If making a Cap of 100k or less – I then think you should go back and every dragon that take 100k to recruit should be lower to accept somewhere around 10 to 20k to recruit them !
If we aren’t allowed to get your treasury above 80 to 100k then it would make these three or 4 dragon null and void and this is an injustice to the game also as in past games I have recruited Corlagon and other dragons for 100k !!
I think this is only fair for the Dark servants then !! As dragon are a big part of the defense of Mordor and certain nations !!
Once more, Clint, you engage in ‘logrolling’, something I have complained about in the past. A mere 15 hours after Brad complains, you anxiously seek to please him. The postal players had no inpit, persons visiting their grandparents last night had no input. People who do not hover around the MEPBM forum constantly and read every entry had not input. Your mind is made up after only 4/5 players have commented. Have I mentioned, this could be considered a weakness in your GM skills?
It’s something I’ve considered a lot already (I’ve done a lot of testing already for example it’s not as if I went to sleep in between last time this came up and now). This just clarified the situation to me. As usual though I’ve asked for player feedback so I’m awaiting that before I implement it. If you have some feedback on the ruling that would be very much appreciated.
Note you can start the turn with over 80k gold, and nowadays I don’t see any player recruiting dragons for 100k. If you can show me 2 examples of a player recruiting a 100k dragon over the last year that would be good to see. The point is taken but each time you raise the OBN limit the bigger the impact on the economy you have.
I don’t agree that you can counter the OBN - I’ve had this discussion before. You can impact on it if you’re fortunate enough to get the nation that has the gold, but a decent team will be able to cope and by then the DS will have bankrolled enough in the other nations to gain a big advantage.
Yes but the whole point on these dragon is moot if your aren’t allowed to go over 100k in gold as you wouldn’t be allowed to recruit them – I have recruited at least two – maybe not in the past year – for 100k gold – so if gonna be fair and put a cap on gold then think should be fair and lower the cost to recruit these dragons as dragons are a vital part in the defense of mordor and certain dark servants !!
You still haven’t answered if this would affect all Games or just grudge games – as the example in a gunboat game – if I happen to get over 100k I am not shipping gold to an ally I don’t know is still alive or if his capital has been taken – etc where there is no communication or very little allowed !!
Not to mention , if a games winds up going on for awhile – say like game 72 – even though this is on turn 19 – the market sell limit has gone up to around 36k gold a turn – so a nation can get near 80k with just two turns of max selling !! But I have been in games – like 118 where you could almost sell 100k in a single turn !! Not to mention I think it was that game that I stole like 100k with just a single agent !!
Mainy – from my exp – the longer the game goes on the OBN become a moot point as many nation then have the potential to have over 100k in gold in there treasury – what do we do at this point !!
Yes, I agree with Clint here. It would be a shot in the dark to guess precisely which nation is running a high treasury and triggering the OBN. It may be possible to limit the list of possibilities, but it’s unlikely anyone could whittle it down to one nation.
And of course the Free wouldn’t necessarily have the resources to commit every agent to gold steals, since some might be too low or being used to defend against DS agent squads.
Drew, you’re missing the point, there’s a forest here, congratulations on analyzing the legal/technical trees of the OBN ruling. Stop accusing the rest of us as not being able to read for comprehension, we’ve moved past the specific details, time you did too.
Ed, if you’ve seen some of the emails Clint sends me you’d take back a great deal of what you write…
Mike, excellent point about the 100K Dragons.
I’m cool with withdrawing the OBN ruling entirely. Whatever, but at least I’ll know that nations are allowed to hoard gold going into the game. In 85 we were given the impression (Drew, in private emails OUTSIDE the published ruling…) that this was not allowed. Thus the upset.
Clint, thanks for noting that the FP in Game 85 were kicking serious @$$. We worked very hard and played a solid game (sure, mistakes are made) and are, 20 turns and #320 entertainment $ per player later, only now confirming that we were not playing the same game as the opposition. We’ll take responsibility for that. But 85 is done as a result and I’m simply campaigning for the rest of us such that this kind of cloudy misunderstanding doesn’t happen again. Hard Cap reserves or Open them up - just leave the assumptions out of it because we have cities to smoke.
Brad (Fax) there is no “T” in my name;). I think everyone is tipping in on the idea of fairness. Most of the players in this game have been for a while. Now that the movies charm is gone we are back to us war gamers. The OBN ruling was needed and I haven’t heard anyone really complain about the quality of their game experience since. I agree with the Blue Knight totally. Since I have no idea about the real ins and outs I can only speculate. Clint, Mike makes some very good points. Is it possible to have a rolling limit that increases over time? There is no reason for a nation to have the 80k prior to turn 10. I’m sure something could be done to have it grow in scale over time. Some nations like Arthedain on turn 20 with the Witch-King dead since turn 8 would have a huge economy. If he with his building fort bonus towered all pops and jacked his tax to 80% he would totally destroy your limit. Those instances are what need to be considered.
Ed, please, respectfully please, refrain from personnal attacks. A private message would be better.
I think you are hitting near the mark, and am happy to see this geting fix. I think its a huge issue as well in pick up games with Harad who then sides evil. Last games I saw this happen, were so DS lopsided its was sad.
Though i think code change is the only way to have a total fair break down of the ONBing issue. For the short term, I am happy with the no nation having over 80k if so it must then send gold to another nation. I’m ok with the number being a little higher though not over 100k. I’m still ok and think intent needs to be looked at, as i can see times when 80k or 100k could be to much if the rest of that team is holding 0. Their might need to be some kind of balance between nations gold stores. No one nation can hold more then 25% of the total nations gold? Or somthing like this.
Also what happens if your whole team is rich? I guess we are saying the DS cant have more then X 80k or 100 k in every nations bank. I could also see a turn where some one MIGHT not be able to easyly sell or buy in worry of this rule or it cost him a major order crunch by having to do so that turn. Would it not be ok for that naiton to send in a note to you to let you know its happening and next turn they will fix the issue? But still good clear rules need to be put forward so that no ONBing is taking place and its understood between the Players and the GM that its not happening on any level and the rules are not being loopholed.
Clint – I just looked at game 72 – might be giving away alot to the freeps in this game – but about half the Evils have a 39% tax rate – everyone has about a minunim of 25k gold reserves about half of us 50k – three of the evils have close to 80k or over and one has over 200k – how would you break that up and you can sell on the market limit around 36k gold a turn and this was an indie game !! I think pretty soon everyone will have 100k plus reserves – what happens then and the game – at least to me is leaning about 55% freep win right now !!
I don’t mind a cap and am not arguing against it , 100k sounds fair, and I also think a code change would be fairest fix – but what happens in an Indie game – say for example where I am the harad – I am not gonna decide to join a side till usual – around turn 5 to 10 – but jack my taxes to 60% and along with max sells – wham I am over 100k by say turn 3 – I have no allies as i am a nuetral – If not allowed to have over 100k – what do I do – if i send to evils – freeps mad – if to freeps evils mad – whats happens here , not gonna send to neutral unless they going my way , I would also like to know what happens for a game that goes on longer when market sell limits go up and pretty soon everyone having 100k is nothing (like game 72 soon)-- i have been in a couple of those – last one was game 118 – three weeker lasted over 5 years !! So it can happen !!
Why do you want 300,000k in the bank? Especially knowing how the program works (sorry, you can’t issue the Forget order and wish it just went away…). Why would Harad provide such a large benefit to the DS if he were “neutral”…? Why would Arthedain help the DS also by doing this?
Yes, 300,000 means you can buy all the HCav St/St you want (well, the prices are high, so not really…) BUT it has X impact on the entire Game.
This is how it’s always been, agreed, so the right-wingers scream “No Changes!”. Well, we have seat belt and no-smoking laws now, maybe it’s time to redress an issue that 97.5% of the time is ONLY used to the great and impossible-to-counter benefit of the DS.
Main point I am making is that in an indie game – I would like to know what would happen to nations like harad and even the corsairs that can get over 100k easily without or before choosing a side – once they choose a side – of course they ship gold out to the side they choose to be under the 100k rule – but up till they choose a side – technically they are neutral and haven’t an allegiance to either side so why can’t they build up there economies – before this OBN even came to light – I always used to build harad’s and or Corsairs treasuries to as high as i could before joining a side – now the so called neutral powerhouses are getting penalized – that was the whole idea to get one of those neutrals to join you with there vast gold reserves – just neutralizes them in my opinion !!
Key being “before this OBN”. Now it’s come to light. Now as a Neutral, you KNOW that if you crank your taxes you are helping the DS. This isn’t a penalty, this is simply knowledge.
If you think this is a penalty, turn it around - EVERY TIME you’ve ever joined the Free People with huge reserves, you’ve actually been working for the other side without your even knowing it.
you mean they didn’t want me to join them for my vast military, multiple backups, 2 extra orders per character, free hire/agent SNA/good mages or charming personality?
** mind you, if you speak about “neutralizing the neutrals” you just might convince some fence sitters to support a hard cap…
I think until code changes happen Neutrals will just have to play by the rule. That one factor effects to many players and the whole game to much. They are runing the Econs of every other nation in the game. Its to much power. As if none gruge Neutral dont already hold game balance in the hands to them to ONB is to much. If peole dont like it they dont have to play neutrals, but i really dont see this being an issue. Most true neturals will not want to jack up the market to high if they might go free.
Well basically – the only way to be fair is to get a code fix – I just think a cap on an indie game now neutrlizes the neutrals or at least the Corsairs and harad as the hugh potential cash powerhouses they ARE SUPPOSED to be !!
If join the free – then they would deplete there funds as I stated and if join the evils would have to gt under the 100k cap of course – but just as long as they are neutral – shouldn’t they be allowed to build as they want !!
OBN – helps evils , agreed
but I think a cap on Indie harad and Corsairs or other neutrals hurts them or there original reason of why we wanted to recruit them in the first place – for there economic powerhouse --Can we agree on this !!
Of course if they join a side they would then have to do whatever the rules are – if freep ya wouldn’t want to be having a high treasury cause of the OBN and if evil , the rule would take effect !!
And the dragon that take 100k to recruit – i think should be lowered as the game was set up to eventually if someone did get 100k to recruit them as I have done in past and this rule now cuts out 3 or 4 potential dragons for recruitment !!
Sorry Mike, your opinion is yours as are your preferences in ME as in life. I don’t share this particular opinion. Neutrals IMO are many things with much potential, they’re not “supposed” to do anything specific - that’s the beauty of the Indie game in many ways.
As previous, the 100k dragon is the only real “in-game” dilemna I can see regarding this broken code.
Recall everyone, when this all “broke” pubically there were many quite passionate arguments against the Fact that a single nations high reserves drove the market. I was in OBN games where allies, enjoying the fruits of the market, vehemently denied the truth. Clint even publically disagreed with the theory until he finally caved in and did some testing (No Ed, not 20 minutes after the screaming started…). Between his testing and his conversations with BF, he came back quite adamant that this was an unintentional error in the code, and he acted quickly after that.
Problem being, instead of saying “We won’t let this broken sub-routine run” he simply blocked a small number of many many routes to this aspect of the program. This is what we’re talking about improving here - if it was broken then, it’s still broken today.
See Brad – now your missing the point – Go back to before we even knew about the OBN – getting a weathly harad or Corsairs out of the neutrals was a main objective – to hopefully get at least one to join your side – this will not hold true anymore with an OBN cap in an indie game !!
All I am trying to point out is until the code gets fix – any rules changes is gonna effect something else – in this case there can be no powerhouse harad or corsairs to try and swoon and getting dragons that cost over 100k is off the table !! Two things that get affected from a cap that I can think of !!
Image if there was no OBN – Whatever side I am on I would be trying my hardest to get harad and or corsairs to join our cause and its mainly cause of the Gold and MT’s that they can dish out !! Now with OBN – what does it matter as you will get a neutral that can’t help support a side because of caps – so it does effect the neutrals as far as i am concerned !!
Also – was never answered that the longer a game goes on , market limit sells go up and what about that !!
No Mike, I get your point. In your opinion Neutrals are best served with lots of gold. Sorry, I don’t share your opinion.
Now our in-game 85 differences of opinion is supposedly, according to people like Drew, based on our FP inability to read English. Well, upon further review, I’m now actually a lot more pissed off than I was yesterday. Can somone please point out from the below, all from the same source, how the 85 FP were confused? Because it looks pretty clear to me that the 85 DS were in direct violation of the rules as published. Ignorance is no excuse:
The One Banker Nation (OBN for short) strategy is now banned.
Well, that’s quite clear. How about:
If it’s with the intention of creating a OBN situation then no it’s not allowed
Still the 85 FP being illiterate? Hmm, what else can I see…
I’ve already got the “spirit” of breaking it in the rules that an attempt to do so in this manner is not allowed.
Banned, Not Allowed and Not Allowed. That’s pretty clear to me.
Nope again you are missing the point – Lets pretend the Code is fixed – then in any Indie game (I am not talking about a Grudge) with the harad or Corsairs ability to have over 100k by turn 5 – both side are gonna be trying to get one or both nations to join there side for the Gold help etc – this maxes them very important and very powerful !!
Now say the code is still Fixed – and you come out and state – whoops no nation allowed to go over 100k – you wouldn’t say this effects harad or Corsairs in any way !! I certainly think it does !!
If you can’t understand what I am trying to get across by now , guess you never will !!
Until the actual code gets fixed – its gonna effect something somewhere
Yes Mike, 100,000k is better than 10,000. I get it. I’ve never played those nations to hoard gold and rarely see them hoarding their gold - they’re usually spending it. Hell, you might be surprised at how many Corsairs I see bankrupting themselves.
Does a Cap impact Harad or Corsairs more than other nations? Yes, it does. Agreed, especially Harad, in fact, you might consider only using Harad as you example (see Bankrupt Corsairs above…). But sorry, that’s not a deal breaker. 1 in 25 nations, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/10 times those nations are played this will really matter, you’re looking at 1/75 to 1/250 players who have their gazillion options limited to a gazillion minus one. Sorry, this is a non starter.
I see you’re politely ignoring the bit about:
the OBN is Banned
the Intent is Not Allowed
the Spirit is Not Allowed
