure what's being discussed. Since I just lost my ship to the hurricane, I need to a license a new one. Is it ok for me to go ahead and file a free license for a new class 2 ship at this time?

A free ship won't affect the licence refunds anyway, so feel free to go ahead.

I don't think 2.0 is going to be implemented in a matter of days yet :p

[Capt Wolf]

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.

Ah, I see it now. Thanks!

[SkaForHire]

Ok too much to quote:

To Bregir, great minds think alike, I have already split speed into two categories for the next version when I saw your chart. And I even picked Maneuver as the name of the characteristic. However, the chart is not going to work, because there are now a few more characteristic differences.

To Legostone, I like the data representation but there is a critical piece of information missing -- how many zones one traveled. The reason why 2Fs are so over the top is that they are the more popular free ship, and people don't care about throwing caution to the wind and sending them 7 zones, which means a heavy increase in income if they make it. a 1 $ rating vessel running a 400 DB route over 7 zones is going to make at least 40DBs and could make up to 136 DBS. What we are seeing here is small routes and small ships are going to average a lot less money than bigger ships going on much longer routes.

Whoever said 2 times a month -- that was my original goal, until I ran it once, if automation comes, perhaps this will be possible. Right now I am more concerned about finding good places to sink gold at an individual level. The factions are not a problem, they theoretically spend their money every month.

--------

On the debate of quality versus quantity, where I agree we should discourage a constant barrage of figbarfs and baseplate + square structure, at the same time I have to agree with the sentiment that most people are not looking to become a master builder. Most people seem to generally want to improve over their builds, but few people want to improve THAT build they just finished. Ships may be different, if you are leaving them up for display, but other than that, a few minor cosmetic changes on any build is probably the extent that the majority of AFOL's put towards an old build. For me, this is a story game, Lego is a medium to tell stories, and it is fun to tell them side by side. I try not to put out crap builds so that people will enjoy what I have presented, but at the same time, I am not becoming Gideon or even Legonardo ever. (The difference here is that Gideon showed up to GoH already and ace, and Legonardo developed into one).

We actually had a quality reward system for free builds, but that was removed. IF we put the quality component on all free builds, then people would have lost interest quickly as they only earned two or three DBs.

Phred and I talked about adding a quality component to ships that granted bonuses in the MRCA, which would tie into the skill tree as well, so it is coming - after the new MRCA. This would reward those who take the extra time to add some of the upper level building techniques to their vessels.

[The Sarge]

I think quality of builds is rapidly improving. That said, I don't think we should have a minimum quality. It's not a colaborative display, it's an online community. While I would hope we can come to a gentleman's agreement to do our best, I also don't think we should limit those with small collections or pocketbooks, who might be brilliant but limited by their pallette.

For ships, perhaps we could measure their cargo capacity in tons burthen, using studs instead of feet? This would make it easy to find what class your vessel fits in for cargo.

[cb4]

Legostone, does your chart include DBs subtracted for lost licenses? I've found that in the long term, large paid license ships are only marginally more profitable than free license ships, simply because the cost of a loss is so prohibitive. You can guard against losses to predators with escorts, but there is no way to avoid navigation losses (i.e. foundering, Ska's typhoon of the month). KolonialBeamter, for example, made a huge fortune with one ship, but lost a fortune in licenses with his other ships. The split of seaworthiness vs maneuverability will help immensely with this I think. Right now I would be pretty reluctant to sink money into a license for a large ship.

Some ships in the current list are definitely a poor deal compared to others, however. The 5F is superior to the 5T, because it is faster (can visit more ports), yet has the same cargo space, and costs 50DB less. Although the 5T is better armed, you're going to want escorts anyway, so the gun rating is less important than it otherwise might be.

The issue of quality and judgement is a really grey area. There's already a grey area when it comes to just determining the rating of a ship MOC in terms of scale/guns. For example, in my opinion the Margot and the Bull Shark are overgunned for their sizes, but that's entirely subjective. The idea of getting bonuses for a ship if it is really high quality is a cool one, but 'really high quality' is again a subjective thing. It could work if you have a board of universally respected MOCers who make that call. When it comes to DBs, the most prolific builders (regardless of quality) are going to dominate at the end of the day, and I don't think there's anything you can do about that without alienating people.

I think it's much more important to focus on getting the MCRA right in terms of encouraging builders to try different things. As a Sea Rat, I want to license a terrifying raider and start snapping up merchants left and right until someone sends a fleet after me. However, right now the game mechanics don't support this. If I want to capture a lot of ships, the drag and bag approach (i.e a long route escorting a flotilla) is very much better than an actual predator run. In the end, we're in it for profit. So, the Sea Rats have turned into traders :)

[Vedauwoo]

So, the Sea Rats have turned into traders :)

I agree....seems our faction needs some sort of special "raider mechanic" akin to Corrington's Science and Eslandolia's Trade Companies......I think the "tax break" is supposed to be this...but it seems our reduced income leaves us at the bottom of the factions as far as earnings.....

But, then again...I'm not really sure what the DB's and FIP's are used for at the faction level anyway....

[Dukesc]

First of all, I think this game is absolutely fantastic as is! It brought me back into Eurobricks altogether and I am really excited to watch it evolve!

I think that ships should start from their last position as it adds a sense of realism.

The ratings should include 4F and have classes up to 1st rate.

I agree that we should be told what your ship is rated as. I also agree that everyone should get refunded and then have to buy back the appropriate license.

I also think we could entertain the idea to add or remove cannons. This would allow the owner to increase a warship cargo from 0. Maybe have a cheaper port fee rather than new license to add/remove cannons?

I strongly feel judging of MOCs should be strictly in the challenges. The last thing I want is to scare away would be long termers only due to initial and overly critical judging. Otherwise, respectful and useful help should come in that MOC's thread. Besides that, Bricklink isn't always a quick or affordable option for everyone.

At some point most of us who display and have limited Legos will somewhat plateau on build quantities at which time we should make any improvements we haven't done already and also agree with. No one agrees with all criticism received, regardless who it's from.

Upkeep, if we have it, should be larger as the ship gets bigger. Maybe the smallest ships could have a very small amount of upkeep.

[Vedauwoo]

I think that ships should start from their last position as it adds a sense of realism.

Would this sort of arrangement also mean that a ship's "winnings" would not be safe until they visit a "home port?"

Thus making MRCA #3 run earnings a potential prize/loss during MRCA #4, etc until the ship returns home to offload the gold?

[Bregir]

Would this sort of arrangement also mean that a ship's "winnings" would not be safe until they visit a "home port?"

Thus making MRCA #3 run earnings a potential prize/loss during MRCA #4, etc until the ship returns home to offload the gold?

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.

[SkaForHire]

There is a lot we could do with the MRCA , if we wanted to make it a harder to calculate. The first, very simple, version was three numbers. Scarst and I played for a few days and decided it got dry very quickly and you could not really do things like convoy and raid. It expanded to a somewhat usable system, that if automated would be good, but right now with nearly 100 ships, takes 7 hours to calculate. However, as CB4 - who has automated the system to an extent - said, the drag and bag strategy is the best way to take ships, and the most profitable as your ships are protected.

The idea is to add more strategies, and I have a few ideas. Plus, merging the MRCA with the war mechanic will make use of some of those useless warships.

[SilentWolf]

On the debate of quality versus quantity, where I agree we should discourage a constant barrage of figbarfs and baseplate + square structure, at the same time I have to agree with the sentiment that most people are not looking to become a master builder. Most people seem to generally want to improve over their builds, but few people want to improve THAT build they just finished.... For me, this is a story game, Lego is a medium to tell stories, and it is fun to tell them side by side. I try not to put out crap builds so that people will enjoy what I have presented, but at the same time, I am not becoming Gideon or even Legonardo ever. (The difference here is that Gideon showed up to GoH already and ace, and Legonardo developed into one).

I very much agree with the sentiment Ska has presented here. I want to improve my abilities as a builder but I don't have the resources or desire to only produce masterpieces. I enjoy the stories AND the actual process of building. I hope that I am improving but I know if there had been a minimum level of quality I probably would have never joined BOBS.

I think the problem with restarting the MRCA at the same place where you ended is that it does not allow you to use your ships in any storyline between the MRCAs. It seems logical that they would be used more than just during a trade run each month.

[Fuzzy MacFuzz]

Sorry I haven't time to read all the comments here. But I do feel the MCRA has too much importance and too much wealth.

To expand: I have built 6 builds so far, taking maybe 25 hours. But the income for all of these together is hardly more than a single MCRA run with a ship I hired for 15 dbs in five minutes (MCRA earned me 70 dbs). Does this scale of rewards encourage me to build more land based MOCs? Does it reward me for fun story-based builds versus simply churning out ships? Is the economic game fairly balanced to those who focus on land builds and have little interest in building ships? I think the answer to all these questions is no. I am honestly not much bothered with the MCRA, or in competing with others for Dbs. But if I want to licence my land builds I need Dbs and the only way to get enough is the MCRA. Please don't get me wrong, so far I've loved everything I've done in BoBS and getting 70 'free' Dbs is lovely, I'm just not sure the economic system is properly balanced.

Edit: Having read BlackDeathGr's post below, I wanted to reiterate how much I am enjoying the game. If the MCRA remains as it is, that won't detract from my enjoyment at all. I think my comment may have sounded more critical than I meant it to!

Edited April 3, 2016 by Fuzzy MacFuzz

[blackdeathgr]

For me the MRCA is a bonus to an already GREAT game. It can be improved or not. I could live with how it is right now or see any new and interesting feature. But this is up to the organizers of this game (e.g. Ska). I am already having TREMENDOUS fun when King's Advertiser is published every month and this alone says it all. Great job.

I have joined BoBS in order to build all things "piratical" in the first place, no matter if these are land based MOCs or ships (that i am sloooooowly improving just by watching other more competent builder's designs, until i demolish my Brick Bounty or little Hermes after our LUG's major expo in May...). For me it is the sheer fun i am having both when we are chatting with my teammates and when i am building things at home alone (and chasing my cat off the LEGO pile. Round bricks are her favorites). Some of my MOCs are nicer than others, while some others are simply boring. This has to do either with lack of pieces (ofc i could put 87907045764 plants in some of my creations if i had them lying around or with lack of time (end of month anyone??? ) Nevertheless i am having fun with all my MOCs without exceptions. EGS (current version of MRCA included) is a nice way to have us all hooked up and it has certainly achieved that (just look how vibrant this Pirate/BoBS forum has become). I will never be sad if i lack the DBs to license a MOC of mine at any given month, since more of my joy comes just by building it. I can always license it the following month or if it is important for my nation/teammates, i can always get a state/royal loan to do so. So keep building everybody and observe what some of the master builders in this forum build. You can definitely improve yourselves!

And Ska, dont sweat too much to build the perfect MRCA, since this isn't controlled by an AI and while too many parameters are a pleasure to some and a burden for others, it is you that will ultimately get yourself burned by calculating results for 86.738.673.876 ships that we, the players have built Just keep it in an easily manageable level. We aren't playing Europa Universalis or Civilization or Napoleon Total War here. We are LEGO builders!!!

[Sir Stig]

We actually had a quality reward system for free builds, but that was removed. IF we put the quality component on all free builds, then people would have lost interest quickly as they only earned two or three DBs.Phred and I talked about adding a quality component to ships that granted bonuses in the MRCA, which would tie into the skill tree as well, so it is coming - after the new MRCA. This would reward those who take the extra time to add some of the upper level building techniques to their vessels.

I think quality of builds is rapidly improving. That said, I don't think we should have a minimum quality. It's not a colaborative display, it's an online community. While I would hope we can come to a gentleman's agreement to do our best, I also don't think we should limit those with small collections or pocketbooks, who might be brilliant but limited by their pallette.For ships, perhaps we could measure their cargo capacity in tons burthen, using studs instead of feet? This would make it easy to find what class your vessel fits in for cargo.

I agree that there should not be a minimum quality. Quality should be rewarded, but not more than more builds would earn more money. I am lucky to have bought a few lots with Lego, so I have a good amount of bricks to chose from. Still, there is always more bricks that could improve a build, and money should not be the issue. We have to remember the fun and story telling qualities of BoBs. The proposal of having a best of BoBs monthly post could work, with both quality builds and humor/mood builds, both good techniques and good presentations, as well as good stories. Maybe have all fb's have a lower base reward but all fb's earn approvals, or something? So you could earn big on one elaborate fb, or build a few more not so advanced builds and earn the same. I see how that would be more counting of approvals. Is there a way to automate the approval count mechanism? I like to find some aspect that I like that grants the approval, and sometimes I give suggestion for things to improve. Sometimes I just don't see anything that could be better because I am not at that level yet. Other times I am unsure if they want feedback. Without making things to bureaucratic each builder could just add if constructive critique is welcome, and bear in mind the positive and helpful spirit of the community.So I say yay! to more exposed studs. Look at it like different style tattoos, a la dotwork. And yay! to any kind of style as long as everyone is having a good time. Asketh for constructive critique, and thou shall recieve.

The tons burthen idea is great. A minifig foot is one stud, it is perfect. A guideline for how many square studs a ship class has in cargo, and how much broadside power a ship has. That would make it easier to MOC something that will fit into a class. As long as you hit those, it should not matter to much if you have built the wrong type of ship.

Although some feedback from the ship experts is good in order to learn more, ship building is not necessarily the main drive for everyone in the brick seas. That's why I am looking forward to the skill tree, having more choices in what you want to pursue, is more inviting to get a large, inclusive. and thriving community building site. (This is an example I found to see if inclusive was the right translation "They need an inclusive process where the real fabric of this very complicated society can deal with their issues.". and "Include: make (someone or something) a part of something.")That is also a reason to partake in the Brethren of The Brick Seas. To take part in a world where only your imagination set the limits (as long as you follow a few loose guidelines. Like for instance no steam power, and such)." I personally like complexity, but to keep it accessible and inviting for new people, complexity has to be weighed against ease of understanding, also including those that build for casual participation and entertainment. Everyone should have an easy way to join in and get a basic understanding of the the EGS. The new rules are much easier to understand, but must say although there are lots more that could be made even more complex, I vote for holding the reins with adding more.

...That being said I feel the seaworthiness should reflect how many zones you can sail between ports. Sailing from Bardo to New Oleon should be hard for small ships. Although possible, the crew should get sick from getting to little fresh water and eating to much fish, as well as more prone to sink in storms. But I'll let other take most of those discussions, since I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to ships. I like the pictures and colors

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sir Stig