I just wanted to say well done Clint and Harley with the ONB ruling, I like it alot, it always seemed to me a clear abuse of a programming bug and your ruling should knock it on the head once and for all.
80k also seems to me to be very fair. Even with a 40k deficit, you can still make a few cities, I’m not sure why it needs to be more. And remember, its 80k at the end of turn, so it’s after the turn’s expenses too.
Poor old Eoth though, he might have to 948 some gold turn 1 
works for me clint.
We’ll adjust in the current ds game i’m in to comply, we’ve received the mail and are sorting it out 
and i’m in team aussie who’ve never used/intended to use the banker nation ploy. (read stags above:p )
There are some reasonable comments on market crashing. We’ve used that heaps as have many others, it does really put the ds on the ropes especially first winter. There are ways to slow the crash as the ds, so i s’pose it’s a little different there.
Adrian
I’ve not tried this so i don’t know if it will work but how about if all the FP’s transfer all their gold to a ‘starting ruins’. As i understand it a starting ruins is a pop centre and so it should in theory work. This will have the effect of a lot of gold being withdrawn from the market and so hopefully force the prices down.
I’m sure if this doesn’t work that there are other theories out there that would.
Cheers,
Ian
[QUOTE=HolyAvenger;31180]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!
*** No i’m not a very new player!!!
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!
*** I’ve done it.
So I suggest you learn how to beat the FP without this BUG or you call new tactic!
*** I aim to please
Ian, the ONB has nothing to do with how much gold the freep have. It has everything to do with how much gold ONE nation has, the market adjusts so that one nation can not buy out 2 products or so it goes.
So give a heap of gold to one nation and you will have a price rise because that’s how the market appears to be calculated, it’s all in the software code.
As Clint has clearly said and I for one totally agree, there is no effective freep counter to this bug.
Now that is an interesting question, here I was thinking he was a clever beanie!
I could be wrong but I got the feeling that the ONB has only been tried out recently, wasn’t the infamous game 16 the first time it was used? I just thought it was something new not old.
Ian - There’s many ways for the FP to zero out their economy - I’ve done it a few times. It would reduce the market, but not stop the OBN strategy.
Dave - I’m for a hard limit - I need a value that I can work with. I’ve given the reasons why I think 80k is the best limit that I can get - it reduces the impact of the OBN to the lowest value that I can get within the game without changing the code. A higher gold limit would mean higher Market prices as players would work to that limit hence having more of the benefit of the OBN. This gives players clear guidelines as well so that they know what values to work to.
The code change is delicate and I need to check into that in some depth before coming up with something appropriate.
As for changing rules mid-game. I see this that I’m removing a bug from the game. I agree it’s not ideal, but neither is it that it’s in the game either. This is being represented by this ruling. If I had the immediate code change to hand I would look at implementing that instead. As for the GB game, as noted before I cannot comment on a current game.
Off to put up my Christmas tree so chat to you all later.
Clint (GM)
Woah!
What if we’re trying to prime a Nation to offer ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Gold to a Dragon? Hello, she still needs to keep her Nation alive whilst she does this…
Are dragons really that good? Or are you thinking of excuses to manipulate the market? Does anyone these days offer 100k for a dragon when you can recruit them for free…
We need honesty in players and teams, now we know the system is bugged. Anyone trying to work the system with sly and devious methods needs :bash:
Its called cheating!
Nope, it’s old. It’s newly common knowledge, Game 16 exploded it into the community, but it’s been around for a while.
I don’t maintain anything about Geography. I know a bunch of Americans who claim access to the economic code years ago. I would like to hear from “this man” also. I like reading and have lots of time on my hands. Not sure how it’ll impact either Clint or myself in Game 51 moving forward. Like watching the History Channel - better time killed than network sitcoms.
Brad
You want to do something, I’m pushing you to do it better. Call me a coach. Or don’t do it, you’re choice, just choose and implement based on solid facts and reasoned consideration. You have the facts, step 1, now I’m challenging you on the second part to surpass even your own expectations.
Brad
[QUOTE=VEO) I would like to hear from “this man” also. I like reading and have lots of time on my hands. Not sure how it’ll impact either Clint or myself in Game 51 moving forward. Like watching the History Channel - better time killed than network sitcoms.
Brad[/QUOTE]
Good, Brad, no need for the defensive perigrinations is there? You know him better than I, why not encourage him to explain the origin of the tactic? I am always ready to applaude insight and cleverness.
[i]Woah!
What if we’re trying to prime a Nation to offer ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Gold to a Dragon? Hello, she still needs to keep her Nation alive whilst she does this…[/i]
That wouldn’t be allowed as it would break the ruling. If you can also show me an example where someone has recently paid 100k for a dragon please? :rolleyes:
This has come up a few times. In each case I’ve not seen a solid case for bringing the limit up above 80k. I know the game well enough to know that you in 99% of the times don’t need anywhere near this amount of gold to run a nation. If you have a big deficit then get your team-mate to send you gold each turn.
Clint (GM)
Updated so that it’s all in one document. This will go out tonight.
One banker Nation explored
When does this apply? As from Monday 11th December you cannot employ this strategy. If you have sent in orders for a game which runs on Monday or later, and which would break this new rule, you should send in a new set of orders. We will update the ruling in the Front Sheet GM Message section should updates occur and on the forum and list.
What is being banned? The One Banker Nation (OBN for short) strategy is now banned. There is no effective counter that an opposing (FP) team can employ to deal with it.
Why is this a Bug? and not mid-game change of rules. I chatted to the game designer about this and it’s unintended. It is an error of coding. They come up so rarely in Middle Earth, I’m very glad to say, that action has to be taken now to stop its impact. Due to the enormous impact it has on the game we feel that steps need to be taken now. In most cases it removes the entire need for a strategic economic element to the game and therefore benefits the DS majorly. There is a direct correlation between gold in the One Banker nation (the nation with the highest level of gold) and the market prices and natsell limits. (See below for example Leather @23 sell price employing this strategy).
Has everyone been contacted? Yes – note if you want to see some of the discussion check out the forum (it’s the sticky thread called One Banker Nation Ruling) and the list.
For now we’ll do that by hand (and I’ll implement a code change as soon as we can get something sorted and tested):
Ruling 10th December 2006; [i] “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. 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.
Such an attempt 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 requested
Later offences will be dealt with more strongly. Examples of this include removal of additional gold from the receiving nation but other penalties might apply. We reserve the right to take appropriate action. Most likely that would be to remove not only that second gold send but give that player a final warning. Further impacts and you’ll be removed from the game. Note if we feel that a player is deliberately breaking the rules then we might well enact such a ruling earlier. Ie if you break the rules we’ll take appropriate action and that can be anything from removing the gold sent to removal of further in game funds and removal of that player from that game. Any player that brings the game into disrepute we reserve the right to act further."[/i]It’s simple to moderate - if players feel that the market has been bumped unfairly get in touch and we’ll check the orders. If we find that it has occurred, we’ll remove all the gold received from that banker nation and we will consider further measures. (Note sending gold to nations is still fine for other reasons - it’s easy to moderate).
This is the simplest short term solution and workable, especially if players abide by this ruling. Players are generally very ethical, so a hand moderated ruling will work well. We do something very similar in Gunboat and find it works fine.
We will not make any changes to the market prices in current games, even if the banker nation tactic has been used. However, from Monday we will enforce this new ruling.
I intend to take no action about using high tax rates or market buy-outs to affect the market prices. They are tactical choices, with both positives and negatives, and there are strategies which opposing teams can employ to counter them. (Eg Emmissaries for low loyalty PCs, ease of Threatening for high tax nations, and selling product and keeping a low gold level for reducing the impact of Buy-outs). We might look at keeping gold levels below 200k in future for other nations in the game as we appreciate that some Neutrals will look at increasing their own gold values appropriately.
I’ll soon look at implementing code changes. These will aim to emulate the present market, with removal of the One Banker nation strategy. No doubt this will have minor changes to the market code, but I feel that something needs to be done here.
** Thanks to everyone for bringing this to my attention; it is very, very much appreciated. **
Data I’ve looked at the One banker nation strategy in some depth now. Starting from the same database I set up a game and run from Turn 0 the following examples. Data from which I’ve garnered this evidence (and other games but here’s the short version).
Test 1) No orders – I just run the game.
MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 6930 4620 3825 600 29250 5925 2400
Buy 9 11 13 113 3 10 18
Sell 6 7 8 71 2 6 11
Test 2) No orders other than 325s (Natsells) of around 25k value (basically food @2).
MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 7380 9886 3375 593 67792 10326 2400
Buy 10 9 19 123 2 9 26
Sell 6 5 11 73 1 5 16
Test 3) No orders other than all gold in the game sent by all nations to the Long Rider. Minor changes to gold levels to test 1) (948s 10%).
MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 6930 5040 3825 563 30750 6375 2340
Buy 65 102 117 981 14 93 194
Sell 36 56 65 541 8 51 107
Test 4) No orders other than Tax of all nations to 100% and 325s of around 25k value (basically food). Ie testing to see what a large amount of gold in the game does.
MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 7110 8219 3465 600 111942 9093 2490
Buy 15 17 24 185 3 16 41
Sell 10 11 16 123 2 11 28
Test 5) No orders other than Tax to 100% and 325s of around 25k value (basically food) and all gold in the game sent by all nations to the Long Rider. Ie a large amount of gold in the game and it all under one nation.
MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 7650 10996 3510 570 275474 9093 2400
Buy 170 175 329 2617 9 202 520
Sell 88 90 170 1350 5 104 268
Test 6) To emulate a Grudge game: No orders other than all gold in the game sent by all 11 other DS nations to the Long Rider. Minor changes to total gold levels in the game as compare with test 1) (948s 10%).
MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 6840 4500 3465 563 30750 5775 2550
Buy 36 60 67 516 7 51 101
Sell 23 38 42 324 4 32 63
This basically covered the broad spectrum (you can tell I was trained as a scientist uh?!) of possibilities (there are other options of course but I think the results are clear). My reading is as follows:
Tax @100% basically doubles the market if everyone did it (upto half if some players did it) and although has an inherent disadvantage (low loyalties throughout the nations on high tax) is probably okay.
One Banker nation: leads to 4x the market and has minor disadvantage (which can be dealt with by sending slightly less gold). Although it doesn’t give unlimted gold to the DS, it does deal with their very major disadvantage of a (relative to FP) weak economy. (Note it doesn’t, IMO, allow you to get extra product as the raised buy and sell prices preclude this). Note also that almost all cases the increase in market prices is immediately rewarded in that you can natsell at the new value and make back that initial send the very next turn. (Ie no loss of gold effectively and a very big market)
Clint (GM)
Well Ed, MS Word corrected your spelling to “Peregrination” but wasn’t able to offer me a definition or thesaurus options. Typical. So who is it you’re talking about that I know so well? pm or email would be fine if you like, or you can continue/desist playing here. Defensive? Not so, I simply don’t believe there is an evil genius in our midst. [shrug] Prove me wrong, no problem, happens all the time…
Brad
Brad, of course you know him. Why else have you been lashing out? You directly referenced him in message #18 in the thread entitled “Market Manipulation–1 Nation Banker”.
peregrination \pehr-uh-gruh-NAY-shun, noun:
A traveling from place to place; a wandering.
Clint (GM)
Would it not be simple to add a line to the code to ignore amounts of >100K in the processing side of the code? Simply set the maximum amount of reserve for each nation to 100K any amount above this is still considered to be 100K.
Regards Herman
That’s what I thought you were referring to. Your Dwarf opposition in the game we share. Newsflash: Whether he was the “originator” of the idea wayyyyy back or not, I have no idea, nor have I asked him in our semi-regular long distance phone calls…because, Newsflash - I don’t really care. He was the DS player (Dragon Lord) who convinced his allies in Game 16 to do so.
But it was in Game 90, the game before 16, that Lars as the Haradwaith did so all by himself. At the time I was allied with the Game 16 instigator and we discussed it - he confirmed at the time what Lars was doing. This was the first I had heard of it myself.
How did he gain his knowledge? I do not know. I know some of the circles he walks in and I know how long he has been playing. I also know that Lars, from Denmark I believe, who knew this before Game 16, does not walk in those circles. How did he know?
No sir. There is no evil genius here. Numerous players have “discovered” this on their own. Obviously, it is potentially powerful knowledge, no? Something people like yourself and many many more in the game would keep secret…? Covet and guard over such that they could made advantageous use of it at some appropriate time…?
What happened in Game 16 is that this “ploy” became common knowledge just waiting to burst out. I assure you that there has been a great deal of “backroom” work and discussion regarding this “bug in the program” amongst certain Game 16 players over a considerable period of time before it came exploding onto the scene. I was amongst a circle of those people discussing this item.
And it was out of these discussions, and the foresight that this bugaboo wasn’t going to stay under wraps for long, and was going to impact the game in a drastic way, that I started the “DS are Unbalanced” discussion threads a couple months ago. Please note, I was most decidedly not the person who started this discussion, or made any mention of the single nation banker “bug”, but it was started on those threads…
As a result of those discussions, Clint went about compiling the data on Wins by Allegiance. That data (over the last 5 years) shows a balanced game. Then the single nation banker issue came out by someone else in order to say “Yeah, well not anymore…”. and presto, we had single nation banker discussions.
As a result of those discussions, Clint went about testing the economic programming and has determined, after wisely consulting with Bill Fields, that this is actually a bug that has to be rectified.
And here we are today.
Ed, I think you might just feel a little perturbed that you didn’t know about this until now…? Preying on your ego? This might be why you’re lashing out…?
I think you might best consider a more thorough review of the discussions and instead direct your energies towards ensuring that any future economic code changes are implemented with extreme…extreme caution. I’ll be there.
Brad