This is an extremely onerous solution that will lead to some preposterous situations. For example, I am sitting on 80K gold and are running a surplus and a bunch of enemy characters show up in my capital. I am supposed to issue orders to ship gold to teammates under this situation? Just ludicrous to punish nations for having a gold reserve.
I have had nations (and not talking about Harad and the Corsairs) with 150K/turn revenue before turn 40 (if you want to see, I’d be happy to send you a turn). It is nearly impossible to spend anything close to that, even shipping out gold and giving away pop centers. That would blow up your rolling cap…
If you want to forbid natsells for nations above a certain reserve, that is different. It’s a bit silly and somewhat abitrary, but it’s a solution.
However, if the rules of this game are such that in the example I cited earlier (capital under attack, risking running over 80k) the game system forces me to issue poor tactical orders to compensate for flaws in the code then I am out of here, it is as simple as that. To take the example even further - let’s say my capital gets cleaned out and I’m now above the cap - do I have to rush characters back to my agent-infested capital to transfer gold out to get below the cap? Or maybe the ‘wise’ option is to send otherwise useful characters to a camp and burn money buying MI.
Sorry, the cure is worse than the disease.
There was a time way back when that no one knew the answers to recruit dragons. They were in the game as a pain to Free characters an once in awhile the DS would hit the jackpot. Then online hint sites came and no Free rush into Mordor was complete without a visit from Khuzadrepa. That is the way the game is, people learned to (mostly) overcome. One way the Free have compensated is they have learned how to trash the market. There are plenty of orders issued that have no purpose but to manipulate the market. This is ‘fair game’ because, hey, it lessens the advantage the DS have. There was never a house rule that forbade DS from reacting to a dragon encounter with ‘meek’ to balance the game.
This is an extremely onerous solution that will lead to some preposterous situations. For example, I am sitting on 80K gold and are running a surplus and a bunch of enemy characters show up in my capital. I am supposed to issue orders to ship gold to teammates under this situation? Just ludicrous to punish nations for having a gold reserve.
*** In that situation then yes you might well be penalised. But a simple 315 order would be effective to deal with it - and that wouldn’t need to be at the capital.
I have had nations (and not talking about Harad and the Corsairs) with 150K/turn revenue before turn 40 (if you want to see, I’d be happy to send you a turn). It is nearly impossible to spend anything close to that, even shipping out gold and giving away pop centers. That would blow up your rolling cap…
*** In that situation you’d have (on turn 40) 115k as a reserve. What sort of time period are you talking about? Modern games are less likely to get into that situation. I can always look at advancing the revenue. The reason why you’d have that money is that due to an earlier OBN situation I suspect though (ie more money brings in more money exponentially).
And by your statements that your OBN’ing was really astronomically effective, we have confirmation that our overall market strategy was working - without your high reserves the market would have bounced from 1 to 2 and you guys would have busted a long time ago. But we kept scratching our heads worrying about any of OUR nations with reserves over 20,000 for crissake to keep the hammer down as much as possible…
There are two basic issues: first, I never seem to find myself with enough capital orders - but more than that, my capital is under attack and I have to have a character order something I neither want nor need? What if I 315 but don’t 215, knowing I’ll probably die to challenge? Again, what if my capital is cleared out? Do I have to move back in? Or at least move a character to another pop center, where I don’t want him, to buy product I don’t want? What if I try to upgrade a MT to a C but fail? What if it was a 30 emissary that failed? A 40? A 50? Is there ANY reasonable way to enforce this?
But what it really comes down to is that this is a game of orders and penalizing someone for legitimately building an economy is just wrong.
In the example cited of Game 85, the CL would not have been able to do what he did without selling product. If you want to limit economies, do so that way - even if the cap is lower - say no selling product if your reserves will end up over 50k or 60k at the end of the turn.
It was awhile ago as I have not played a recent game far enough. But I’ve done it multiple times and most certainly not using OBN, either intentionally or accidentally (at least not until the 20s or 30s, at which point it’s impossible not to have the market completely explode). I’ve had over 1M in reserves before 40 this way. At that point, the only reason to natsell is to just to be ostentatious. If it’s material to the decision making process, I can forward some old turns.
The one difference is that the Free were likely not actively sabotaging the market, which many have figured out how to do now.
[i]There are two basic issues: first, I never seem to find myself with enough capital orders - but more than that, my capital is under attack and I have to have a character order something I neither want nor need? What if I 315 but don’t 215, knowing I’ll probably die to challenge? Again, what if my capital is cleared out? Do I have to move back in? Or at least move a character to another pop center, where I don’t want him, to buy product I don’t want? What if I try to upgrade a MT to a C but fail? What if it was a 30 emissary that failed? A 40? A 50? Is there ANY reasonable way to enforce this?
But what it really comes down to is that this is a game of orders and penalizing someone for legitimately building an economy is just wrong.[/i]
You can 315 at a different location. For clarity: If you have over 80k at the start of the turn you can earn more and use that, but you have to get rid of any surplus. (So 82k you have to get rid of 2k but can still natsell. Next turn you might be upto 95k then you have to get rid of 15k but can still natsell. Mostly I’m trying to avoid the big levels of gold - so if you have 200k then the only way to dump it is to send it off, and with the ruling above you won’t ever get to 200k other than in exceptional circumstances (say 3 big steals, some encounters etc). You have to look at the starting point using examples where there was 200k in a nation as a starting point doesn’t work as an example.)
OBN is not a cut-and-dried thing. It impacts on all aspects of the game. If you have a high relative gold that impacts on the market Note the term relative here.
I’m looking at coding solution at present, done the testing, got some code that works, BUT players are used to OBN in the game in that any levels of gold in a nation affect the market. IE the solution might be worse than the cure (the operation was a success, but the patient still died).
I truthfully don’t like the way this is shaping up – Its starting to feel like big brother running my turns for me – that I have to do this order to off-set this or that !!
The way I look at it this is basically a war game – when first started out games went on for a long time as everything was done by snail mail , fog of war and only really your turn to go by unless you wrote or called someone , then intro the computer and you where now sitting down getting real time info from friends and allies , so games became more coordinated and ended sooner and where alot more FUN !!
I can be running say 80k on turn 6 through 10 – yes I would be fine – meantime I have agents out stealing gold and steal 10k gold --and now am at 90k and I am to PENALIZED as I am now at 90k on turn 6 through 10 – so am I to stop beefing my agents skill ranks up or Empty my Treasury before hands on the IF i get gold when I could have gotten nothing !!
Not to mention , I am also one of those that tries to sell something everytime to keep beefing my Treasury up , say I am at 80k on turns 6 through 10 and food just went to a 2 and I have 12k stored – I technically can’t sell it as would put me over the limit and I get 20k gold stolen off me , now down to 60k and didn’t sell food at 2 last turn cause I couldn’t as would break this rule and food now went to a one – I would be PISSED , as everyone always sells food at 2 !!
Can give more examples – but it comes down to me not running a nation my way but worrying about rules and being penalized !! I’d have to say – No Thank You !!
Just doesn’t seem right , I hate to say it but the game sounds like it changing for the worse to me and starting to sound NOT AS FUN anymore !!
I think the answer here might be to get the two teams to do a rematch with your revised code to test it. That way a) the code will get tested by experienced players b) the teams can rematch without the accusation of OBN or any of its variants resurfacing.
The sooner we can get the code fix tested and in play the better I think.
Mike, It would appear to me that you might consider asking Clint to participate in a Test game to as soon as possible get the code modified such that reserves ARE Allowed without having such a clearly unintendend and detrimental impact on the entire game.
I’d happily run 12 nations in a test game scenario for this purpose, but I’m not paying a nickel for the experience, in fact, there are minimum wage laws in most of the western world, no?
Brad: You must have me confused with someone else. I’m the one who suggested that Clint consult with Bill Feilds as to his intent. That provoked a ‘hot’ response from Clint. But he showed mental flexibility and did just that, although it might have been painful for him.
My objections here are PROCESS. Recall these are the guys who said they would make no further changes to the game without running it by the players first. A 15 hour consultation is a mockery of that. If Clint had waited 96 hours before issueing his predecision I would have no objections. Clint would also have received information that he clearly did not consider before issueing the predecision.
Clint: If your word is good, I expect to see no repeat of this. Alternately, if past assurances are irksome to you then the proper administrative action would be to provide fair warning: “Effective COB 31 August 2008 all promises, explicit or implied, regarding any/all/no changes in this game are null and void”.
I thought I was already in one – game 84 , the market sucks and doesn’t seem to matter how much gold one or many nations have !! But will always be willing to test another !!
While I’m just against the OBN effect… If gold reserves could go high without cuasing it then game would be considered still in balance… I would join a grduge team to test this change to see if it works… I do like the idea of being able to make additional characters later in game when they go longer… This would also help with Bug hunts giving an the winning side a better chance to finish off a persistant losing side.
IMO Clint etc caved to whiners a couple of years ago after the DS (us) thrashed some FP in a 2 turn per week game by implementing a OBN rule.
The game should have been left alone to start with IMO.
Coming back 15 years after the game’s design and trying to determine/enforce what the designer’s intent was (after he had sold the game?) is rather comical to me.
My objections here are PROCESS. Recall these are the guys who said they would make no further changes to the game without running it by the players first. A 15 hour consultation is a mockery of that. If Clint had waited 96 hours before issueing his predecision I would have no objections. Clint would also have received information that he clearly did not consider before issueing the predecision.
I suspect that if I were slow then you’d complain that I took too long to respond. As mentioned I’ve already given this a lot of thought. I’m not saying that it’s the right solution but a solution to be put forward and then discussed is better than “what should we do?” I find that having a position, debating it is the best method of finding the correct solution.
I have comments from teammates on both sides of the issue that are willing to quit middleearth for good if it is not resolved in their favor or what they think is fair.
My quick knee jerk reaction is this.
Establish games in advance with both teams knowing if one nation is allowed to accumulate as much gold reserves as possible.
I know it is hard to fill games right now, but this might allow players to get the best of both worlds. Those that want it, play in games that allow it. Those that don’t want, don’t play in games that allow it. Hopefully we have enough players that will support both sides.
I am on record as saying I can win with OBN, with OMN and I can beat a team playing with OBN or with OMN. The overall team strategy will dictate who wins and not the mechanics of the game. I believe you have to react to the game with better tactics than your opponenets.
Obviously I am in the minority on this, but we are now at risk of losing more experienced and key players that keep this game fun. I have people I do not like in this game, I have people I love to play with and against in this game. I do not want to lose any of them as I don’t want to see the game reduced to just 50 people left playing the game.
Remember, this is a game for fun. Let us all try and figure out a way to make it fun for everyone playing.
Note if you have 80k at the start of the turn you can natsell for 20k. Next turn, for arguments sake, you have 100k then you’d have to reduce down to 80k that turn with 315s or 948 (you could even proactively do it with the 80k and Natsell and 948 off gold).
I take the point that people like having big gold reserves though. One potential solution is just a cap (ie a nation’s reserve can’t go above 80k or if it did that taxation would reduce appropriately). But that’s a change I don’t want to make.
Any other ideas?
Market: I’ll look at the code solution as that’s the better solution I expect. My tests have shown that it generally reduces the gold levels and market prices in the game if I remove the OBN element. * (That’s why it’s coded in the first place). So a safety measure has to be put it to inflate the prices slightly to make up for that. I’ve done that (2 different versions of testing with lots of turns). I’ll look at implementing that with the next game that we run. How does that sound?
This is because players are used to having a limited OBN element to the game where relative gold levels impact on that market (amongst other factors such as quantity of goods, total gold around etc). So a player having 1mn gold and the average being, say 900k gold would not kick off the OBN element, BUT a player having 20k gold and the average being 2k gold would kick off the OBN. Does that help? Both GB and 1650 games are nearly full so I’ll try them in that, but ideally a competitive game would be useful to test it out.
IMO Clint etc caved to whiners a couple of years ago after the DS (us) thrashed some FP in a 2 turn per week game by implementing a OBN rule.
I didn’t cave, as you might recall I was originally opposed to it. I was then convinced that I was in error and implement appropriate change. :rolleyes: I know that changing one’s opinion is anathema to some, but for me I prefer to have the correct solution, rather than one that suits me best.
Part of that process was playing the game (at a FTF we tested it) and seeing it in action for myself. Sorting through the elements of hear-say, erroneous information and so on takes time. The original OBN ruling is not enough to stop an abuse of the game system I think hence the updates that I’ve been working on both in terms of a hand-mod and code changes.
We’d all like a perfect game, but like life, perfection is something to be striven for not achieved. :D;)
The point for removing the effect is simple if you ever saw it in Play… That market prices shryrocket higher and the amount of natsells goes upward… Higher than the 20k at the start of the game towards 40k per turn… This can be done with ONE order on ONE NATSELL… even if the FP stole the gold the effect remains becuase now the FP have it and the DS can quickly reinstitute it…
A market where prices skyrocket upwards reguardless of natsells is Broken… It’s high golds rerserves that causes it… This element of the code needs to be removed for the Perment Fix… Unlike learning how to recruit dragons… Which can be countered effectively… The OBN effect not the gold reserves for good play should be fixed…
With DS able to employ this strategy it also makes emmisaries useless for taking enemy Pc’s… every nation can run below 40% and at some stage 26% with a constant climbing loyalties with NO concerns about defict’s becuase the max nastell is to high…
In your Case about 2950… your unlikely to see this becuase the tax base and resource base is so low it would take 20+ turns for a nation to get strong enough to cuase it…
Taking the Above – it falls back into the Big Brother thing where I HAVE to use one character order of a character doing either a 315 or 948 (no exception) , when maybe i would rather beef up a characters skill rank or need the character to do something else THAT I DEEM important – and now I can’t , and this to me isn’t me playing my nation MY WAY, its do this or be penalized !! I don’t know about other but I always find I have to many things that need to be done and not enough characters or there orders to accomplish what I need or want and now am being told HAVE to or be PENALIZED when it might be detrimental to my nation !!
As mentioned I’ve already given this a lot of thought. I’m not saying that it’s the right solution but a solution to be put forward and then discussed is better than “what should we do?” I find that having a position, debating it is the best method of finding the correct solution.
stab: