Calling Volunteers! Eslandola Vs. Mardier - Build Off

[Bregir]

1) If it is a warship, why doesn't it just sail under Bloody Bill's (insert any other privateer) name?

2) I strongly advice against letting people sign up against their team. In designing our game systems, we should avoid all possible sources of conflict both internally in factions, and between factions. (OOC conflict, that is. IC conflict is fun! )

2.1) Signing up against your faction:

Imagine the pressure from your countrymen to "do bad" and the resulting feelings against a player who puts his own bank account over the well-being of his faction. Or the temptation to "dumb" down your efforts to increase the chance of your faction winning.

I am not saying anyone will do this, but the possibility is enough to give rise to speculations, suspicions and group pressure.

2.2) Bias between factions

And imagine if, for some reason, Eslandola (or someone else) is almost always the one benefitting from these minichallenges (since you seem to throw your warships for the pirates to capture them! ) - would that not make it even more loopsided? There is no reason to expect this will be distributed equally amongst the factions. Therefore, I think a balance between the possible outcomes PER minichallenge is better.

Perhaps the winning side is awarded the option to buy the vessels for 50 % of license value? (And may trade this option, if they do not wish to exercise it.) Then both sides would have an equal incentive to play. (We just need to figure out how to divide the spoils interteam, but I think people can handle that within the teams)

3) Vessel sink

Most importantly, we are seeing a great inflation in vessels, income and fortunes, and with the sistershipping feature, we risk seeing A LOT of sisterships in game. Therefore (as people seem to object to limit sistershipping) I suggest that NPC captures are removed from the game.

4) Saturation

The EGS has already given rise to a lot of different minichallenges, hosted by factions, mayors, trade companies, and individuals, and I am a little sad to see so few of these actually getting any attention.

The brilliance of the economic game is reflected in the number of possibilities it opens up for. However, we can only get around to so much, and I think it might be better to tone down these official "forced" challenges a bit, and let the more emerging nature of the player challenges get a little more shine. (Yes, I REALLY want to have someone have another look at the great challenges some of the settlements are offering... *cough cough* King's Harbour *cough* Stormhaven *cough cough* )

5) Immediate solution

I suggest we change the prize of this challenge to a 50 % purchase option for both sides. It would be a shame to annul it completely, but if the general policy for NPC captures is up for revision based on the feedback in this thread, letting Eslandola have possible risk-less gains is too biased. Keep the 10 db per entry.

And possibly ask Jacob to change to the other team, depending on to which extent we want to limit the eligibility for each team.

The above are suggestions - it is my thoughts. I would like to point out that I generally like all mini.challenges, but they need to be fair, have a balanced outcome, and we shouldn't overdo it.

And lastly, I would like to remind everyone that they should have fun, telling stories and making all these fantastic builds we are seeing, and remember:

We are not building to make dubloons, we just happen to get dubloons for the stuff we build...

[BrickOn]

Is it Dubloons you get for building in Kings Landing? That's how you stay so rich, if you are issuing knock-off gold. I'll stick with Doubloons thanks.

I must admit I feel saturated with building this month (and other things), so I've been unable to look at any challenges, I would have liked to contribute to some. So I somewhat agree with Bregir above, but I like to see them come and go, even though I did not participate in the Bardo music fair it was a great one to observe. Not every challenge will suit everyone and that's okay, but equally I guess its easy to feel like one is missing out by not contributing, but if people are signing up and enjoying the builds all is good.

[dr_spock]

1) If it is a warship, why doesn't it just sail under Bloody Bill's (insert any other privateer) name?

That's a good point. Pirates/privateers were always on the lookout for a bigger and better ship. They also converted captured ships into warships like Blackbeard turning his captured French slave ship into the Queen Anne's Revenge. They had carpenters adding more gun ports and other blings.

[Phadeout]

As this goes back and forth I'd just like to say that as the previous owner of the Fénix, which is obviously far less important to the game as a whole than the Queen of Terreli but still important to me, I am going to go ahead and assume that I can sistership as it is my only ship, come what may in this situation. As long as this is fine I am going to leave all this alone and wait for a resolution to be announced later on but I would briefly say this - all these systems need to be fair and seen to be fair, otherwise there is going to be aggravation over things we shouldn't be getting worked up about. This is not meant as a pop at anyone, I feel that sometimes there are so many people inputting ideas and things changing on the fly, that too many people are missing key things, and then feeling like people are gaming the system when I honestly believe that is not the intention. I love that people care about things like this, I think there is a really strong base here and so much potential we can build (yes, intended) something special here.

Good luck folks.

[CelesAurivern]

The above are suggestions - it is my thoughts. I would like to point out that I generally like all mini.challenges, but they need to be fair, have a balanced outcome, and we shouldn't overdo it.

Some good suggestions there, sir.

Intentions may be good, but they should be considered carefully for balance, lest they be misconstrued as something else.

[Garmadon]

1) If it is a warship, why doesn't it just sail under Bloody Bill's (insert any other privateer) name?

2) I strongly advice against letting people sign up against their team. In designing our game systems, we should avoid all possible sources of conflict both internally in factions, and between factions. (OOC conflict, that is. IC conflict is fun! )

2.1) Signing up against your faction:

Imagine the pressure from your countrymen to "do bad" and the resulting feelings against a player who puts his own bank account over the well-being of his faction. Or the temptation to "dumb" down your efforts to increase the chance of your faction winning.

I am not saying anyone will do this, but the possibility is enough to give rise to speculations, suspicions and group pressure.

2.2) Bias between factions

And imagine if, for some reason, Eslandola (or someone else) is almost always the one benefitting from these minichallenges (since you seem to throw your warships for the pirates to capture them! ) - would that not make it even more loopsided? There is no reason to expect this will be distributed equally amongst the factions. Therefore, I think a balance between the possible outcomes PER minichallenge is better.

Perhaps the winning side is awarded the option to buy the vessels for 50 % of license value? (And may trade this option, if they do not wish to exercise it.) Then both sides would have an equal incentive to play. (We just need to figure out how to divide the spoils interteam, but I think people can handle that within the teams)

3) Vessel sink

Most importantly, we are seeing a great inflation in vessels, income and fortunes, and with the sistershipping feature, we risk seeing A LOT of sisterships in game. Therefore (as people seem to object to limit sistershipping) I suggest that NPC captures are removed from the game.

4) Saturation

The EGS has already given rise to a lot of different minichallenges, hosted by factions, mayors, trade companies, and individuals, and I am a little sad to see so few of these actually getting any attention.

The brilliance of the economic game is reflected in the number of possibilities it opens up for. However, we can only get around to so much, and I think it might be better to tone down these official "forced" challenges a bit, and let the more emerging nature of the player challenges get a little more shine. (Yes, I REALLY want to have someone have another look at the great challenges some of the settlements are offering... *cough cough* King's Harbour *cough* Stormhaven *cough cough* )

5) Immediate solution

I suggest we change the prize of this challenge to a 50 % purchase option for both sides. It would be a shame to annul it completely, but if the general policy for NPC captures is up for revision based on the feedback in this thread, letting Eslandola have possible risk-less gains is too biased. Keep the 10 db per entry.

And possibly ask Jacob to change to the other team, depending on to which extent we want to limit the eligibility for each team.

The above are suggestions - it is my thoughts. I would like to point out that I generally like all mini.challenges, but they need to be fair, have a balanced outcome, and we shouldn't overdo it.

And lastly, I would like to remind everyone that they should have fun, telling stories and making all these fantastic builds we are seeing, and remember:

We are not building to make dubloons, we just happen to get dubloons for the stuff we build...

A few things here to note:

1. As Kai mentioned, this is not the case of a pirate (Bloody Bill) capturing a ship - if he had taken the Queen of Terelli it would be toast! Rather it is a case of Eslandola's challenging the nation of Mardier for allowing its privateer to prey on our shipping without our being at war with each other

2. Vessel Sink:

Warships captured by pirates/states at war with each other are automatically removed from the game, as well as all vessels which go to the bottom. If you look at the previous MRCA results it is pretty clear that there are plenty of ships getting wiped out each month! The sistershipping thing (which I am by no means fond of) is a problem regardless of whether there is a method to get captured ships back or no. I completely agree that it is not the intention of the game to make it possible to get back your ship no matter what happens to it - however, I believe suing another nation as in this case does not cause any problems there.

3. Saturation is indeed a bit of a problem, but really, a case like this does not affect the entire member base nearly as much as even a small or faction based mini-challenge - only six builds are being asked for here!

4. Having the case end up that the winning side could buy the vessels for 50% of the licence value doesn't make much sense (IC) to me - what kind of judge is that? If Eslandola wins the case, they will obviously get the ships back, and if Mardier wins, they will clearly just keep the captured ships. Having Mardier pay extra to those who support it while Eslandola's builders merely receive the 10DBs is an excellent idea though I can see absolutely no reason (IC of OOC) for forbidding members from other factions to support Eslandola though.

5. I do understand the concern about building against your faction though, but I believe the leadership may easily deal with this when it comes up. Though if Mardier offered 200DBs to its supporters if they win the case (as per somebody or another's suggestion) I can completely understand a bunch of Eslandolans signing up for that (and would have no problem with it)!

6. Finally, barring the case of some people signing up for the faction they would like to see lose and doing a very poor job on purpose (which, as mentioned earlier, would obviously require the leadership to crack down on those builders), I can see no concern about "unfairness". Any nation may bring another to the courts at any time and for any reason. Build-offs are one of the methods for conflict resolution, and setting them as the default for court cases between a faction and an NPC nations provides no difficulties on that score.

And, as mentioned, build-offs are certainly primarily in existence as excellent incentives for MOCs and stories!

[Jacob Nion]

6. Finally, barring the case of some people signing up for the faction they would like to see lose and doing a very poor job on purpose (which, as mentioned earlier, would obviously require the leadership to crack down on those builders), I can see no concern about "unfairness". Any nation may bring another to the courts at any time and for any reason. Build-offs are one of the methods for conflict resolution, and setting them as the default for court cases between a faction and an NPC nations provides no difficulties on that score.

And, as mentioned, build-offs are certainly primarily in existence as excellent incentives for MOCs and stories!

Then I wonder why Eslandola hesitates to make a build off against Sea Rats to give them the chance getting their lost ships back.

Please leave that whole letter of marque/legitimation of privateering out for a moment. It has nothing to do with game balancing and should be only a matter for ingame story. Sea Rats should have the same rights as any other faction. We lost one of our big big 5A faction ships and a 3A vessel during a trade run when being attacked by Eslandola. For me that's piracy.

Eslandola did lose its ships to an NPC faction. That means bad luck, ships out of game, but in our case it means both that we get weaker and another faction gets stronger. Not that that's unfairness in general. But when you get the chance to win your ships back from an NPC player, we should at least get the chance to get it back from a real faction.

It's hard to find a proper balancing here, but my opinion is that Sea Rat faction is in disadvantage in many EGS things against the better structured Empire factions. And our advantage should at least be piracy in times without war being our domain.

No, Sea Rats are not automatically pirates. We are a bunch of anarchic soldiers of fortune, traders who don't want to be oppressed by companies, trying to avoid taxes, outcasts, and yes, even some scoundrels. We have no direct government and therefore of course no court system. And that means for game balancing that we have no option of representing our interests.

I mean, who decided that Eslandola can do a build off against Mardier? I really have no idea what the rules actually are for that. But do we Sea Rats really have to beg for Eslandola's mercy to get the small chance of winning back our ships?

We are already outnumbered and struggle to keep up with the other factions. I do not complain about the amount of members and such, it's just that the whole game is certainly thought to last more than a few months, and feeling beaten right at the beginning really spoils the fun.

We do not cry and go whimsy because someone wins a fight against us, but without those two ships we can't even participate properly at the MRCA, because we have too few escorts. And if you think this further, you will know that that will continue. After two or three months we would have no ship left to defend ourselves and everyone would be pissed of.

I'm sorry to post this here, I know this thread is not made for discussions. But I just had to address that subject.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Jacob Nion

[Captain Dee]

Technically speaking privateering was an officially-sanctioned act of war; preying on foreign vessels in times of peace was outright piracy (and numerous privateers got their necks stretched for it).

I don't remember the MCRA details, but if Eslandola attacked a Sea Rat trade run as an aggressor and not a defender (not to be confused with a fleet of Sea Rat pirates) then it sounds like piracy to me too. The same applies to all the factions: capturing others while not fighting a war is piracy, plain and simple.

The nature of build-offs like this perplexes me a little: who calls those shots? Under what circumstances can it happen? This one is supposed to be a peaceful resolution to piracy - but would other similar circumstances also work this way?

[Bregir]

@Garmadon

1) Why doesn't it just sail on under the Marderian flag? (Same difference...)

3) It all adds up. A lot of player initiated challenges are not taken up (or so it seems). Perhaps they are not interesting enough, or perhaps people do not have the time or energy.

4) I am pretty sure we can dream up 65 different IC explanations. One could be the cost of refitting them after the battle, paying for the costs of the trial, etc. The point was to make the incentive equal for each side, as there is currently only an upside for Eslandola.

5) I am not getting through here. Leadership cannot deal with ill will, suspicion, or speculation. I really don't see why we do not just limit it to say that you cannot build against your faction interests. (And the same goes for other factions' members on the Eslandolian team. All the arguments can be turned round)

You might not have a problem with it, and I might not. But you cannot argue that there isn't a tiny risk of this to lead to animosity. Therefore, let us take away that risk. I really do not see any significant downside to this.

6) Bring Corrington or the Sea Rats to court - that is fine - but the possible outcomes for Eslandola for this particular mini-challenge is status quo or free ships. There is no possible downside - at the very least, three builders are 10 db better off.

In this case, there is no real opponent. And it can never be the same, when it is not our own interests at stake. And who agreed for Mardier to take this to court? And will you declare war if you lose?

@Jacob:

In fact, since Eslandola is not at a state of war with the Sea Rats, I actually think you SHOULD bring them to court to get back your vessels. A build off might not even be necessary - they actively sought out your vessels to hunt them down - a clear act of war...

If I was a Sea Rat, I would at the very least do something about it... You might even find other nations supporting you!

And your thoughts are a pretty good example for what I mean about loopsidedness.

@Captain Dee:

I agree entirely with your historical implications, your sentiments on the Eslandian aggression (Is anyone safe in these waters when such pirates sail these seas? Who will be next? And they call themselves traders...), and I share your questions...

[MKJoshA]

@Jacob:

In fact, since Eslandola is not at a state of war with the Sea Rats, I actually think you SHOULD bring them to court to get back your vessels. A build off might not even be necessary - they actively sought out your vessels to hunt them down - a clear act of war...

If I was a Sea Rat, I would at the very least do something about it... You might even find other nations supporting you!

And your thoughts are a pretty good example for what I mean about loopsidedness.

@Captain Dee:

I agree entirely with your historical implications, your sentiments on the Eslandian aggression (Is anyone safe in these waters when such pirates sail these seas? Who will be next? And they call themselves traders...), and I share your questions...

Here here! So can we count on your support and Corrington's to stand against the atrocities of Eslandola if and when the time comes?

[Bregir]

In Corrington, we always support following the conventions for war.

But for now, were I you, I would send an official (IC) complaint to Eslandola, demanding your vessels back. They might concede to their error. If not, at least you know where you stand! And then, further consequences can be considered...

[Jacob Nion]

In Corrington, we always support following the conventions for war.

But for now, were I you, I would send an official (IC) complaint to Eslandola, demanding your vessels back. They might concede to their error. If not, at least you know where you stand! And then, further consequences can be considered...

As far as I'm informed we are already at the point of knowing where we stand. The problem remains that at the moment nobody of us knows who decides on court cases. Neither in Eslandolas case against Mardier nor in our own against Eslandola.

[Capt Wolf]

Jacob, even though I'm Eslandolan, my advice is to take this to the prize court (I don't recall who's on it) and get them involved sooner rather than later. This needs to be addressed officially.

[Phadeout]

I agree with Captain Wolf, nobody wants anyone to feel cheated or that the system is not inherently fair. I think we would all rather everyone walked away feeling the spirit of the game was being adhered to, not just the letter of the law, as it stands today.

[Tezclatipoca]

Jacob, even though I'm Eslandolan, my advice is to take this to the prize court (I don't recall who's on it) and get them involved sooner rather than later. This needs to be addressed officially.

I Totally agree with you capt wolf, even if I am Eslandian too. I find that end of MRCA and its consequences a bit odd. Although I saw my problems solved (see the Raenette strange auction) I am continuing to feel bad for those results !

I think Sea Rats ships deserved a better fate and you should do something for that !

On another hand. I am quite not happy of the solutions we saw after the MRCA.

I still think I will have difficulty to deal with a Raenette running with the Raenette II in MAESTRO trade company... She had to be lost IMHO, it would have be better. (I avoid sistership in a Lost At Sea result, but I think I will extend this to all my lost ships. It will be clearer...)

I think the Fenix should had been lost as a prize for Mardier (no worry for Phadeout, if I understood this is a free license easily sister ship-able...) and sorry for our warship but it is the risk !

And so, if I had time, the Mardier side itched my back strongly for a moment...

Eslandola should not try to hang at the branches of the tree when we loose a MRCA. We should admit our bad luck and analyse what turned wrong. Was our routes too risky ? or our escorts too few or too dispersed ? I am asking just if we couldn't have made better runs.

[SkaForHire]

Generally, however, I do think this is a questionable mechanic, and I hardly see why these ships can't just sail the seas as traders, assuming Bloody Bill sold them to an NPC merchant. (Or taken out of the game entirely. They are likely to be sistershipped anyway, so we are at risk of flooding the market with vessels. And NPC captures was a good "vessel-sink", if you ask me.)

In principle, this is a great story mechanic, and I don't object to minichallenges (but take care not to overdo it - the community has a saturation point.), but this just seems too loopsided.

Ok I stopped reading the onslaught of posts about at this point -- but I disagree here.

There are a few problems: one, technically Mardier has a court schedule like ESL and COR, if we are starting it now, then no more cases will be heard for three months.

Also, L'Olius has been a privateer menace for three months now, and has actually captured other player ships already. He WILL use the warship for his fleet if he wins the challenge, that was always planned. This is not a MRCA result build off, it is a COURT CASE. If defeated, ESL will lose the vessels for good, MAR will gain money in the bank, L'Olius will have a 5HA, and the trade ship will probably be auctioned off.

---

Here is my proposed Solution for incentive: MAR, specifically L'Olius, is paying these three builders as "lawyers" so they shall be entitled to the price of the ships divided between each of them if they win. This represents L'Olius "paying" his lawyers. In addition, the three builders could have first dibs on buying the trade ship at 70%.

Additionally, because MAR is an actual nation, these things can happen. COR could not recover the HMS Mermaid, because a Pirate took it, and there is no legal recourse to that. Now that pirate has been sailing in the MRCA.

[Jacob Nion]

Well then my interest in building for eslandola is melting away. Now building for Mardier would have been far mor attractive for non Eslandolians.

[Phadeout]

But that is probably for the best, Eslandola should be the ones trying to save their warship anyway...

[Kai NRG]

With regards to Eslandola vs. Sea Rats - the Sea Rat leadership has already expressed their intention of bringing this case to court (in other words, suing Eslandola). If you look at the ESL frontpage FAQ, you will see that the court system is arranged for quarterly hearings. Next hearing is in June. The Eslandian Bureaucracy hurries for no man, least of all for a Sea Rat. The case will come on in June.

As per the ESL court rules, a jury of Eslandian citizens will be recruited. This jury will determined whether or not ESL is guilty of an act of piracy in attacking a Sea Rat Trade Run. Then, the judge (one of ESL's three faction leaders) will determine what the penalty for ESL will be (if the verdict is guilty).

I hope that makes this part of the discussion crystal clear and we can stop clogging this thread with it.

In justification for ESL's actions, please note that there is no way for us to specify whether we will attack only Sea Rats engaged in piracy or whether we will attack Trade Runs as well. The form only allows us to say whether or not we will attack Sea Rats, and if we say yes, we will attack both privateers and trade runs.

How were we supposed to know that all Sea Rats had suddenly become peaceful traders?

...I can sistership as it is my only ship, come what may in this situation...

Yes.

---

We are definitely interested in making this as fair as possible.

Ska has brought up several good points. This is a court case. Isn't it reasonable that ESL should demand some sort of explanation and repayment from MAR for an unprovoked attack?

It's kind of odd to say that ESL has nothing to lose. We stand to lose two ships if we lose this court case!

It's like saying, Jim robbed Tommy, so now Tommy brings Jim to court - and then saying that Tommy has nothing to lose!

Right now, Eslandola is working through this - but it could be your faction next time!

...Here is my proposed Solution for incentive: MAR, specifically L'Olius, is paying these three builders as "lawyers" so they shall be entitled to the price of the ships divided between each of them if they win. This represents L'Olius "paying" his lawyers. In addition, the three builders could have first dibs on buying the trade ship at 70%.

Additionally, because MAR is an actual nation, these things can happen. COR could not recover the HMS Mermaid, because a Pirate took it, and there is no legal recourse to that. Now that pirate has been sailing in the MRCA.

I think that's way too much to offer for just a 20x20. And who would pay his lawyers 100% of the court gain?

Could we simply say that if Mardier wins, each "lawyer" will be paid 20 DBs on top of the intial 10? I think that's more than plenty.

In fairness to JN, he should be allowed to switch sides (if he would like) if we do change this rule. He obviously was trying to make some cash and if things change Mardier will be much more attractive. I would be willing to take his place on ESL (unless someone else is interested).

---

As far as I'm informed we are already at the point of knowing where we stand. The problem remains that at the moment nobody of us knows who decides on court cases. Neither in Eslandolas case against Mardier nor in our own against Eslandola.

Who decides in court cases?

For a PC faction - that faction sets the rules. In Eslandola, it's trial by jury and the judge pronounces the penalty.

For an NPC faction - the decision is reached via a build-off (at least in the case of captured ships). So you could say that the skills of the respective teams decide.

You see, someone knows who decides in court cases.

[SkaForHire]

I think just 20 bonus is too small in this case, ESL wins, that is 450 DBs in just warship alone. It has to be higher, if not 100%, I would say a 40% commission, split three ways.

[Jacob Nion]

You may understand that I have doubts accusing Eslandola at an Eslandolan court. And june is too far away for my taste.

I would feel acting unfair to change sides now because I'm already involved in the planning for the Eslandolan entries. When I get paid, I always follow the job through. You know that.

[Kai NRG]

I think just 20 bonus is too small in this case, ESL wins, that is 450 DBs in just warship alone. It has to be higher, if not 100%, I would say a 40% commission, split three ways.

I'm ready to settle for anything just to end the discussion. Sounds good.

That's 73.3333333333333333333 etc. DBs.

Perhaps we should just round up and say 75.

And you know, since ESL is going to win, it doesn't really matter.

You may understand that I have doubts accusing Eslandola at an Eslandolan court. And june is too far away for my taste.

I would feel acting unfair to change sides now because I'm already involved in the planning for the Eslandolan entries. When I get paid, I always follow the job through. You know that.

We admire your Sea Rat honor. Best wishes then!

And if you aren't interested in suing ESL at an ESL court, then I guess you'll just have to declare war... and we'll start using those ships to gobble you down.

(Disclaimer: That's smack talk of course! Don't declare war! We love our pirate friends! )

[Jacob Nion]

Be careful. I'm tempted to change sides just for the chance to win a challenge against you. Again.

[Bregir]

Be careful. I'm tempted to change sides just for the chance to win a challenge against you. Again.

Well, Captain Morgan, they have given you an honourable way out. And the way they have responded to your lawsuit, would you really want to fight for their interest?

I see no tainting of your name for taking this exit, and shall hold you honour no less, if not more.

Just saying...

[Tomsche]

Maybe the whole sistership rule should just be keelhauled...

Every government has some ships in drydock (or private owners within a nation), that in the case of a vessel lost a ship could be loaned out to any captain finding himself drylanded...

That is, if you`re government is caring enough to it`s citizens