New features to the MRCA

[Bregir]

In the current MRCA, some have made a lot of money (Or so I am told... ), while others have made nothing, and lost several vessels.

I have no overview of the general payback rate of the MRCA, but it seems to me that it serves its purposes with a large spread of risk. Fortunes are made and lost, just like in real life.

Everybody here seems to basing their assesment of their own results. And thus, I must narrowly conclude that the MRCA is a veritable gold mine. But that is hardly representative.

Further, I am concerned the EGS takes up so much of so many peoples minds about BoBS. I think the important thing is the community first, stories second, the moc's third, and the EGS after all that.

And we should also remember that the EGS is entirely optional. I will have ships that I am not initially going to license, as they will be used for story purposes. My licensed ships give other inputs to my story (such as Montoya's rise to riches), but are not core to the story.

If I find the EGS hinders my story, I am going to opt out for that part of it. Simple as that.

Of course, I would prefer to opt in, and let that give inputs to my stories. As I said, I really like it as a story-building mechanism, and that is what I hope the MRCA 2.0 will also be.

@Ska:

Great minds might think alike, but the same could be said about the lesser gifted... I am going to go for your interpretation, though!

Will be looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Bregir

[Captain Dee]

...I am concerned the EGS takes up so much of so many peoples minds about BoBS. I think the important thing is the community first, stories second, the moc's third, and the EGS after all that.

I generally agree with your comments in this post (the full post) but I disagree slightly with the above quote.

I can't see more value in the stories than the MOCs. Perhaps they have equal value to the builds, but this being a Lego site first and foremost, putting more emphasis on the story than the builds sounds too much like other forms of fanfic. I appreciate both while leaning more toward the builds, but I won't elevate one over the other for the benefit of those who feel differently.

And my views aren't based on any game outcome since I haven't participated in that yet.

[Elostirion]

"Maybe even a "Hall of Fame/Best of BoBS" sticky with the winning/worthy entries."

I think this might be the best way. Public voting on the best non-challenge-build every month, the top 15 builds get DBs (first gets 40, 5th gets 25, 12th gets 10, 15th gets 5 or sth. like this). Maybe even in some categories. It must not be restricted to the top two or three, so that not only the Gideons have a shot at winning but every random builder has a chance to hit those winning-ranks if they do their best.

Also considering build quality: Right, there is still room for improvement, but just look at challenge 2, so many amazing entries. Sure, some builds posted here really lack both build quality and story. But those are rare. Most are very decent at least. True and for sure not always to the builder's fullest potential, but then again encouraging everyone to try new stuff. Really, we are criticizing on a very, very high level here. Please always keep that in mind when talking about build quality.

If there is a problem with BoBS then it's that Dubloon-wise I will always be better off to do 5 builds with 80% quality than 2 builds with 100% quality.

"Right now I am more concerned about finding good places to sink gold at an individual level."

I was thinking about that as well.

However the increase in license-cost for ships depending on the amount does a great job here, so if you buy your 7th ship and decide for a class 5 - it just gets really expensive. Or just get some royal property, those 1.500 DBs take a while to gather.

Starting at the last position: I don't like that at all. It would just take more and more hours of my life in which I would have to strategize about this game instead of building MOCs.

Deciding about ship size after the MOC: Please not, at least find some middle ground. If I want to build a 3F I will have a game-reason for that, and I will do my best to match that goal. Most people will, and by this come at least somewhat close (unless you severely lack bricks, but that should not be punished, should it?). If there has to be a limitation it should be a jury forbidding absurd stuff (a canoe won't be a 3A - but noone has done anything like that yet).

[Fuzzy MacFuzz]

Bregir, I am in agreement with most of your post, especially your list of prioirities on BoBS, but how is is possible to lose a fortune on the MCRA? My 2F ship was free to licence, I earned 70 DBs on the MCRA. If my ship had sunk, I would have lost nothing except that I would need to build a new ship, but building MOCs is the whole point of the game, so that's no hardship. Sorry, I can't see any risk at all.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Fuzzy MacFuzz

[Legostone]

"Maybe even a "Hall of Fame/Best of BoBS" sticky with the winning/worthy entries."

I think this might be the best way. Public voting on the best non-challenge-build every month, the top 15 builds get DBs (first gets 40, 5th gets 25, 12th gets 10, 15th gets 5 or sth. like this). Maybe even in some categories. It must not be restricted to the top two or three, so that not only the Gideons have a shot at winning but every random builder has a chance to hit those winning-ranks if they do their best.

Also considering build quality: Right, there is still room for improvement, but just look at challenge 2, so many amazing entries. Sure, some builds posted here really lack both build quality and story. But those are rare. Most are very decent at least. True and for sure not always to the builder's fullest potential, but then again encouraging everyone to try new stuff. Really, we are criticizing on a very, very high level here. Please always keep that in mind when talking about build quality.

If there is a problem with BoBS then it's that Dubloon-wise I will always be better off to do 5 builds with 80% quality than 2 builds with 100% quality.

"Right now I am more concerned about finding good places to sink gold at an individual level."

I was thinking about that as well.

However the increase in license-cost for ships depending on the amount does a great job here, so if you buy your 7th ship and decide for a class 5 - it just gets really expensive. Or just get some royal property, those 1.500 DBs take a while to gather.

Starting at the last position: I don't like that at all. It would just take more and more hours of my life in which I would have to strategize about this game instead of building MOCs.

Deciding about ship size after the MOC: Please not, at least find some middle ground. If I want to build a 3F I will have a game-reason for that, and I will do my best to match that goal. Most people will, and by this come at least somewhat close (unless you severely lack bricks, but that should not be punished, should it?). If there has to be a limitation it should be a jury forbidding absurd stuff (a canoe won't be a 3A - but noone has done anything like that yet).

Yes, this! As well as that maybe add a bonus of 25 DB given to a random FB outside of those top 15.

I agree completely with the build quality part, not much to add there

Yep, everyone seems to be forgetting that heavy increase in price after the 3rd ship, as most classes don't really seem worth it anymore at that point. I still think it should be a bit different (maybe instead of straight up +50% go for steps of 25%, so 4th ship 125% total, 5th 150%, 6th 175% and so on. Same result on average, but might allow some players to get a few more vessels. Could get messy calculating though (well, it could actually be really easy with the right use of google forms, so I don't think this would really pose a problem)

Yep, I'm already spending way to much time calculating which ship is the best one to use for the MRCA (the part of the spreadsheet I showed earlier wasn't everything, thats my spreadsheet:P), so I would rather not add that part to that. Also, it could get easy to find out where a fleet landed, so the SR or opposing nations could obliterate other fleets with just a little bit of planning.

Let the builder decide what ship type he wants, and if it really doesn't fit send him to the naval licensing court - thats why we have them.

Bregir, I am in agreement with most of your post, especially your list of prioirities on BoBS, but how is is possible to lose a fortune on the MCRA? My 2F ship was free to licence, I earned 70 DBs on the MCRA. If my ship had sunk, I would have lost nothing except that I would need to build a new ship, but building MOCs is the whole point of the game, so that's no hardship. Sorry, I can't see any risk at all.

Last MRCA one class 5T (400 DB) was captured and one class 5F (350 DB) sunk. If you don't consider that a fortune at this point in the game I'm not sure what to consider a fortune in this game - that are more DBs on each than I have right now, and I've been saving up!

Edited April 3, 2016 by Legostone

[Sir Stig]

One way it is possible to build big ships with few bricks is to build on a lesser scale. That's a decent building challenge, not a short cut, as I see it.

[Capt Wolf]

"Maybe even a "Hall of Fame/Best of BoBS" sticky with the winning/worthy entries."

I think this might be the best way. Public voting on the best non-challenge-build every month, the top 15 builds get DBs (first gets 40, 5th gets 25, 12th gets 10, 15th gets 5 or sth. like this). Maybe even in some categories. It must not be restricted to the top two or three, so that not only the Gideons have a shot at winning but every random builder has a chance to hit those winning-ranks if they do their best.

Also considering build quality: Right, there is still room for improvement, but just look at challenge 2, so many amazing entries. Sure, some builds posted here really lack both build quality and story. But those are rare. Most are very decent at least. True and for sure not always to the builder's fullest potential, but then again encouraging everyone to try new stuff. Really, we are criticizing on a very, very high level here. Please always keep that in mind when talking about build quality.

If there is a problem with BoBS then it's that Dubloon-wise I will always be better off to do 5 builds with 80% quality than 2 builds with 100% quality.

[...]

Deciding about ship size after the MOC: Please not, at least find some middle ground. If I want to build a 3F I will have a game-reason for that, and I will do my best to match that goal. Most people will, and by this come at least somewhat close (unless you severely lack bricks, but that should not be punished, should it?). If there has to be a limitation it should be a jury forbidding absurd stuff (a canoe won't be a 3A - but noone has done anything like that yet).

Yes to these two points above! Points for best non-challenge builds each month sounds like a great idea, and let's not over-legislate ship building/licensing. Common sense should be able to prevail on this latter item.

[The Sarge]

Now to post this in the right thread....

Here's the tons burthen of a few ships we have known size values for, approximately. I wanted to show a visual guide and we could figure out Argo ratings from there for a new system.

Swift - 2 tons burthen (1 per hull)

Parakeet - 34 tons burthen

Commerce de Breshaun - 243 tons burthen

Obviously we'd need to designate a range for each cargo class - perhaps 1 per 25 tons - and have it no longer be a percentage of a town's trade value, but instead a fixed amount - say 5db per cargo rate up to the maximum trade value if the town. That would make it more profitable to run small ships between small towns and big ones between major cities.

[CelesAurivern]

Last MRCA one class 5T (400 DB) was captured and one class 5F (350 DB) sunk. If you don't consider that a fortune at this point in the game I'm not sure what to consider a fortune in this game - that are more DBs on each than I have right now, and I've been saving up!

Good grief! How is one able to afford so many class 5s in the 3rd month?

[Capt Wolf]

Good grief! How is one able to afford so many class 5s in the 3rd month?

Well, the 5T mentioned above was co-owned by at least 5 different investors each paying a portion of the license fee.

[CelesAurivern]

Well, the 5T mentioned above was co-owned by at least 5 different investors each paying a portion of the license fee.

Ah, I see. If the damage is shared, then it's not as bad as eating it solo. My condolences, nonetheless.

How about the other 5F though? From the previous post, I almost thought both ships were owned by the same person.

[Maxim I]

Ah, I see. If the damage is shared, then it's not as bad as eating it solo. My condolences, nonetheless.

How about the other 5F though? From the previous post, I almost thought both ships were owned by the same person.

The 5F was owned by KolonialBeamter. Probably also a shared ship :)

[Elostirion]

I think a change that might really be neccessary is a bonus malus system depending on the nation. Someone in this thread said sth. along the lines of "many Sea Rats have become traders" - sure, that is fine and possible, but not the original intention.

It might look sth. like this:

Corrington: Has the most scientifically advanced ships and gets a bonus on the strength of the hull (or maneuverability maybe, or speed or whatever will be new) -> (H) is one point higher than the original.

Oleon: A true warrior nation, gets a bonus on gun ratings -> (G) is one point higher than the original

Eslandola: A true merchant nation, gets a bonus on cargo -> ($) is one point higher than the original

Sea Rats: Every Sea Rat at the seas is a fierce warrior, affecting the whole crew of the ship -> © is one point higher than the original

Another way could be to add bonusses to the rolls from Ska (so whenever he rolls a trade in a city Eslandola has a slightly higher chance, whenever a ship is boarded the Sea Rats have a slightly higher chance, Oleon in pure naval combat, Corrington has a chance to safe a ship that is about to sink, or sth. like that).

Those ratings would work for captured ships as well: Eslandola would always find a spot for more Cargo, Oleon would just add some bigger guns, Corrington would put some metal plates to the hull, and the Sea Rats crews would just be stronger than the previous crew.

I really think such an addition would:

* add to the strategic depth of the game a lot

* differentiate the nations' approach to the game

* make every ship attractive to at least one nation

* (maybe create some overpowered scenarios, but that's what adaptions in the rules are for)

[Bregir]

As I see it now, there are a few points that the "MRCA" should address. I will try to sum them up below - let me know if I forgot something. (They are not in prioritised order)

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

Let me know if I forgot something, or if you have any comments to my issues and suggestions. It will be much appreciated.

EDIT: I also think there should be wider ranges for defining what a predator mission is willing to risk attacking. It might be very well not to attack anything larger than a rate 3 vessel, but if it is in consort with two others, all warships, or escorted by the Margot, it is still a rather bad decision...

Edited April 4, 2016 by Bregir

[Fuzzy MacFuzz]

OK, I now understand the risks of losing a fortune on a larger ship licence, thanks for explaining. However in my case, there was no risk at all in the MRCA and (unless I suddenly start building large ships, which is unlikely) there never will be. It was just 70 free dbs.

I still think the balance between land based builds and the MRCA needs addressing in the economic game. What do others who, like me, focus on land builds think? But maybe they're not on this thread! And maybe they don't care too much anyway, they just like to build!

For me the best thing about the MRCA are the great builds and stories its results have inspired, both character driven and micro builds.

On the earlier argument about quality, I don't see much point in rewarding high quality builds for their own sake. That just tells us what we already know; some of us build better than others. And it will demoralise the weaker builders like myself. Surely rewarding quality is what the challenges are for. Outside of the challenges, shouldn't we be rewarding effort, improvement, originality and fun? That's what I hope to do in all my comments. Except this one .

Edited April 4, 2016 by Fuzzy MacFuzz

[Captain Dee]

I'm not convinced that strict faction bonuses/modifiers are a good idea, due largely to the simplicity of the concept. For example, according to the faction info, Corrington has the best guns - so giving that advantage to Oleon doesn't make much sense. It's been said that the skills tree will address some of these things, which leaves these chances for improvement up to the builder regardless of faction.

The idea of having multiple strategies is good, but I think we need to be careful with complexity. Allowing the faster vessels to reach port first and capitalise may make good sense, but in reality, how much of an advantage would they really have? If they arrived a whole day sooner then sure, they'd have a trade advantage - but they wouldn't be part of the convoy either at that point. If they arrived a few hours ahead (not too far ahead to be beyond the convoy) would there really be any significant trade advantage? Maybe if they sprang to action upon reaching shore. My point is that this could be made really too complicated to manage, and until there's some level of automation I think it best not to overdo the fine details of a trade convoy ship-by-ship.

Displaying some archetypes or examples of each class of vessels is a good idea - something like 3 examples per class showing the acceptable range would be really nice.

The ultimate game mechanism would aim for the highest possible level of realism - but I think everyone knows that would be virtually impossible to apply without total automation of everything. To make it manageable requires some serious simplification.

[Legostone]

@Bregir:

1. Good idea, I would also want to include that in the price increase - the first 8 rating slots cost 100%, the next 4 125%, the next 4 150%, the next 4 175%, the next 200% and then keep increasing it every 4 slots by 50%. If a ship overlaps the higher cost rate will be applied(?). This way there is no hard limit on how many vessels one can have, but the price increases heavily after a certain amount. I don't think everyone should have a ship of every second class build, maybe in the lower range - you have to have a class 1 or 2 licensed to get a class 3-5, and once you have a class 3-5 (built or licensed?) you can get any class above. That would be the maximum of restrictions I would give to that.

2. Sounds good too, right now sending out ships without convoys just doesn't seem worth it, that should change.

3. doesn't sound bad, but I think there would be a lot of effort involved. I also think it could get a bit unfair to some people as the effort to find a good route could get a decent bit more difficult.

4. Maybe keep the amount of NPC vessels (but I still think there are way to many NPC pirates that are heavily armed as of now - I think there are way to many now, maybe make them not appear every MRCA), but increase the chance of them sinking instead of catching them. Also - why are there only armed NPC vessels? I would also expect those nations to trade, but not a single trade ship of the other nations has been caught yet.

5. An example build for every class (when one exists already) would be a great idea. For those classes where one doesn't exist yet maybe go for offering a small bonus for the first vessel of its kind (which I would appreciate anyways, there have been many vessels, but many types haven't been built once so far).

6. I think this rather goes towards the skill system in the future instead of the MRCA, so maybe lets stop discussing about that here?

to the Edit: More strategic options never hurt!

[Bregir]

I'm not convinced that strict faction bonuses/modifiers are a good idea, due largely to the simplicity of the concept. For example, according to the faction info, Corrington has the best guns - so giving that advantage to Oleon doesn't make much sense. It's been said that the skills tree will address some of these things, which leaves these chances for improvement up to the builder regardless of faction.

The idea of having multiple strategies is good, but I think we need to be careful with complexity. Allowing the faster vessels to reach port first and capitalise may make good sense, but in reality, how much of an advantage would they really have? If they arrived a whole day sooner then sure, they'd have a trade advantage - but they wouldn't be part of the convoy either at that point. If they arrived a few hours ahead (not too far ahead to be beyond the convoy) would there really be any significant trade advantage? Maybe if they sprang to action upon reaching shore. My point is that this could be made really too complicated to manage, and until there's some level of automation I think it best not to overdo the fine details of a trade convoy ship-by-ship.

Displaying some archetypes or examples of each class of vessels is a good idea - something like 3 examples per class showing the acceptable range would be really nice.

The ultimate game mechanism would aim for the highest possible level of realism - but I think everyone knows that would be virtually impossible to apply without total automation of everything. To make it manageable requires some serious simplification.

I agree about the faction bonuses. Diversity should be accros players, not factions.

And I take your point about complexity, but you misunderstood me. A convoy will always sail as a unit, going by the speed of the slowest ship. Perhaps a special roll for convoy encounters could be made, where one outcome was to catch a straggler (and then have an encounter without escorts interfering - a very lucky outcome), atttacking normally, or being attacked by x escorts, etc., rather than the "per ship" roll we currently have.

So the suggested bonuses would only accrue to solitary trade ships (who could, of course, be bringing a fast escort).

The first clippers to arrive home to England with Tea would command much larger prizes than the next. (According to James Clavell's Tai Pan - excellent book, btw)

The number of archetypes would depend on the moc's available, I suppose, but of course we can also use real-life examples to top it up. I prefer the use of MOC's though, although a combination might be the best choice.

And yes, manageability is an important factor, but let us first seek to develop a system that works, and then make it manageable.

@Bregir:

1. Good idea, I would also want to include that in the price increase - the first 8 rating slots cost 100%, the next 4 125%, the next 4 150%, the next 4 175%, the next 200% and then keep increasing it every 4 slots by 50%. If a ship overlaps the higher cost rate will be applied(?). This way there is no hard limit on how many vessels one can have, but the price increases heavily after a certain amount. I don't think everyone should have a ship of every second class build, maybe in the lower range - you have to have a class 1 or 2 licensed to get a class 3-5, and once you have a class 3-5 (built or licensed?) you can get any class above. That would be the maximum of restrictions I would give to that.

2. Sounds good too, right now sending out ships without convoys just doesn't seem worth it, that should change.

3. doesn't sound bad, but I think there would be a lot of effort involved. I also think it could get a bit unfair to some people as the effort to find a good route could get a decent bit more difficult.

4. Maybe keep the amount of NPC vessels (but I still think there are way to many NPC pirates that are heavily armed as of now - I think there are way to many now, maybe make them not appear every MRCA), but increase the chance of them sinking instead of catching them. Also - why are there only armed NPC vessels? I would also expect those nations to trade, but not a single trade ship of the other nations has been caught yet.

5. An example build for every class (when one exists already) would be a great idea. For those classes where one doesn't exist yet maybe go for offering a small bonus for the first vessel of its kind (which I would appreciate anyways, there have been many vessels, but many types haven't been built once so far).

6. I think this rather goes towards the skill system in the future instead of the MRCA, so maybe lets stop discussing about that here?

to the Edit: More strategic options never hurt!

1. A price increase like so would be a good idea to limit players. Through the skill system, one might earn a +1, for instance, so that the extra fee is postponed to the next ship, or similar.

And yes, we shouldn't restrict too much.

3. I feel that if people do not want to put in the effort of finding a route, they must contend with joining one of the planned convoys. This seems fair.

4. As there are so many player vessels by now, I hardly see the reason for so many NPC vessels. It makes everything more complex to manage, and adds many more rolls.

With a higher encounter chance, each encounter would be much more interesting and likely, as it would include actual player of faction vessel. The amount of risk would be the same, but it would be between players, not bots.

I really do not see the argument for all those NPC vessels, now that so many player vessels have been launched.

5. Good idea with a small bonus.

6. /signed.

[Maxim I]

About the high licencing or upkeep thing:

That's why increased upkeep for all vessels (in % of licence cost) instead of a pentalty in licencing cost for going over a number of ships would be more interesting.

Now a class 0 is in my eyes a waste of ship slots as my fourth ship would cost me so much more for licencing alone.

ofcourse you have only have to pay upkeep for a ship used in a MRCA for that month.

There would be more smaller ships as they have lesser upkeep. Now a small ship is a bad thing

[Tomsche]

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.

Slowly catching up on this thread (didn't know it existed), but on page one that is one thing I'm firmly against.

Quality is one thing, but

1. not everyone is as skilled as builder as some others, no matter how much critique is given to help, some just can't hit that right note

2. not everyone has an unlimited amount of elements

3. if "historic accuracy" becomes a thing, this is no longer a builder community game, but a scale modelling contest

[Sir Stig]

One way to make it attractive to sail solo missions, is to adjust the chance of detection, with less chance of being caught for single ships/small convoy (depending on ship size and numbers). Less chance of being seen, but also less firepower and chance of escape/defend.

I agree that it is too many NPC ships. The most profitable at the moment is capturing ships, so the trade missions are bait where the actual trade is a bonus. So I agree with a bigger chance of sinking vs capture.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Sir Stig

[Bregir]

One way to make it attractive to sail solo missions, is to adjust the chance of detection, with less chance of being caught for single ships/small convoy (depending on ship size and numbers). Less chance of being seen, but also less firepower and chance of escape/defend.

I agree that it is too many NPC ships. The most profitable at the moment is capturing ships, so the trade missions are bait where the actual trade is a bonus. So I agree with a bigger chance of sinking vs capture.

The detection chance might be a good idea, although it might be hard to manage?

Apart from the historical fact, that few ships were actually sunk or entirely destroyed, I think increasing the sinking risks would be a shame, as it would limit the interesting story hooks of captures, recaptures, etc.

But of course, it could be a nice money sink. Althernatively, introducing a repair fee for those ships ending in a fight could give the same effect.

[Sir Stig]

The detection chance might be a good idea, although it might be hard to manage?

Apart from the historical fact, that few ships were actually sunk or entirely destroyed, I think increasing the sinking risks would be a shame, as it would limit the interesting story hooks of captures, recaptures, etc.

But of course, it could be a nice money sink. Althernatively, introducing a repair fee for those ships ending in a fight could give the same effect.

Okay, maybe not a bigger chance to sink, but at least a lower chance of capture. Maybe more fights ending with repair cost. The occasional capture should still happen, but not so much that it in general is more profitable than trading. Ships that go on raid missions are equipped for taking ships, so they should retain a chance of capture if they manage to bypass the defence of convoys (not to forget support fire from forts). The challenge is that it quickly gets out of hand with the complexity, but it may be manageable as long as these proposals gives different adjustments based on which of the MRCA options you choose (Raid, trade (single/convoy) , bounty, blockade, etc...).

[dr_spock]

I see playing the MRCA like playing the stock market. You can win big or lose it all. Shared ownership would be like mutual funds. There should always be an element of high risk for things to go really bad like a stock market crash. The bigger the investment, the more dividends you can make but at same time the more of your investment you can lose.

I think it could be fun to add an element of running aground in relation of the ship's draft if there is going to a simulator. It'll be too much work to physically roll all the different scenarios and matching outcomes to ship characteristics.

[Captain Braunsfeld]

Wow, this has become a very elaborate discussion.

I still think the balance between land based builds and the MRCA needs addressing in the economic game. What do others who, like me, focus on land builds think? But maybe they're not on this thread! And maybe they don't care too much anyway, they just like to build!

I've build 18 MOCs so far for BoBS and 14 of them were land-based.

To me, the land-based MOCs have a disadvantage in the game as they come with high setup costs and small ROI.

So, licensing land-MOCs seems to be a bad idea..

I can't see more value in the stories than the MOCs. Perhaps they have equal value to the builds, but this being a Lego site first and foremost, putting more emphasis on the story than the builds sounds too much like other forms of fanfic.

I'll side with that point of view. And I can also understand everyone who would ignore my stories and characters and just look at the pictures - this is what Eurobricks is about.

---

One reply to Kabel who regretted that MOCs are not being improved after feedback is given (I felt that this was going in my direction too ):

Most of my MOCs are being taken apart after the pictures have been taken.

I try to apply the feedback I get to the MOCs that I build later. It seems like others operate in a similar way.

---

As to the quality debate and the comparison with GoH:

GoH is a MOC-based community and is driven by creation of MOCs.

BoBS is a community based on different action elements:

1) MRCA

2) licensing / buying / selling / trading / investing, etc.

3) character development / story telling

4) building / challenges

So, building MOCs is just one element.

What is more is that it is possible to play the game (1,2,3) very effectively without focussing much on building.

On the other hand it is also possible to just build without playing the game.

I fear that this may lead to the evolution of two groups of BoBS-participants with quite different intrinsic motivation.