Account Summary

[Legostone]

A small request: the top left corner in the document is empty anyways. Would it be possible to add a link to the previous month in the lower box and to the next month (if it already started) in the top one? 

Another suggestion: Split the transaction form into a payment form and a transaction form (maybe you can think of better names, can't really think of any right now), so one is for transferring DB only, one is for transferring properties, ships, troops etc. You wouldn't have to sift through all the transaction forms looking for transferred properties and ships anymore, which should be more convenient. 

Also: please transfer the 4T2 El Rubi from MAESTRO to MAESTRO COR at no charge.

[Kwatchi]

15 hours ago, Phred said:

You are correct sir.  The transaction form is only automated to handle DB transfers, not license transfers.  The license for this property was paid for at the end of November.  At what date is the license supposed to be transferred from your name to Nivremis'?

It should have been transferred on Nov 29 or 30th by my recollection.

[Capn Frank]

On 12/21/2016 at 8:34 AM, Kwatchi said:

It should have been transferred on Nov 29 or 30th by my recollection.

I switched a couple of things in your form submittals.   Nivremis is purchasing the license for the property and in your transaction, you sent  Nivremis 12.5 DB for reimbursement of the license. Will that work?

[Kwatchi]

10 hours ago, Phred said:

I switched a couple of things in your form submittals.   Nivremis is purchasing the license for the property and in your transaction, you sent  Nivremis 12.5 DB for reimbursement of the license. Will that work?

That's fine.  As long as the end result is that he gets the monthly yield.

Thanks

[Capn Frank]

On 12/21/2016 at 5:27 AM, Legostone said:

A small request: the top left corner in the document is empty anyways. Would it be possible to add a link to the previous month in the lower box and to the next month (if it already started) in the top one? 

I could do something like that once I think of it while hanging out in the monthly summary files.  

On 12/21/2016 at 5:27 AM, Legostone said:

Another suggestion: Split the transaction form into a payment form and a transaction form (maybe you can think of better names, can't really think of any right now), so one is for transferring DB only, one is for transferring properties, ships, troops etc. You wouldn't have to sift through all the transaction forms looking for transferred properties and ships anymore, which should be more convenient. 

You could use the Adjudication Form.  I do check it at least a couple times a month.
There's no easy way to automate transfer of licenses, so it hasn't been done yet.  

On 12/21/2016 at 5:27 AM, Legostone said:

Also: please transfer the 4T2 El Rubi from MAESTRO to MAESTRO COR at no charge.

Done.

[Capt Wolf]

Phred, I'm trying to figure out the transaction numbers on my Dec tally. The sheet has me at 313 DBs outflow, but I can only come up with 103 DBs I've sent out (88 to distribute shares from the MRCA, 8 for shares on a property, and 7 -I think- for a correction on a payment received). I have no idea where the other 210 DBs went, unless payments I was making for the MCTC got marked against my account or something like that. Could you take a look and see what's up (or what great expense I'm totally forgetting)? Thanks. Edit: Never mind; figured this part out, but continue below.

Also, it looks like Eslandola was charged for all 4 ship licenses I submitted earlier this week, but three of them were captured ships that shouldn't have cost us anything. Only the Stormbringer II should have cost us.

[Legostone]

@Capt Wolf Did you buy 1 RNTC share?
 

Also, I and Elostirion need a refund for our free ships we won in Challenge IV, 450 DB for me(yay no multiplier for me!), 350 DB for him.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Legostone

[Capt Wolf]

6 hours ago, Legostone said:

@Capt Wolf Did you buy 1 RNTC share?
 

Yup. Figured it out after I shut off the PC and phone and went to bed.

[Capn Frank]

11 hours ago, Capt Wolf said:

Also, it looks like Eslandola was charged for all 4 ship licenses I submitted earlier this week, but three of them were captured ships that shouldn't have cost us anything. Only the Stormbringer II should have cost us.

Should these should have been free?

Maiden of the Deep

Great Scott

Mirthless Jest

 

 

[Legostone]

24 minutes ago, Phred said:

Should these should have been free?

Maiden of the Deep

Great Scott

Mirthless Jest

1

kaiju

Maiden of the Deep

Terreli

Captured by Oscuridad (ESL)

-

Sea Rats

dr_spock

Great Scott

Supported ally

Terreli

Captured by la Salamandra (ESL)

-

Sea Rats

Kaiju

Mirthless Jest

Captured while attacking the Dragon's Teeth convoy, after heavy fighting with escorts.

Terreli

Captured by Dread Treasure (ESL)

-

Sea Rats

Yeah, these ones are correct.

[Capt Wolf]

1 hour ago, Phred said:

Should these should have been free?

Maiden of the Deep

Great Scott

Mirthless Jest

Yep, those are the ones.

[Capn Frank]

On 12/31/2016 at 0:46 PM, Capt Wolf said:

Yep, those are the ones.

Done.

January Summary is up.

[Legostone]

@Phred Both me and Elostirion still have the value of our free ship we won in Challenge IV subtracted. Would be 350 DB less for him (5F) and 450 DB for me (4T2, 4th ship)

[Kolonialbeamter]

@Phred 

On 1.1.2017 at 11:47 PM, Legostone said:

Both me and Elostirion still have the value of our free ship we won in Challenge IV subtracted.

You can add me to this list. It would be 700DB for me (5F à 350DB, 7th ship). Thanks in advance 

[Capn Frank]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 4:47 PM, Legostone said:

@Phred Both me and Elostirion still have the value of our free ship we won in Challenge IV subtracted. Would be 350 DB less for him (5F) and 450 DB for me (4T2, 4th ship)

 

19 hours ago, Kolonialbeamter said:

@Phred 

You can add me to this list. It would be 700DB for me (5F à 350DB, 7th ship). Thanks in advance 

Done.  The rules should for the challenge should have been more specific to include the base cost of the license only.

[Legostone]

4 minutes ago, Phred said:

 

Done.  The rules should for the challenge should have been more specific to include the base cost of the license only.

 

We asked and were told that it doesn't matter how many ships we already have licensed:P

[Bregir]

Those ship licenses should be entirely without charge, as per the challenge. Afaik it doesn't count towards your ship count either.

[Elostirion]

Exactly!

[Elostirion]

The "License Yield" for land-based properties for Oleon seems totall broken? It increased from less than 900 to over 4.700 from November to December. I assume the 3.000 DBs expense for the Royal vineyard are somehow calculated in there as well (in December and Jaunary)?

[Capn Frank]

3 hours ago, Elostirion said:

Oleon seems totall broken?

It isn't.  Factions that own properties don't collect yield, just the taxes. Oleon owns the property for the royal plantation. A multiplier was added so that Oleon collects the right amount. The same multiplier is added to all faction properties.  

It'll get fixed properly after I add automated monopoly and island bonuses, which is what I'm currently working on.

[Garmadon]

@Phred, it seems like the system has charged me for two of the three ships I licenced recently (a 2F that was my free ship - first Class 1 or 2 vessel - and a 2A that was bought at an auction from Kai and Legostone and for which I had already transferred the 155 DBs to them), where it should only have charged for the 3F (which it did - and that was in the Dec sheet, by the way).  If you could fix those first two (January sheet), I'd appreciate it!  Thanks! 

[Bregir]

Garm, You only have three ships in total, then? I am asking because the 3+ extra costs could be the reason for the difference, as you would always have to pay that, no matter how you procured the ship. :)

[Capn Frank]

4 hours ago, Garmadon said:

@Phred, it seems like the system has charged me for two of the three ships I licenced recently (a 2F that was my free ship - first Class 1 or 2 vessel - and a 2A that was bought at an auction from Kai and Legostone and for which I had already transferred the 155 DBs to them), where it should only have charged for the 3F (which it did - and that was in the Dec sheet, by the way).  If you could fix those first two (January sheet), I'd appreciate it!  Thanks! 

You already had licensed a 3F a month earlier.  You should only receive the 2F for free if you don't have any other vessels licensed that are class 2 or higher.  

Transaction was confirmed, and the cost for the 2A license has been removed.

 

[Garmadon]

28 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Garm, You only have three ships in total, then? I am asking because the 3+ extra costs could be the reason for the difference, as you would always have to pay that, no matter how you procured the ship. :)

Yes, just those three 

11 minutes ago, Phred said:

You already had licensed a 3F a month earlier.  You should only receive the 2F for free if you don't have any other vessels licensed that are class 2 or higher.  

Transaction was confirmed, and the cost for the 2A license has been removed.

Oh, ah, alright.  I had kind of assumed that if I hadn't participated in any MRCA yet it didn't entirely matter in which order I licenced the ships (and I thought we might have changed the wording to "a member always has a right to his first Class 1 or Class 2 vessel," my other one being a paid Class 3 - just checked the Rule Update thread and apparently I was wrong on that one, though, and the rules state that a member can't have a larger vessel, so you're right about that), but it doesn't make that much difference to me either way, so it's fine as it is!   Thanks for fixing the auctioned one! 

[Legostone]

17 minutes ago, Phred said:

You already had licensed a 3F a month earlier.  You should only receive the 2F for free if you don't have any other vessels licensed that are class 2 or higher.  

Transaction was confirmed, and the cost for the 2A license has been removed.

 

 

While I'm not Garmadon, I guess I can argue anyways. In this case it may be fair to let it go through - the 3F didn't go through a single MRCA before the 2F was licensed, so there was no benefit of licensing it first.