I am all in favor of a ruling.
I could like a bit more guidance.
I remember a 1t/week game in which Harad managed to amass a large amount of gold all by himself. The prices also went through the roof here as he amassed more than 500K gold. He was essentially a self-made banker nation (no money/products were ever sent to him). Is this also prohibited ?
Personally I think that it should be allowed, as it is much easier to counter for the free, and takes much longer time to become effective
I can live with and abide by your ruling, but I strongly object to one provision. It is blatantly wrong to change the rules of a game midstream. Instead of saying, all turns due after Monday (or whatever date), you should say, all games that begin after a certain date. Strategies have been put in place and certain nations have been played in particular ways, and you really need to let all the current games “play on out” if you will.
For instance, in grudge game 33, we have employed the OBN tactic as the DS. We have an agreement with our Spanish opposition that the loser can request a rematch with switched sides. I would strongly argue that games such as this be allowed to play out however the DS see fit, and then for that matter, the rematch as well. We’ve “done it” to them, so they oughtta be able to “do it” to us. I have no qualms about that, and (in a masochistic kind of way) look forward to it.
While not how I would have resolved the issue, I do appreciate your prompt research into the matter and reporting of same.
I disagree strongly there with you :mad: Its been thoroughly tested by Clint, and found to have no real effective counter, so why should another team waste time and money trying to fight it, knowing that it has no counter. Sounds like a total waste of time to me
So if you are in that position and feel the way you do, drop the game in protest and start a new one with the new rule. We are on turn 11, and the “damage” has already been done. This game and the rematch need to play on out by the rules in place at the time the game (or two game cycle) began. It is not right to change the rules of any game after it has started, whatever rule. Why isn’t that obvious?
1, I don’t need to protest, Clint has found a flaw in the code and acted quickly :rolleyes:
2, There are no new games starting quickly, I’m already looking for another game as well as my current one
3, The DS have had the benefits already, now let them have the consequences of a Wall street style ‘Black Thursday’ :eek:
As your playing a grudge game, Clint could possibly let your game, and its rematch play on…I do however suspect that the DS will win in both games, unless there is some very good/very poor play. Contact Clint and your opponents about that one.
Completely agree. In a grudge match, if both teams are in agreement then where is the problem?
I’m in the process of setting up a new grudge match and this is one of the options on the table; i.e. planning on back to back matches with reversed sides with whatever agreement we come to with respect to the one banker issue.
You will not allowed goldtransports intended to manipulate the marced from monday, but what will you do with the one-nation-bank goldstore? If the bank is allowed to keep its goldstore then this will influence on the marcedprices even if the DS stop moving gold into it. The lange amount of gold will still be there. Will you move the gold back where it came from?
I am very satisfied with your ruling here… I sure a program change will happened as the permenent fix…
Sorry you had to run the test games… I know It feels like violating you Player perspective on economics…
This was something that was difficult to explain in my GM 37 examples on how powerful it is in hands of expert players in Me economics to hide the longterm effects…
I thank you as a player for your quick and decissive action in this matter.
I think Clint has to be a little more specific. Mind you, I think a few others have to get a grip and read for comprehension.
Clint said: “You may not send gold with the intention of bumping up the Market prices”
There is nothing about single nation hoarding, there is nothing about current nation reserves, etc.
What’s at stake is the interpretation of “intention of bumping up market reserves”. An interpretation of an intention - very slippery pandora’s slope here…
So Clint has to really come to some determination and simply publish quidelines. And also be very specific in that these guidelines are NOT hard coded but to be Hand Moderated ONLY in the event the opposition complains.
But the guidelines must be specific, based on recipient nation revenue, treasure, project revenue as a % of the above, etc. Allowing for the odd 25,000 for capital transfers, multiple instances of 10,000 for multiple character naming possiblities, etc. The Guidelines must be very specific.
Oh goodie, I get to keep my money then? I must say, I’m somewhat put off by your rapid about-face on this issue.
'Cos I realised that I was in error. Note I suspected something was up, I’m pretty easy to convince when given facts, but wasn’t sure if it was (mostly thought that it was) gold in the market or gold linked to OBN. (One Banker Nation). I had a look at several games and couldn’t find a strong correlation (hence did my Tests that I did do). I’m now convinced… As to speed of reaction - why wait?
As to bringing the ruling in mid-game because it’s a bug in the program, (ie something that was programmed that has an unexpected, and unwanted, side effect), then I feel it’s warranted. For now that’s a hand-moderated fix (fixing future offences, but not dealing with OBN at present if it’s already occurred - ie the nations will gain a benefit for the market), when I’ve worked out exactly how to fix it for all games I’ll sort that out.
Ideally I’d like the teams that have the gold to send it out to their team-mates but I’m not ruling that you should do that. (The bug is still there) It’s seems a fair compromise.
As for nations getting gold up themselves, I think that’s fine at present. We’ll remove the link with OBN and the market (I suspect - or reduce it’s impact) but keep the gold in market reflected in prices etc. That seems both the way the market is supposed to work, fits within the game framework and should make for a competitive game. I can see how that can be tactically done in games. So it will have a lower impact I can forsee as OBN won’t be strongly linked to gold prices on the market but overall gold in the market will impact.
I’ll look at getting an example of the changes to the code that I’d like to implement (run some tests so that you can see the impact with various tactics and garner feedback). That will take a little time.
I’ve seen the bug where you could use Companies and 870 to get effectively 24 hexes. When the fix occurred it just was implemented and we had complaints. Basically if you’re using a bug (and I’m classifying this as one for the above reasons) then beware. I’m no critisicising anyone who has used it btw - I just think the impact is too strong in the game for the loss (IMO no loss as you make your money back the very next turn and end up with 200k+ gold in one nation and high natsell prices for the rest of the game) inccurred.
Note as an aside, Sam’s laughing at me (Legends has just had 17 bug fixes!) the beauty of an old program, assiduous players and the like… :rolleyes:
Yes it’s needed. That said, you must change the code so that this behavior is not exhibited. People should be able to use any order by any nation to do whatever they want. As people start to worry about the implications of this ruling, there’s all kinds of grey area around “intent” and consternation because there may be times when it’s essential for many nations to send gold to a single nation on a team for reasons other than blowing up the market. There should be no second-guessing of people using the orders in the game however they want to use them.
The code needs to be changed so that the banker nation exploit no longer works. That is the real answer to the problem. If that means that you have to look at the economics code, then so be it. That’s the price you pay for being the moderator. But we, the players, need to be able to use orders in the game without fear of stepping over some murky line, the interpretation of which is at the whim of the enemy and moderators.
But what about my requests to specify? For example, what exactly are you going to do?
At what point will you consider actions to be contrary to the “spirit of the game” such that orders will be reversed? What kind of complaints are you going to look into? Any FP who complains “The market’s too high!” and you guys have to go into game files? Do you want copies of the Rumours that shows gold transfers to justify the complaint?
Ed, your original and default position is that the creators of the game were infallible. Well, they’ve been proven, over and over again, to be merely human. In fact, this entire issue, according to Bill Fields, is an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences on their part, that you love throwing in the face of MEGames time and time again.
Your argument has been flushed down the toilet, this generally means you’ve been laughed off stage. Instead, you decide to invent some new conspiracy to chase, and do so by muddying the waters in to deflect from your pained retreat. You are speaking to your imagination and voices in your head. Please medicate this problem in private, not here.
I agree that the code needs to be changed. I’ve mentioned that above but that will take a little bit of time to work out the exact fix. The updated ruling should clarifiy things.
Good lord no! What about Deficits of 20,000 or more, number of characters, number of commander on recruitable pops, need to transfer a capital? Geez, I don’t even know what you mean by “gold sent to a nation”…? I don’t “send gold to a nation”, I use Characters identified by their 5 digit ID to issue orders identified by Order Numbers, etc.
Please, take a look at this and take much more into account.
Nations with more than 20k deficit are covered with anything upto 80k gold send. The biggest deficit I’ve ever played was 30k I think so I don’t see a problem - if you can think of an actual game example then get back to me and I’ll consider it. If you have a more pro-active solution or clarification then please get back to me. Ie assistance would be welcome…
If you think a nation is in trouble I can certainly look at that and its need for additional gold.
It might just be me, but I think the rest is you trying to be pinicky! Sending gold is just that. I can think of clarifications on how a nation can receive gold as well (eg Ransom order) and will update the ruling - for now I want to see if the basic concept holds water before building a steel water tank.
Updated ruling Verion 2.
"[b]Gold sent to a nation that brings the nations total reserves to more than 80k gold will have that exact amount of gold sent deducted from its stores. In addition gold received by that nation from other sources such as Ransom demands from team-mates etc will be dealt with similarly.
Later offences will be dealt with more strongly. Examples of this include removal of additional gold from the receiving nation."[/b]
You must be a very new player… to think that manipulation of a BUG in a computer program witten in DOS on a computer that could not handle Windows XP, is a tactic!
The best players in game… The one who truly know How to play a DS nation and become Economically powerful need no such tactic… Becuase they know how to Grow thier ecomonies when everything sells at 1 as DS! That is called SKILL!
Those players would and should be outraged by the Manipulation of a program BUG that wipes out all skill in the game…
Finally If you have a suggestion on how to Combat economically counterstrategy I would like to hear it…
1 natsells fo not work… gm 37 I natselled 25k of food @ 1 price rised to 2… so natsells do not work.
Agents stealing from camps… First FP do not have enough agents on turn 1 to even be in place on turn 2… second they are agent proof by lowering their tax rate below 40% by steal attempts by 30 agents… So stealing is Gone
FP are not the emmy strong setup… They do not have emmy artifacts… So by the time they Reach 60 agents … DS camps will take 2 per camp to just cut into camps … also risking death from Dragons…
So I suggest you learn how to beat the FP without this BUG or you call new tactic!
