Market manipulation - 1 nation banker

General
#101

I guess unless this issue is resolved, I will again be retiring from ME games. It’s simply impossible to play against DS when they can drop their tax rate below 30% improving 3120 and gobling Gate to MT’s and City’s on turn 2!.. NG natsells 25k food @ 1 prices rises to 2 the following turn… And expect the FP to come up with tactic to solve a Problem The GM’s must address Immediately for the Fairness and equal competion of both sides… The DS when using a banker Strategy are the economic Giants the Character Giants and with Lower tax rates higher loyalities on pc’s have negated the FP military advantage…
With the Bridge being Blown at 2924 in a normal Game NG the Former economic and military powerhouse in Me games simply could buy 10k in timber and not bankrupt his nation rebuild the bridge a move across… With a Banker nation He is bankrupt without every reaching 10k in timber…
Anytime anyone talks about Fairness they are met with well the other side is not skilled enough… Well those who have played with and against me I doubt would call me unskilled… I enjoy a challenge but I would also like just a challenging position Like Dragonlord or WK without banker nation giving me unlimited funds … To me that is Cheating … Market manipultaion is buying low and selling high … I mean buying the entire market by the team to force the price high enough to return a profit and they are huge when done as a team… 20K+ a turn this is fair becuase this market is still a true market based on the Laws of supply and demand. Banker nations subvert that from a broken computer formula… Hence a Found Cheat code manipulating a poor program to give a side and unfair advantage…
I will not associate myself with those who believe the DS need a cheat code to win… Why should I support a game that allows them to do so… DS have a great chance to win without this by just using there strengths to cover thier weakness… economics strength is the FP strength… This was brought up becuase changes was requested to assist the FP becuase it gotton harder for them to win… I was against those changes… Just as I was against setup point increases for agents in 1000 becuase i thought they was unfair…
Would you play a game of Chess where your opponent started with all queens and you a normal setup … When asked about that being fair his response was Well it’s up to you to figuire out how to beat me, that’s fair!
This is the attitude by people who only want to win and only care when they are facing a board of all queens!
I’ve played many games of Me many before people knew about the internet and email games… I alweys enjoyed the game becuase even if a nation was more powerful than mine I felt i had a chance to defeat him and his team from my skill and my team working together… This is the first time in GM 37 I feel I have no chance to win. Not becuase they are that much better… But because I cannot overcome endless gold from a broken market. enabling them to write any order they wish … With lower than 40% tax rate supporting superior High maintenace characters with writing 1 natsell per turn to cover everything! And worse even selling that product by the entire team the price nevers drops to 1 after selling it every turn it only rises!

Clint

I am sorry I cannot support inaction here… Gm 37 has enough proof… Gm 51 has staff onit … How many turns proof and just looking at setups needed to prove that the FP have no actions that can counter this strategy… I believe the player who wrote DS using this strategy can win 100% of the games and not evenb bother to recruit nuetrals…

#102

As a DS in ME37, I agree with Terry. As I’ve said to others before this, because of being in ME37 as a DS, it has convinced me that it is a problem. And frankly, I’ve having less fun in that game because of what I see as a lack of a major challenge to my side: economics. I’ve said enough, I’m sorry if I am beating the proverbial dead horse, but Terry writes an empassioned post I agree with and felt, as a member of the other side, it was appropraite to support it with my agreement.

#103

JB

I very happy you came out in support… Your team is doing very well indeed… I praise you guys on your tactic’s miliatray and ches wise it’s a great game… I fear the economic imbalance will do us in on what would have been a great game in victory or defeat…

#104

Its great that DS players on a team using the 1 banker ‘cheat’ have come out and given honest opinions on this topic. VEO is in game 51, his DS team are using the 1 banker tactic and he voted in my poll that its an unfair exploit of game mechanics! Go figure :confused:

I will not play as a member of a DS team using this tactic. I will also not join any new games where this tactic is not forbidden…I used to play a lot of games and just returned after a 6 month absence, this whole thing is putting me right off, and very quickly :frowning:

#105

I was part of the DS G16 team that used this strategy…

I am a DS in G51… and a FP in G37. One game to be the bank, another to beat it… I would chose for market prices to be regulated in some way, but right now they arent so its get on with it and see what can be done

Griffy, as the sophisticated Pbmer that you are, you’ll know that choosing the Poll questions is a tool to get the answer you want a poll to show… Unfair is not the same as cheating… having Sauron eat your army on t1 aint too fair either but it is part of the game…

Come back at us in G51… share your experience and lets beat the market strategy that way. I will share anything we learn in G37 too…

Cheers
Mike

#106

Not becuase they are that much better… But because I cannot overcome endless gold from a broken market.

Um I’m not convinced that you cannot overcome it. When one of my Grudge game ends I’d be happy to try… :stuck_out_tongue: Or failing that to use it myself as FP… to defeat a DS team using it. :eek:

Clint (Player)

#107

Had a look at the gold prices for game 37.

Le4/Br5/St9/Mi124/Fd2/Ti7/Mi24 for natsell these seem relatively normal to me.

I could comment later about this game about strategies if you want but that would be best after the game as I don’t want to interfere in a game currently running.

As for endless gold - um I woul not agree with that impression. You might gain an advantage at best, but one that is open to both teams and usable by both teams… IF, it works. I think it may have a factor in prices but I’m not convinced that is the case. If you guys want me to run a test-run I would certainly consider that. I’m careful of doing this due to opening the flood gates on such requests though but it’s clearly an issue that impacts on many players. Would you want me do that?

Clint (GM)

#108

“Hey Griffy, spend 15 turns or more of your hard earned cash to prove that this really is messed up…go on, show us how its not balanced or fun to play against a team that hold all the aces from turn 1. Try your hardest to beat a competent DS team that are using this ‘strategy’ Go on, knock yourself out with the excitement!”

How about no!

#109

Clint,

It was implied that MEGames staff are playing in Game 51. If that’s the case, what need do you have for a Test Run…?

Brad
Game 51 LR

#110

Clint

I would be against you running test game for the reasons you eloquently put about 50 posts ago

I would be in favour of a simple (?) code change that introduced a ceiling for market prices (say, 20% higher than they normally start the game at) and a floor for sell prices (say: fo @ 1, le + br @2, st and ti @ 3, mo @ 4, MI @ 20)

Cheers
Mike

#111

Would it be more accurate to compare total DS gold stocks on average after banker vs. before? A snapshot of price in G37 may not reflect the effect of skyrocketing prices on the first few turns.

Hmmm, maybe that is not good either since so many MTs have been bumped to Cities, and that uses up a lot of gold that wouldn’t be shown there.

JB

#112

Clint

I’t more than market prices in GM 37… on turn 2 I had a 50 Com with 1000 troops fail to threat a IK camp… That means a lowered Tax rate by IK turn 2! the excat same turn 3120 Became a MT and Goblin gate Became a City! So the long term effects are the Market prices only being slightly higher than Normal but DS are gaining 0 to 1 Loyality on all thier pc’s by thier weakiest ECONOMY Nations… By turn 10 Thier capitol’s could be at 100 Loyality and all cities! This Can Only happen with a broken market… That Negates even great strategy with orders and tactics. In a time of the Game when FP should have some advantage… It is clear to me from my game expierence… We have to be lucky so lucky it is Exactly as I said… Playing a team In Chess with a regular board while the opposition has all queens!.. Theoritically we could win what 1 out of 100 times… Great for us when we do… But how many players must we alienate to prove that This gives a Blank Check to DS to write any order they want with no gold repuccissions… The most highly skilled players Think an come up with strategies to fund thier orders 3 turns in advance… Make sacrfices and put those plans into action on that knowledge…

It’s time to put this stupid Idea the FP must step up to the plate and come up with a counter Or I am dropping all my games!

Terry

#113

Terry, dont do that. Just in future ask for grudge games to be “no banker” in the future. That’s what I plan to do.

Plus, I think it fair to have a swap back on ME37 - switch sides and see how to combat it as FP. Money aside of course - always an issue

#114

Would it be more accurate to compare total DS gold stocks on average after banker vs. before? A snapshot of price in G37 may not reflect the effect of skyrocketing prices on the first few turns.

I checked it looks fine. I looked at some turns (not all). If you’ve got a specific comment that you want me to address check. The market prices are not broken - that’s the point of the argument that has been put forward isn’t it? If you’re aware of something I’ve missed please get back to me.

Note the fact that a character failed to threaten a camp doesn’t then lead to the chain of thought that Terry has put forward. There could be a lot more options. (It’s like players complaining that they failed 6/8 camps - I’ve never heard a player complain about his good luck in getting 8/8 camps put down!) There are random elements in the game. 0-1 loyalty per turn for 10 turns is +5 loyalty. Terry please use reasoned argument and it could happen by many methods.

We’re not in game 51. I’d have to see why the market has increased and that would need a test-run or my own testing as a player to get a feel for it really. It’s being tested in this FTF and so far I’m not convinced. (Note if I were convinced that something was wrong and needed to be fixed I would look very hard at that and come back to you all with discussions on what needed to be done and why I thought it would need to be done so that it could be discussed). I have seen market prices hike early in the game and to levels that are sometimes high but due to many reasons and stay high througout the game.

Clint

#115

Oh, no no no no noooo!!!

Ed had the right idea many moons ago for those with a memory. All the talk since then has been, besides people like to talk, because Clint simply doesn’t believe it. And he’s granted that even if it’s true, it doesn’t sound like a complete game destroyer.

On the first I have to disagree with him. It’s true.

On the second I also agree with him. It’s not a game destroyer. I really don’t care and find it interesting for both sides and worth playing out ad nauseum to see how it impacts the game over time.

But while I’m accepting of the reality, I’m also a little leery of it’s origination. As I mentioned a few times in early threads, I believe this was a factor that was added to the code to correct other market issues. Hey, it’s a complicated algorithm, it took some tweaking and correcting… But now that the effect of a single nation banker are known throughout and players have found in-game methods of manipulating this aspect of the code, what should happen is a conversation between the current moderators (MEGames) and the game developers to determine exactly the nature of this phenomenon, it’s original cause, and whether it’s something worth correcting or not.

That would be the “final say” on the matter, everything else would be DITCOP.

Brad B

#116

If you guys want me to run a test-run I would certainly consider that. I’m careful of doing this due to opening the flood gates on such requests though but it’s clearly an issue that impacts on many players. Would you want me do that?

I have heard enough back about this. What do you guys want me to do here? I can’t put a fix on something that I’m not sure needs to be fixed.

I certainly understand that players are worried that the game would degrade into a one order gives everyone in the game limitless gold - which it plainly does not even in the games where the market was high (due to or not due to the one Banker nation play).

Brad thanks for the reasoned email - very eloquent.

Clint (GM)

#117

See my post above that I was typing at the same time you were typing. Start at the source and determine your actions from there.

Brad

#118

Actually, not my view at all. The point of the argument is not that market prices are broken, its that the team can pool gold to one nation and this boosts prices in and of itself beyond the reasonable (subjective, I know). In the end, the rest of it is all an offshoot (DS can use the gold to upgrade MTs, they dont have to worry about maintenance of starting infantry that may take turns to march, 500 ST can fund a 1650 style deficit, etc). There is probably a better way of saying it, but its been a long day

#119

Alright my teamates in this game even your encouragement helps… It’s definitely not over for NG I do have moves left… I can only hope even in the light of the Banker nation being In place in that game, I can keep some of your teamates on the edges of thier seats wondering where I will show up next…

As for rematch later let’s finish this one first… I guess I should just continue to stick around and get pounded for awhile until others in the community see what I know will come to pass with Banker Nation destroys the economy and far to favors the DS to make playing either side less fun for all.

#120

[QUOTE=Clint;31028I have heard enough back about this. What do you guys want me to do here? I can’t put a fix on something that I’m not sure needs to be fixed.

Clint (GM)[/QUOTE]

I think before anything, the GMs need to believe there is a problem: more specifically that the ability for a DS team to pool gold T1 (and make hundreds of thousands of gold off the resulting market prices within a few turns) changes the game detrimentally.

Fill in the blank for “detrimentally” - ruins balance seems the most popular (and even this has many facets - BS doesn’t have to worry about paying for all that starting infantry, can march it to Golbin Gate for all he cares. Or, the emmy arties can be used at will to make MTs into Cities - changing the econmic base and most importantly the military base at critical choke points (Morannon, Goblin Gate, NW WK pops, Dol Goldor, etc. All without any trade off economically, but market prices are so high they can sell 100 MI to pay for a 10k upgrade). Etc Etc.

What do I want you to do? Frankly, just be open to the fact this could be a problem. You’ve said you don’t think it is a problem, some do. Watch it. Carefully. As stated in another post, I realize there are better gamers than me and they may be able to see FP strategies in the first few turns that can turn this into DS ruin - I cannot. But they may evolve (like dragon fighting evolved to combat the dissemination of dragon responses).

At the same time, I’m not going to waste money being the guinea pig to prove something I already believe. Let someone else pay for it (I’ll opt for pre-arrainged no banker agreements). Perhaps you just log the next X many games in which the banker issue is identified as being used. Watch the results. It may solve itself: I.e. every time the DS use it, by T5 the FP drop 80% of the time, at which point as a business you have a in game practice that could be ruining your income stream. Or, FP lose 80% of the time, but then it moves back towards the long term average, in which case it is fine.

Maybe I’m just on the on side of the argument so my own vision is skewed, but it seems some players (by NO means all) are saying “this looks like a problem” and you say (as a player or GM, sometimes hard to differ) “I don’t think it is.” I think you need to say “We’re aware this could be a problem, and are collecting data on it.”

That’s what I would like. You to watch and evaluate it, seriously, with a completely open mind (as a GM. As a player, you can have your own opinion - since you differentiate sometimes I will do so also for you :stuck_out_tongue: ).

That make sense?