Started a new thread as it seemed appropriate: I’m not indifferent to it at all - I have a different opinion that’s all and you might be reading that as indifferent (like players claiming that DS won most games and there being something needed to be done about it - I’ve now seen the proof that that is not the case). No-one’s provided me with evidence so far for 1 banker nation exploit of the market .
As an aside: You can claim the world is round but I know it’s an oblate spheroid, revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit as described by General Relativity, in an undefined sized Universe, maybe in a Multiverse and can be described in 10 or 11 dimensions - 4 of which you gain direct experience of via your normal senses and the rest described in mathematical terms only…
Back to the point in hand: Whatever the results (to a certain degree) even so I agree that you can affect the market and in such a way that the DS gain an early game benefit (I’ve done it in many games). Does that make the market “explode” or give a benefit to one side (or both) and to what extent is still open to debate I’d say.
The questions then are
i) then is it it broken? and
ii) can the FP do anything about it [ie it’s not broken if ii) is possible]?
My personal opinion here is that i) it’s not and ii) the FP can do stuff about it. Does it mean that FP must play better to beat the better DS - yes (as any team that can organise the “banker nation” will need to have an equally co-ordinated team to beat it). Hope that clarifies my position.
As for running tests, I know it could be done - I tried to explain why I don’t want to do that (as a player it would give me unfair information that I garnered only via being a GM). It’s a slightly awkward position for me - I intend to run tests in games I play when I get the chance (just need to beat James more quickly!).
What we’re trying to tell you Clint is that it’s not a matter of opinion anymore. 1 nation’s gold has the described effects.
Where opinion is relevant is how such a ploy would affect play and game balance.
The majority believe it would be favour the DS from turn 1 through 101. But then, I was a vehement majority believer re: DS Win% > 65 and have been refuted somewhat convincingly. So while I can appreciate the assumptions people make, I’m not an evangelical believer. This would be much more fun to debate with a FP turn 0 setup knowing the DS would do this, though…
Can’t open it. I’ve had some more thoughts on what consists of a broken market and what disadvantages having a one banker nation has on the other 11 nations as well. Can you email me the pdf?
I remember mentioning this to Clint at a FtF in Feb and he didn’t believe it could happen. [I was a Freep so I never tried it at the time - we got drubbed though, even without the DS using the banker nation tactic]. Clint needs evidence before acting, not the wailing of a few disgruntled players;)
Anyway, I have a theory to counter the banker nation. If as soon as the Freeps see a spike in prices on turn 1, every FP nation should lower taxes to 0 (or as close as) and survive off natsells. They can survive because prices will be high. If 10 free nations have defecits of 25000 (NG would be 50K for example if it could ever get to 0 tax) then I suspect this would counteract the effects of hyper inflation. It should be easy to try as well.
It probably wouldn’t work BUT there may be an ‘economic’ way to disrupt the banker nation tactic than “send agents to steal the gold etc”.
I also thought that buying and selling back the same product on the same turn (so that the FP reserves drop to zero while simultaneously increasing the product in the stores) would work.
Not sure that I fully grab the “Banker Nation” concept, I assume from the posts that a particular Nation gets loaded with gold in a bid to inflate and / or control the market.
My question is this, is this an example of unfair and non ME gameplay that while within the rules is surely outside the spirit of the game ?
Discuss.
Anything allowed within the rules of the game that can provide you an advantage is not only “within” the spirit of the game, but might in fact be the spirit of the game… Fairness? Eh? Note, my original complaint was “balance” that provided for playability. Balanced <> Fair.
Improving prices in the market has been a goal of DS teams since DS teams really began to coalesce in this game community. As such, I can’t say that it’s outside the spirit of the game to do something as a team that accomplishes the goal of providing high market prices using legal turn orders.
The debate needs to move on from “if” this works. It does work.
The debate needs to be about what to do, if anything, about it? Personally, I believe we need lots more games to run where people use it or not, and FP teams try to adapt to it being used against them. There are tons of creative people out there in this game community and there have been lots of suggested counter-ploys by the FP. Let’s not “fix” something that we don’t yet know is broken. In specific answer to your question Darrel, this exploit has only come into widespread use this year I think. I think it was a closely guarded secret of a few grudge team(s) prior. So I don’t think there is data on who has won. PoWeR 16 was won by the DS. The banker exploit helped us in that game for sure. But the DS of PoWeR 16 have many other things to point to as helping us win such as our successes in Mirkwood, Harad, and the Ithil Pass, artifact race, and early curse squad strategically applied.
I just don’t think we’ve seen the creativity of this community applied as FP teams working to counter this exploit. Let’s see what people come up with and what works and doesn’t work. This is actually going to inject some new fun into the game for FP teams I think. It’s time for people to put their thinking caps on. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Kev,
this is a very creative idea. Think about the negative ramifications for the DS using this: Agent & Emissary actions are generally believed to be affected by the loyalty of the enemy pop center in which they are being attempted. If the FP go to tax of zero at turn 1, their loyalties are going to be sky-high by the time that DS agent & emissary actions are starting to get heavy. And now the FP will enjoy the added protection of super high loyalties.
Then the DS swing the market back and forth, yo-yo’ing the FP taxes, who now need to lower them again, etc.
I’ve always considered that all the market maniuplations some players consider necessary to live as a DS actually help slow the elevator - tying up orders. Of course, the common FP reaction is to knee-jerk some panicked response to “fight” the DS market manipulations. So now we have a new DS market manip scam and we’re desperately searching for yet more panicked FP responses. Out of this box, I see an alternative solution.
One out of the box question is: Does an inflated market really benefit the DS so much more than the FP that the Free have to jump through hoops to fight it?
The only answers I’ve ever gotten when asking allies in games have been dogmatic ones (“Of course!! - you a newbie? You believe in UFO’s too? Heresy! Heresy!”…). I hate dogma.
It is a fine thing to play fair. It is even better to expect others to play fair. GSI only had ONE rule—no one could play more than one postion. ‘Fairness’ was never an issue.
Who knows? Harley’s breaking of that commandment may br the root cause of some/many/all perceived problems with the game. In any event I think players should do the problem solving and quit whimpering to the GM for help. If you can’t function in this artificial jungle, you sure don’t want to get into a real one.
If it creates a major imbalance where DS win a lot more…then it’s going to be harder to get opponents etc. (this is my ONLY concern and that is all it is at this point…a concern and I’m not asking for changes to be made)
The idea that the FP can run really low tax rates sounds ok except that can’t most FP nations already sell the market limit or a decent portion of it each turn when the prices are low?
Cardolan for example with a couple plains camps dropped by advancing armies can sell 20k a turn in food so how are they going to be able to run a lower tax rate than normal and make it up on sales?
Darrel - When they can sell 80k in food they’ll make it up in sales.
Ed - The game isn’t a jungle anymore. That’s the difference between Intention and Results.
Dealing with the present, if the shroud of secrecy hiding the perceived fact that 65+% of games go DS has been removed revealing the myth for what it is, then the game is as “balanced” as it would appear to be on paper. Aren’t you pleased? Give the company it’s due, it didn’t knee-jerk to the mob and make those dreaded changes, it followed due process and gathered information to analyse in a meaningful way. Mob dispersed. You’re an American, the game was designed by Americans, why hate a Welshman for trying to maximize revenue streams by keeping games alive when the Majority of players like it? Come now, capitalism and democracy…
And back to the non-jungle - in the spirit of the game, people gathered data to gain an edge over their opponents. That data is now public record (consider the patent expired…) and we are living in the world we’re living in. Now a market manip method that many have “known” about for a while and, frankly, spent many sleepless nights rueing the day it would become public, is public (I do believe the gentleman who organized it in Game 16 regrets the move…).
My question to all is: Do the FP try to do something about it? The vast majority say yes, and ideas are coming out. I say no, damn the market, let’s get down to killing…
Just a thought here regarding 2950 since I believe it to be related to the discussion at hand. There was some surprise at the DS win ratio but not a lot of talk as to why. I would propose the theory that lowering the FP’s economic ability more than offset whatever character benefits they were given. If the FP advantage for 1650/2950 really is army based at the beginning of the game then this makes sense since the weaker 2950 FP economies simply can not field as many troops.
Now, this market exploit has a similar (but opposite) effect. It increases the DS ability to raise and support armies thus levelling that playing field and taking away the FP advantage. Not to mention the fact that weakening the DS through market ploys also appears to go away.
Perhaps some creative and experienced FP teams can work around this. Perhaps they can’t. It’ll probably come down to keeping an eye on the situation and seeing really what the effect is over the next few games as this tactic becomes more common place. If we start seeing a 2/3 DS win percentage then that would be the proof that most people seem to be looking for.
And as Darrel mentioned, of more concern is just the perception of the problem and whether it will affect players wanting to play FP and thus the effect on MEGames’ bottom line.
Okay onto other things - to clarify: if the DS are playing better then that means that to beat them the FP need to play better that’s all not that everyone should up their game! There might be something come up later that gives FP an advantage (and we’ve yet to all agree that a bigger market for DS is an advantage from what I can see - personally I’d say it is but there you go).
I can see some counters to such a strategy - running zero economies, Ems to impact on the no doubt high tax levels of DS if they’re sending large quantities of gold around etc, targetting said high gold nation (difficult to pull off I’d say). I’ve had a couple of players send me some turns to look at - one is clearly high (but I’d have to see it in context to be able to judge as I don’t know that the reason that the market is high due to one nation having a lot of gold, or that there is a lot of gold in the market). It’s all got to be taken in context I think. I’m am more convinced that gold in one nation has a bigger impact but I’m not yet convinced… (Note for those who haven’t dealt with me before I am able to be convinced and take feedback and listen to reasoned argument).
Back to my questions:
i) then is it it broken? and
ii) can the FP do anything about it [ie it’s not broken if ii) is possible]?
Maybe a poll would be appropriate? What should be the questions (it’s not a simple topic IMO).
Since people have been using this tactic for a while…what is the win percentage for DS using it? I think that’s too simplisitic a question (no offence intended). There’s lots of factors that could go into such a game win - it would need some sort of comparison with that team’s win/loss ratio without use of a banker nation. Dave’s comments about game 16 are right on there I’d say (there are many factors to winning or losing a game).
Zero economies takes the “total gold” theory into account - nyet. Emis won’t impact DS pops - why not have 39% (or lower) taxes if you can sell your product for 30+k a turn? nyet. Targetting agreed, difficult and more easily worked around then setting up the market in the first place. nyet.
Note Clint, the pdf I sent you (and is attached above) is turns 0, 1, and 2. It’s dealing with starting gold sent to one nation - so no, there was not “a lot of gold in the market”. This has been spoken about by those who claimed to “know” for a while now, Game 90 Harad did it as a neutral by himself. He was the Corsairs in Game 16 and immediately identified the problem. In both Games 90 and 16 people argued with him incessantly or simply repeated standard market dogma without even realizing something totally new was going on around them (I can’t see them, they can’t see me…) - except a couple who communicated to me privately that indeed, he was right. One of those was the organizer of the DS Game 16 market.
Nobody is claiming to have cracked the code. Dave did an analysis of the game 16 market data afterwards and while “when the DS did this, that happened” was quite prevalent, there was significant variability. But there’s no denying that when X happens Y follows suit.
In regards to your questions:
i) Is it broken? I believe their most holy worships S&F actually added this in as an amendment to their original market code (more Americanisms for you, 6th Amendment? 13th…? ;)) I recall reading about a “fix” to prevent single nations controlling the market via buyout. Go figure…
ii) Can the FP do anything about it? Likely. I DO very much like the kill-taxes idea. Dangerous, though. I can see the FP attempting to implement a number of measures in an attempt to “do” something about it. But I simply repeat myself regarding the order investment required. DS can 947 from their capitals nice and easily, but every FP counter is more complicated, and also more easily countered itself IMO.
None of us wants to be in the real jungle. The state of nature is more awful than any of us can imagine. The question is how many of us can agree to pull all of us further out of that jungle.
I actually think that these two questions are the root of the thread that Brad started a while back. I’ve seen some pretty interesting theories on the subject, and even come up with one of them myself. The thing that I am not seeing is any actual discussion about these theories.
Why is that? Is it because many of us like to play our cards pretty close to the vest? The idea might have some merit, but we aren’t willing to comment on it until we’ve tried it ourselves?
Well, in answer to your questions, Clint, I must say that
I don’t think that the market is broken.
I’m not sure that the FP can’t do something about it.
Now I have a couple of questions that others have asked, but I would like to state plainly.
Why can’t the FP benefit from the inflated market as much as the DS do? With the WM and the EO being able to support themselves, then the other nations can concentrate on getting into the character war. Behind, doesn’t mean out of the race. It just means behind.
What is it that determines the market limit? I’ve recently learned that the market limit applies to all market actions taken by a single nation. I know from my experience in Game 16 that the market limit will raise dramatically with the use of the Banker Nation. So, my earlier question arises, is it possible for the FP to manipulate the market limit?
I’m not indifferent to it at all - I have a different opinion that’s all and you might be reading that as indifferent (like players claiming that DS won most games and there being something needed to be done about it - I’ve now seen the proof that that is not the case). No-one’s provided me with evidence so far for 1 banker nation exploit of the market .
