er… em… Terry, Ian is not a new player. Insulting people that don’t agree with you is not only impolite, but it diminishes your arguments (which I think are relatively sound)
Dave
Interesting note Dave, I agree. I prefer polite comments out in the open as best as possible. The aim here is to get the best game and deal with flaws when (rarely I’m glad to say!) we find them.
Clint (GM)
Pinicky, finicky, or rigorous. You choose your words, but my pinicky/finicky’ness got the Ransom bit out of you didn’t it? You’re welcome.
I still urge you to reconsider the arbitraryness of the 80,000, as per my email on the mepbmlist. It simply cannot be arbitrary as such. Consider those deficits you mentioned, reserve levels, and other similarly simple variables that can be plugged into a formula, for example.
And as it’s a hand mod, consider the possibility that:
- a team complains
- you investigate and discover, yes, in fact, a team did provide for a turn-end reserve of greater than “the level”.
- you ask the offending team/player about it.
Now, what if they give you a great “excuse”…? Hiring, naming, relocating, etc…? Give them the next turn to “prove” they’re going to spend it all?
Again, the formula AND the method has to be fleshed out more.
Brad B
So flesh it out please. I’ve replied on the list (sorry Brad, it’s difficult to keep up with the rate of posting) with what I think would be appropriate here and how I will investigate and what action we will take. If you have issue with that policy can specifically put forward what changes you would like to see? I don’t see a problem (I do see some work our end!) but not a problem policing it, especially if players, like they do in GB, police it themselves.
We can discuss the exact gold amount allowed, or clarification if you want…
If a player send too much gold we’ll take the action we’ve proposed of removing that gold. If a player claims they need it they’d need to justify why that was the case - and I can see that only happening in very rare and extreme situations - in the other 99% of times it will be fine and allow me time to get the code changes.
Clint (GM)
Dave
To hear a comment that the FP need to learn how to come up with tactics to defend against this strategy… The player who spent no time reading what Clint posted from skyrocketing market prices based on nations gold reserves. Means one of two things to me about the player who makes such comments…
A. the player is very new to game… or
B. the player did not look the info presented by Clint
C… The player looked at it… spouted off an opionon and didn’t even think longer than 5 minutes how he could effectively do something about it if He was FP facing…
If he was turly new to game was that an insult… no just not informed…
If he did not read the facts presented… His bad should go back and read the numbers…
If he did not think on about what he could do if he was FP… Once again His bad…
Me being so blunt about it… I don’t feel at all bad about it… I just need one look at that poll where 2/3 of the players comment about the strategy tells me that’s the percentage of veteran players who need to learn how to be indenpendent economically.
Clint,
This is getting worse and worse. An arbitrary number (like 80k) WILL NOT WORK!! In games where the market is “already broken” you might find per turn deficits close to this amount. Heck in G118, I think our per turn market sale limit is close to this. And I might note, there has been no One Banker Nation strategy employed in that game – at least not by us Dark Servants…
I say again, changing the rules in the middle of a game is worse than exploiting an unintended loophole.
Drew
How will this ruling be communicated to players? Not everyone reads this forum or the Yahoo mailing list – and from experience I’m afraid people don’t read emails that come with their turns either. I’d seriously recommend a separate email to all players and a printed letter to non email people.
But of course the final variation of the ruling has to be determined 
As with everything else, this debate could roll on ad infinitum. Perhaps we should accept a ‘final’ ruling on the matter from Clint, which can always be revised after it has been tested in actual game play.
Colin Forbes
Drew,
good points.
Clint, I concur with Drew and Brad that 80k seems arbitrary. As you have asked for specific suggestions, not just complaints, I would propose:
[b]"Gold sent to a single nation with the goal of significant upward increase of market prices is not allowed, whether through caravan transport, ransom demands, or other methods.
This may be judged to have occurred if the upward increase of market prices occurs coincident to the transfer of gold. Judgement may be requested by the opposing team if it feels this ruling has been violated. The judgement will be made by the moderator with opportunity for explanation by the team in question. If the moderator judges that this ruling has been violated, the moderator will meet out punishment suitable to the circumstances, which may include:
- loss of some or all of the transferred gold
- rerunning the turn based upon the revised gold balances
- further penalties if deemed appropriate by the moderator"
[/b]
comments welcome.
Dave
Excellent work Dave. Instead of arbitrary, we have vague. No really, I like it, I’m not being ironically snarky…
For further clarity, I suggest the following changes to your “which may include:”
- reversal of the gold transfer order and rerunning of the turn based on revised gold balances
- further penalties against the offending Player if deemed appropriate by the moderator
Brad
Thanks Brad.
I think we have to have “vague” because there’s no way to be specific given that there is question of intent, circumstantial differences (such as pre-existing market, deficits, treasury levels, etc.), and question of degree.
I am fine with changing my consequences wording to yours as the “further consequences” clause could always encompass the more severe actions.
And, all of this is said with the expectation that ME Games will work on the code to fix this bug in a “timely” manner. i.e. having a vague ruling is not a good long term answer.
Dave
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. This doesn’t address the issue of an already “broken” market in current games, so I still say this new rule should be applied only to new games, not existing ones.
Yes, exactly. Thanks.
Drew,
I understand your point about not changing rules once a game has started. In fact ME Games threw that philosophical point back at me when I complained about the way they were dividing up “dropped” positions in “no drop” GB games… <sigh>
In both cases the “pre-existing” rules were being used in such a way that one side was favored over the other. So I think you have a strong argument Drew that the rules should NOT be changed for existing games given that ME Games has been very strident on this philosophical point and wouldn’t make things more fair mid-game in GB games by improving the dropped position allocation system. I can’t see how this is any different at all.
Now, all of that said, I do think that my proposed rule works ok for existing games if they do decide to change the rule for existing games. That’s the purpose of it being “vague” (per Brad).
Dave
In politics and marketting you have to be vague. In mathematics and private conversations it’s best to be exact. It’s never good to be arbitrary in either of them.
As to changing the rules for existing games, etc, I see both sides and have no real opinion. If I’m allowed or not in Game 51, only 2 turns in, to pump the banker up, I care not. But I can appreciate the peculiar circumstances of Drews 10 year game on turn 659 or whatever. And I’m sure an adequately worded vaguely defined rule with pretty clear consequences would suffice, as I’m sure the oddities will make it through the Moderators review.
Brad
Noted with interest: The group that was most strident about dealing with the OBN includes persons now most objecting to the GM’s proposed actions.
Brad, your defense does you credit. Please note that Clint solved this problem with elegant simplicity by multiple runs of turn one. Also note that the Code has been distributed to Australia/Brazil/Spain/Germany. You can not maintain that something similar has NOT been done before far away from Cardiff. I would like to hear from the man, wouldn’t you?
Ed,
Clint didn’t solve the problem with elegant simplicity. But he did validate that the problem exists. And he used a scientific approach that can certainly be described as elegant and simple.
However, the solution will be to fix the code. After fixing it, I think Clint will likely then run a whole bunch of turn1 tests again to validate that it’s been fixed. Then we can all put this little chapter in MEPBM history to bed.
I think your question as to how this exploit might have been discovered is quite interesting. Whether true or not, your point is that posession of the game executable code allows for “black box testing”. Nice insight there Ed! And I’ll add that Clint has always indicated a great reluctance to conduct such black box testing himself as he likes to play the game as a player and wants no unfair advantage. He only did this test after asking on the BBS if folks agreed with it as the correct approach. Whether other folks who possessed (or still possess?) the code had this level of integrity is an interesting question.
Dave
If ONB is being called a “cheat” then code change must be made. I’m happy to see that Clint’s willing to do this. As there is no way numbers on how much gold one nation can hold without 948’s is really going to work well nor is the honor system on players not doing it. The whole thing sounds like a nightmare with game enforcement and even on the players trying to win games. Its very possible ONB is done honestly by many without knowing or realizing it and that’s proof through out the years. I would guess that code changing is going to be a big deal as it could throw the game’s econ for other loops. I recall GSI’s game 6 where every product hit 1 on turn 10 or so and stayed there for 35 more turns until it was over. Then game 18, as Cardolan I ended the game with 5,000,000+ gold in the bank. I think adjustments where made after this? It sounds tricky as the code could be made that way for a reason other then oversight.
Clint, also if your going to fix one nation banker in order to keep the market higher can you please look into fixing (or at least helping) the ease of a FP team crashing the market. I think this is a major issue with the game as well and I’m guessing but I think the FP’s win 90% of such games. It’s near as unbalancing of a problem for the DS. Once a Market hits all 1’s and 2’s it takes a near act of God to get it back up to normal levels again. This should be fixed.
JL
Heck in G118, I think our per turn market sale limit is close to this. And I might note, there has been no One Banker Nation strategy employed in that game – at least not by us Dark Servants…
Note game 118 is a very old game turn 94 with a 3wk turnaround = 5 and a half years. High prices can be achieved in games just by having a lot of gold around and long term games often have that - and I’m reasonably sure that’s what’s happening in that game (I recall an edit for this game where 1% of a product failed to get sold due to the market limit being hit!)
The value of 80k is not arbitrary. It will reduce the impact of the OBN to a minimal level. (If a nation already has above 80k gold and no gold is sent to it then it will continue to keep that gold). Although I agree that Dave’s ruling is clearer (thanks Dave) to absolutely minimise the impact of the OBN you need to have the minimum amount of gold in the OBN nation. There’s a direct correlation. 80k gives players lots of leeway without breaking the market. I’ve not yet seen an example of a real game where you would need even that much… If you can show me that the figure is too low then please do so.
Noted with interest: The group that was most strident about dealing with the OBN includes persons now most objecting to the GM’s proposed actions. Yeh noted… If this wasn’t so much hard work I’d find it somewhat amusing.
It’s also very simple to check and enforce.
I do understand reluctance for players to have rules changed mid-game. I am too. Note we do it very, very rarely (I can’t think of an example where we have done so) and where we would do it is for very good reasons. BUT we do reserve the right to do so.
The reason being is that there is a bug in the game. The program was not designed to do this - I know because I’ve chatted to Bill about it. The market is broken in those games, the players pointed it out to us and asked us to investigate and take action. When this came up before with the market it was fixed. I’m doing the same here.
It’s the thing here that I was most reluctant to do but feel that some action has to be taken now to stop those games turning into DS victories with little or no competition and to keep the integrity of those games intact. When a bug is discovered then we will fix it. (In the same way that if an edit is needed, we will sort it out).
Note we’re not removing gold already in the game, the nations in those games will garner a benefit for many turns to come with no loss, just no further opportunity to gain any further advantage and that seems very fair to me.
I’ll email all players so that they are aware tomorrow (it’s now past 5am here). I trust that players in games where this is occurring will inform their team-mates. As usual any help appreciated.
Good night for now I look forward to tomorrow with some trepidation…
Clint (GM)
Well Clint, I’m not sure where you stand based on this post. Are you saying that there will be a hard limit (doesn’t seem like that’s popular). I think we’re all saying it’s better not to have a hard limit, and for the moderator to have to judge it based on circumstances until such time as the code gets fixed.
RE: changes mid game.
I humbly suggest that you should have applied EXACTLY this same mindset in your reallocation of nations in GBs. ME Games threw an (un-named at this time) ongoing GB game by your re-allocation of dropped positions to give big advantage to a side that was losing, allowing it to come back. bummer that. Now I think that side might win, when before it was a long shot. All because you salvaged positions that were on the brink. bad moderator. bad.
I think you are being arbitrary in deciding when to change rules during a game. If you’re going to apply the mantra of “fairness”, then you should apply it more broadly. If you’re going to apply the mantra of “no rules changes mid-game”, then you should stick to that. But this whimsical thing of doing it sometime and not other times… it’s very difficult to figure out from a player’s perpsective…
Dave