I’m not looking for the perfect game – that would be every game I’m in and with my side the winner 
– but I am looking for a game that my nation is RUN by ME without anyone forceing me to make or do orders that might make me lose something some where else – like character skill bumps , downgrades , etc, etc and ALL CHARACTER ORDERS are ones I WANT TO DO – not ones that I AM FORCED TO DO !!
This changes the Game entirly to me , by being forced to do orders or be penalized !!
We partially agree again, Mike. I’ve opined a few times, but for clarity and relevance, I’ll repeat - start the Rolling Cap system on Turn 5. If Eothraim sells for 25,000 on turn 1 they can have over 100,000 in their vaults… No characters to name with, etc. There has to be an appropriate lag before, as Mike puts it, that player is penalized punitively. But these starting reserves are very quickly blown through between Maintenance, Character Naming, etc. If it’s not turn 5, then 6, but a Turn 2 enforced gold-dump is inappropriate.
Brad
Sounds a good idea, I suggest turn 6 as that ties in with a Name character turn and easier for players to remember. It usually means that most of the start armies are deceased and deficits reduced.
Clint
I’m just trying to get a point across – that if at any time during the game now I AM FORCED to do orders when we HAVEN’T in the past changes the game – and for me – maybe being an American – this is hard for me to swallow , as I then feel the game or at least nation is no longer mine to run as I feel or want to , but am forced to have to do something when it might contradict something that I think is a whole lot more important for my nation to do or the way I want to run my nation in the first place !!
Definately changes the flavor of the game , for at least me , being told that you MUST issue a certain order or be penalized for not doing it , when this never happened in past games !!
my 3c
What about if your reserves were simply adjusted down? While you wouldn’t have Orders stolen from you, you might end up with gold stolen from you…
Consider, this is no different than character movement. If you, knowing you can only move 12 hexes, issue a hex target 13 hexes from your start with the 810, you will not end up there. If you, knowing any gold over X will be removed from your stores, yet still manage your economy the number of turns required to be close to this point, and then mismanage it to go over, well, you lose this extra amount. Both cases, with your eyes wide open, the responsibility is yours.
I’m just looking for workability here, what do you think? The point being that, barring masocistic Huiatts looking for fame and fortune, the game doesn’t do what the designers intended and very few of us consider it a worthwhile endeavor to pay for the game with this kind of a skew virtually guaranteed to happen.
Brad
If it’s a house-rule that doesn’t allow a OBN, it shouldn’t work at any ME-game, regardless if it’s a grudge or an “indie”-game.
I really can remember this long messages from Clint telling us that something like a OBN isn’t possible any longer.
This messages are dated on the begin of this year, so it really shouldn’t work nor should it be possible to win a game with using this OBN.
Have Fun!
Gixxx
Nope – just like that example I had given where I am at say 80k gold – food at 2 , I have 12k food in stores – everyone that has been playing this game would be selling food at 2 – so now I can’t sell as would be over the gold limit – this already stops me from doing an order I would be doing in and almost every person would be doing in a Normal game , and then throw in I get 20k gold stolen off me – now down to 60k gold reserves and food went to 1 – now would be pissed as losing gold on the food and who was to know if i did sell it I was getting Gold stolen from me – so if did sell it would have been ok – as I said takes the Flavor out of the game and now Dictating what i can’t and can do with a nation I am PAYING to run when we never had RULES in any previous game since I have been playing stating you HAVE to do something other then whatever YOU , as the person running the game wanted !!
Oh and if it a character moving 13 hexes and will not wind up there – remember – it an Order I ISSUED and Screwed up on , not one Dictated or in this Case MANDATORY that I now have to issue
Well I for one and don’t know how many other out there feel the same way – but am not Paying (as is my Money) for a game where I can’t do with my nation as i want – the only outside influences I should have on the way my nation is run and the orders that I issue and not be forced or mandatory on me are from my allies !!
Not In any prevous game of ME – no matter who the owner was – and Clint and Company are by far the Best and Fairest – have I been told That now some Orders are gonna be MANDATORY if such and such happens or Might not be able to Issue some order that any normal person would – like 325 of food at 2 – because might now go over a cap !!
The whole game just changed in my eyes and not for the better !!
Only thing I can think of – is if you go over the cap – the excess gold automatically goes to the ally with the lowest gold reserves – thus not costing me to issue or not issue any order i want and not getting penalized by haveing my Gold stripped from me , but how to bring this about !!
Hey Mike, lot of time now, huhhhhhhh, LOL Forget the Cap, send agents,
Having followed the debate as it’s raged back and forth, it seems to me that both sides have a point (although perhaps characterizing it as two different sides is a bit unfair).
People seem to agree that what went on in game 85 is undesirable, but I think Mike and others are right in that the solution that has been proposed would hamper and restrict legitimate play. So rather than trying to implement a rigid ruling here, couldn’t a more flexible policy be implemented? Ie. We could leave it up to the GM or the Moderator of the game to flag up an instance where an individual might be hoarding gold to cause the market prices to explode, and allow the player responsible a chance to justify his/her actions.
I’m just looking for workability here, what do you think? The point being that, barring masocistic Huiatts looking for fame and fortune, the game doesn’t do what the designers intended and very few of us consider it a worthwhile endeavor to pay for the game with this kind of a skew virtually guaranteed to happen.
Brad[/QUOTE]
Brad,
This quote should be Huiatt, not Huiatt’s. My brother does not agree with me on this <G>. You did make me laugh however. And by the way, please send me some more gold in our game, I still need it.
Tim
Not for Long – Wife has given the the ultimatum – get a Job – but thats just the point – if send agents and steal – you might put yourself over the cap and thus can’t steal to beef agent rank anymore !!
We just need to let Clint fix the code! We all know this is the answer. We might have to put up with a few wacked out games that yes we are paying for before it gets tweaked right. Fixing the code the key.
That or lock the Market sell and buys at the same number the whole game. A number that is fair and balanced. Somewhere around a turn 4-8 normal none ONBer game or a none FP as crashed it to all 1’s amount. That way the FP’s cant crash it and the DS cant ONB it up. The playing field is level even between game. Sure it takes some elements out of the game but it would be a “fix”.
Reguardless I say code fix is the way to go. What can we do to make it happen?
JL
“Broken code.”
What does that mean exactly?
Apparently, asking the original programmers if they intended the code to result in a particular dynamic, and getting the answer “no” means “the code is broken.”
I don’t get that.
There are lots of dynamics that occur with the program as originally written. Did the programmers envision an era of information sharing such that dragons are a DS-dominated Weapon of Mass Destruction? I tend to doubt it. There are a virtually limitless host of other dynamics over which you could ask the question, and I am absolutely convinced that in some instances, the original programmers would have to say “no, that was not a specifically intended result.” The program (however flawed) is simply too complex to be able to anticipate all of the dynamics that in fact have developed (or could develop - there is no reason players might not find additional “new dynamics” to exploit in other areas of the game).
“Broken” - to me - means that the code was either originally written one way and is no longer that way, or there was specific intent to cause one thing to happen but another has happened instead. The former is clearly not the case here. With respect to the latter, I believe that horse has left the barn.
Attempting to re-write the code by implementing after-the-fact in-game guidelines is silly (to me), likely to be ineffective (there are many ways to “game” the market - why is hoarding gold all of a sudden high treason? why didn’t a hue and cry go up when market manipulations - yes, manipulations - in the form of buyouts first occured?), and dangerous (just get a majority that Clint happens to agree with and - VOILA! - the game has changed).
Clint: If you think the code is broken, fix it. You own it, it’s your prerogative. While you’re at it, address other concerns that have been raised over the years, that people feel just as passionately about, and can be just as vigorously backed as the those screaming for a “fix” to the dynamic now under discussion. But please, for the love of god, DON’T impose in-game restrictions on the fly. Bad policy, bad precedent, bad way to fix a problem that can be fixed directly, should you be inclined to do so.
As for the players dealing with the code as written now … It is what it is. Deal with it. Don’t rely on “House Rules” to moderate a dynamic inherent in the software program.
I’m getting sick to my stomach at the thought of Natural Law types ruining MEPBM. You’ve already mucked up society enough as it is by perverting western legal traditions. Don’t ruin my hobby too.
b (so you all know who’s posting)
PS While I have the utmost respect for our opponents in Game 85, this has gotten to the point of lunacy. We thought one thing, you thought another. Going on a crusade to justify your claims of “we would/could/should have won” is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You would have won.
Does seeing that make you happy? Now quit f-ing with the game (which we all know and love) and move on.
You must be the Sinda brother then. Yes, sure, the Woodmen are always more than happy to send gold to their needy Free People allies, but please allow me to confirm the the rest of the Team, I saw Southern Gondor might need some help this turn too…
Woodbrad
No, but it helps a bit.
As far as I’m concerned, I got ripped off a game, lied to by certain people in authority, lost 8 weeks and more than a hundred dollars swimming in the dark. Let’s not even bring up the impact’s on relationships within this community, about the largest reason many of us play in the first place.
So I’m not sure what will make me happy, frankly. What about you?
Brad,
No no, me first. Pleeeeeeeease!!!
tim
Well the game was fine for how many years? How many games were completed 100’s, a 1000+?
I am not saying you did anything wrong from your standpoint. As a seller of gaming services keeping one’s customer base happy is almost a necessity. You choose your verb, I’ll stick with mine 
Like my erstwhile, esteemed <cough cough> mentor, Mr Huiatt, said “some can win wth OBN or without it.” The orginal post seems to indicate that without OBN even further policed the FP cant win. I dont believe that to be true. Therfore the whole discussion is predicated on an erroneous point of view.
Your right it is not a perfect game but it was a fine in '95 when I started and it is still a fine game now.
/shrug
PS Just eliminate 325, it’s not fair but fair left this barn a long time ago 