Crossroads Saloon: OOC chat.

[Hross]

Dockyards give you trade bonuses in the same way too. I recommend it Celsius, it's a good way to earn cash. Note that religious buildings are currently pretty bad investments since they give far less stability bonuses.

[Honors Bastion]

Dockyards give you trade bonuses in the same way too. I recommend it Celsius, it's a good way to earn cash. Note that religious buildings are currently pretty bad investments since they give far less stability bonuses.

I wouldn't say so. The religious buildings give a +7 total stability for a minor Lord and a +9 total for a major Lord. Since LP get two provinces from the start, you can end up with a total of a +18 bonus. That is huge.

[Pericles of Athens]

I don't think that's right Hross. According to the rules docks only give +x% to income, which mean land income not trade, it has to say +x% to trade income to effect trade(which only markets tier 2 and 3 effect).

[Honors Bastion]

Dockyards only give land income. It would be unfair for them to get trade income primarily because not every province has a coastline. That would make some players incredibly rich, even more so than their LP.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Yeah, dockyards aren't that OP.

[Dance's RPG Account]

It's not unfair. It's realistic, IMO.

Obviously places like White Harbor have better opportunity for prosperity, with more available lanes than the Dreadfort. That's natural.

King's Landing, the Arbor, Oldtown, White Harbor, Sunspear/Planky Town, Lannisport, The Islands. It's natural and logical to assume seaport settlements are more prosperous. To complain against that being a natural right is ridiculous, to be blunt, lol.

I feel if you don't like it that way, don't play with portless settlement, if it matters to you that much?

[Zeus Almighty]

I'm in such the mood for good rp!

[Pontifex Maximus]

its a matter of balance.

[Pericles of Athens]

It's not unfair. It's realistic, IMO.

Obviously places like White Harbor have better opportunity for prosperity, with more available lanes than the Dreadfort. That's natural.

King's Landing, the Arbor, Oldtown, White Harbor, Sunspear/Planky Town, Lannisport, The Islands. It's natural and logical to assume seaport settlements are more prosperous. To complain against that being a natural right is ridiculous, to be blunt, lol.

I feel if you don't like it that way, don't play with portless settlement, if it matters to you that much?

I mean if we are going for realism the Iron Islands whole income should be less than Highgarden..

Also Highgarden is said to be one of the most prosperous places in westeros, behind only Casterly Rock and such, so that would kind contradict your ideas.

[Honors Bastion]

It's not unfair. It's realistic, IMO.

Obviously places like White Harbor have better opportunity for prosperity, with more available lanes than the Dreadfort. That's natural.

King's Landing, the Arbor, Oldtown, White Harbor, Sunspear/Planky Town, Lannisport, The Islands. It's natural and logical to assume seaport settlements are more prosperous. To complain against that being a natural right is ridiculous, to be blunt, lol.

I feel if you don't like it that way, don't play with portless settlement, if it matters to you that much?

Your argument makes sense only on common practical terms. It doesn’t fit well with this game in both game balance wise and in terms of the lore.

First off game balance, coastal provinces already have the right to build the dockyard chain when finished will give you an additional 20% of the land income. As it is, there is no reason to give the dockyard chain of buildings the right to tax more trade that would be incredibly OP when you consider that an additional 5% of trade income could mean an additional 20,000 dragons or more. That means that you can raise maybe another 2,000 more professional soldiers or one more units of ships just because you are a coastal lord. That just wellin terms of balance. The additional land income is already a good enough bonus.

Now in terms of lore, yes coastal provinces do get more trade but not every single one. The way this is represented in the game is that the region that lorewise has a high level of trade automatically gets a fourth trade lane while others are limited to three. That is fair to the balance of the game and it respects the lore.

Also to the lore, the whole Iron Islands is supposed to be very poor. If we suddenly gave the dockyard chain the right to tax trade income more, we would basically be violating the lore as the Iron Islands would potentially be making more money than a region like the Vale, Dorne, or the Stormlands just because everyone of the Iron Islands' provinces is coastal.

[Dance's RPG Account]

Can't balance everything. I'm a very unbiased person, and in many cases I will advocate for balancing certain aspects of the game, such as Valyrian steel swords (of which my house has one).

But, I believe this to be a travesty. To prohibit port settlements from having an income bonus as per trade (rp it or not), is just silly in general. There is no reasoning behind it's prohibition, aside from the sole fact of people complaining.

One reason I left RPGs was the complaining and resets. This is not why I come here. Nor should it be why any of us do.

I think this is just silly. A newcomer is at a disadvantage vs fourth or fifth year players - with an advantage already.

It's just silly, in general, Pontifex.

[Pontifex Maximus]

You're not winning this argument. I've spent hours on rules rewrites balancing this game and I'm not bending on the issue. I certainly don't accept the argument that hypothetical new players will be at a disadvantage because:

1. They damn well should be underpowered to regular players who have been playing for weeks

2. That situation never happens anyway. Nobody randomly joins six weeks into a game and does anything other than make a register post.

Ports get an income bonus. They don't get three income bonuses like Hross believes.

[Dance's RPG Account]

Your argument makes sense only on common practical terms. It doesn’t fit well with this game in both game balance wise and in terms of the lore.

First off game balance, coastal provinces already have the right to build the dockyard chain when finished will give you an additional 20% of the land income. As it is, there is no reason to give the dockyard chain of buildings the right to tax more trade that would be incredibly OP when you consider that an additional 5% of trade income could mean an additional 20,000 dragons or more. That means that you can raise maybe another 2,000 more professional soldiers or one more units of ships just because you are a coastal lord. That just wellin terms of balance. The additional land income is already a good enough bonus.

Now in terms of lore, yes coastal provinces do get more trade but not every single one. The way this is represented in the game is that the region that lorewise has a high level of trade automatically gets a fourth trade lane while others are limited to three. That is fair to the balance of the game and it respects the lore.

Valyrian swords - it's the skill more than the sword that matters. This balance makes sense, and I agree with it.

Port cities being restricted additional income, when seafaring should in fact provide the most income, is rather silly.

I mean if we are going for realism the Iron Islands whole income should be less than Highgarden..

Also Highgarden is said to be one of the most prosperous places in westeros, behind only Casterly Rock and such, so that would kind contradict your ideas.

Granted - though if we go with realism, then many aspects of this game would need to be specified. Port income benefits EVERY region, not one in specific. This benefits everyone.

Whether it's your liege lord or yourself, this is one thing I do not agree with. If there is a truly good and logical reason for it, then I can believe it.

I am not advocating FOR ironborn, or myself in particular. I'm arguing for everybody who has a port settlement. It's just the way it goes. Yes they should have more income, as minimal as it really is in the greater spectrum of things.

[Dance's RPG Account]

Your argument makes sense only on common practical terms. It doesn’t fit well with this game in both game balance wise and in terms of the lore.

First off game balance, coastal provinces already have the right to build the dockyard chain when finished will give you an additional 20% of the land income. As it is, there is no reason to give the dockyard chain of buildings the right to tax more trade that would be incredibly OP when you consider that an additional 5% of trade income could mean an additional 20,000 dragons or more. That means that you can raise maybe another 2,000 more professional soldiers or one more units of ships just because you are a coastal lord. That just wellin terms of balance. The additional land income is already a good enough bonus.

Now in terms of lore, yes coastal provinces do get more trade but not every single one. The way this is represented in the game is that the region that lorewise has a high level of trade automatically gets a fourth trade lane while others are limited to three. That is fair to the balance of the game and it respects the lore.

Valyrian swords - it's the skill more than the sword that matters. This balance makes sense, and I agree with it.

Port cities being restricted additional income, when seafaring should in fact provide the most income, is rather silly.

I mean if we are going for realism the Iron Islands whole income should be less than Highgarden..

Also Highgarden is said to be one of the most prosperous places in westeros, behind only Casterly Rock and such, so that would kind contradict your ideas.

Granted - though if we go with realism, then many aspects of this game would need to be specified. Port income benefits EVERY region, not one in specific. This benefits everyone.

Whether it's your liege lord or yourself, this is one thing I do not agree with. If there is a truly good and logical reason for it, then I can believe it.

I am not advocating FOR ironborn, or myself in particular. I'm arguing for everybody who has a port settlement. It's just the way it goes. Yes they should have more income, as minimal as it really is in the greater spectrum of things.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Your arguments will be ignored. Really its your own time you're wasting because I'm not changing it.

[Pericles of Athens]

So you think its lore correct to have any random sea side province be worth more than Highgarden? But I dont want the Reach to be uber OP, I want a balanced game, which is what we have.

[Dance's RPG Account]

You're not winning this argument. I've spent hours on rules rewrites balancing this game and I'm not bending on the issue. I certainly don't accept the argument that hypothetical new players will be at a disadvantage because:

1. They damn well should be underpowered to regular players who have been playing for weeks

2. That situation never happens anyway. Nobody randomly joins six weeks into a game and does anything other than make a register post.

Ports get an income bonus. They don't get three income bonuses like Hross believes.

I'm not advocating for Hross' argument. I'm just ensuring that port settlements do indeed get a slight income bonus. That's all I'm arguing FOR, to ensure the preservation of such.

My argument is very unbiased, so it can't be made out to be biased, as such.

But from what I had read, someone was complaining about income bonus in general from ports. That's just absurd, give it a break.

Just for clarification, I didn't even read the previous argument that you may think I'm talking about. I'm advocating for income bonus for settlements to stay (as provided by dockyards).

This has nothing to do with this other argument you think I'm defending, because I didn't even read that far up, lol. I don't have time for that, to read every argument that comes - as in RPG's, it's a constant plague that will never end.