Oh, well okay then. I do tend to wander, yes… 
b
Guys
Been watching the debate, or as much as I can keep track of. Some input from me, for what its worth.
a) I 1st met the idea in G14, my 1st as DS. A fair amount of doubt amongst some players, especially when it didn’t immediately boost the price. [Partly I think we didn’t implement it as fully as in Clint’s example]. However it steadily improved the prices and by the end of the game I at least was convinced that it was a powerful tactic. About this time the debate took off on the boards and having thought about it I agree with the conclusion that there is no basic way for the FP to counter it. Also that while they can get some advantages from the high prices that is dwarved by the boost to the DS. Was actually getting concerned over how determined Clint seemed to be to deny the problem, and amazed when I heard his side had used it in the FTF match. Then I heard Bobbins about how reluctant he had been to use it and Clint did his checks and came back quickly with the results and his conclusion. As such hats off to Clint for acting so quickly once he realised there was a problem.
b) I think a clear Xk limit is the best as it gives the DS players a definite limit to what can be allowed. There needs to be a definite line drawn, both to stop it being crossed accidentally or to avoid arguments over whether a team has done it or not, which could result in both confusion and bad feeling. Having only played 3 games I’m not knowledgeable enough to say whether 80k is the correct limit so will leave that up to the veterans to debate with Clint.
c) One of the players, can’t scroll back to a previous page to get his name, mentioned what if a team was consolidating 100k for a dragon recruit. This was queried but it is the option mentioned for some of them on the old Bobbins pages - or was 3-4 years back when I copied them for my own reference. For example Ando-Anca or Bairanax as the 1st two I came across. I suspect this may have been what he was thinking of rather than any underhand motives.
d) One possible scenario I have thought of that might cause problems. What if a player is sent money to do some orders and due to a mistake in his orders they don’t go through? [A simple typo say]. A bit far fetched to still leave him with over 80k but say the nation has been hammered and the team want him to move capital for 25k and then recruit a number of characters the following turn to restock his nation. Then he makes a balls-up of the 950 command and as a result ends up with over the limit? Would his treasury be trimmed, or he be given a turns grace to get the total down? [If he’s under that amount of pressure he might lose a lot of it anyway to steals before he can move again].
e) If I understand it with existing games where the tactic is being used the OBN can keep the money but wouldn’t be able to pass gold over if it pushes another nation over the limit. As such there are opportunities for the FP to attack that nation to get the gold pile down or if its broken up into various nations then the impact of the strategy is markedly reduced.
f) Would the easiest thing, when a coding change is made, to simply de-link the gold in a signal nation from the market? This should be a one-line change - although you have to locate it and test of course. Only concern is that this has been stated to have been in there to prevent one nation being able to buy out more than one product. What is the significance of this? Was it just to prevent that one nation having too much economic power? Is it a valid requirement when teams are in general far more interactive so a number of nations can do that? [Gunboat games might be an exception here].
Anyway, hope the above helps rather than fogs the debate.
Steve
Thanks, Brad, you are his representative and can speak in his behalf.
The only way I can see to effectively change the the One Banker nation effect, is to change how gold reserves effect market prices. That is a program change. I somehow think that actually goes beyond a code change… Not knowing the program myself this is purely spectulative…
The change would be in to formula… It would have to take out the Highiest gold reserve for computing overall market price effect and go on the average of all nations in the Game… Total the balances of 25 possible nations and divide by 25 then add that to the old One Nation computation for effecting market prices…
By do this there would be No limits on how much gold is transfered and Bank Nation Bug is permentally remove… 100K transfers for DS dragons still in place…
To me a simple code change cannot fix this… Becuase Take example Harad… Nuetral Player… Raises his tax rate to 80% turn one starts dumping on market how long would it take for That nation alone to manipulate the market to create tha Banker nation effect! I say not long at all… Once in place problem still there… even Light gold transfers in a grudge game could in effect recreate this effect again… I do not believe that players will not try this… I’m sure they will becuase They can!
Okay then. On the behalf of the evil genius, the brilliant mastermind who originated all that is good and/or ungood regarding the Single Nation Banker, I have the following pronouncements:
- Eat less trans fat.
- Love your children more.
- Get more sleep.
You’re welcome.
The only way I can see to effectively change the the One Banker nation effect, is to change how gold reserves effect market prices. That is a program change. I somehow think that actually goes beyond a code change… Not knowing the program myself this is purely spectulative…
The change would be in to formula… It would have to take out the Highiest gold reserve for computing overall market price effect and go on the average of all nations in the Game… Total the balances of 25 possible nations and divide by 25 then add that to the old One Nation computation for effecting market prices…
By do this there would be No limits on how much gold is transfered and Bank Nation Bug is permentally remove… 100K transfers for DS dragons still in place…
Agreed - this will stop the worst abuses of OBN. A code change is needed - I aim to look at that (check out my posts on this subject) as soon as I can get the chance. I don’t see anyone doing 100k dragons at present…
Clint (GM)
d) One possible scenario I have thought of that might cause problems. What if a player is sent money to do some orders and due to a mistake in his orders they don’t go through? [A simple typo say]. A bit far fetched to still leave him with over 80k but say the nation has been hammered and the team want him to move capital for 25k and then recruit a number of characters the following turn to restock his nation. Then he makes a balls-up of the 950 command and as a result ends up with over the limit? Would his treasury be trimmed, or he be given a turns grace to get the total down? [If he’s under that amount of pressure he might lose a lot of it anyway to steals before he can move again].
In exceptional circumstances get in touch - note if a nation did have extra gold then the market would be increased so they should be able to get more natsells. Ie get in touch. 950 is not used that often in games.
e) If I understand it with existing games where the tactic is being used the OBN can keep the money but wouldn’t be able to pass gold over if it pushes another nation over the limit. As such there are opportunities for the FP to attack that nation to get the gold pile down or if its broken up into various nations then the impact of the strategy is markedly reduced.
Correct
f) Would the easiest thing, when a coding change is made, to simply de-link the gold in a signal nation from the market?
Easiest but not comprehensive. I need to check the impact this has on the rest of the game. I don’t want to remove tactical choices.
Only concern is that this has been stated to have been in there to prevent one nation being able to buy out more than one product. What is the significance of this?
I don’t know - I’ve not tested it but I’m reasonably sure you can buy 2 products out (but that’s Clint the player so be wary).
Was it just to prevent that one nation having too much economic power? Is it a valid requirement when teams are in general far more interactive so a number of nations can do that? [Gunboat games might be an exception here].
Open to debate.
To me a simple code change cannot fix this… Becuase Take example Harad… Nuetral Player… Raises his tax rate to 80% turn one starts dumping on market how long would it take for That nation alone to manipulate the market to create tha Banker nation effect! I say not long at all… Once in place problem still there… even Light gold transfers in a grudge game could in effect recreate this effect again… I do not believe that players will not try this… I’m sure they will becuase They can!
I need to look at this in more depth as the solution’s not easy. OBN can be done by a Neutral but it’s not an immediate impact on the game. Unlike the team transfer which works on turn 1 and has the bigger impact and no deficit to the team the Harad strategy like this is like having a lot of gold in the market (see the tests that I did with that example for the impact it will, potentially, have in the long term) and can be much more easily impacted. It doesn’t break the market in the same way as OBN does though.
When I’ve got the code change I’ll run some test runs and show the results to check that it works out closely to the market at present. Clearly there’s going to be changes to the market - that’s unavoidable, but I’ll try to keep them to a minimum.
Clint (GM)
Giving in to the candy-ass faction I see once again. LMAO.
Learn how to play or go get the new Play-station since it would be closer to the skill level of the majority that play this game.
Are you for real? :eek:
Surely you can’t be serious.
Celebion,
This is a group of people who are having a serious discussion aimed at solving an important problem in a game we all love. Your anonymous post neither advances nor informs the debate - and does you little credit either.
Colin
Celebion, you have 250 posts and thats a lot, are they all so stupid?
Hey Ed,
Until Brad chimed in with game numbers, I did not relize that you where speaking of me. No I’ve never known info on the code. I have played this game forever (since the first few months its was out back in the 90’s) and I have had input into it over the years. Yes I’ve known of ONB for many years back in GSI game days it was done a lot, yes I’ve done it in the past game as have many many other teams. I’ve never thought it was a “bug”, anymore then other issues in this game, I thought it was just how the market worked.
I’m not sure what your getting at anyway, this link is about fixing the issue…you dont like it? Then be happy as are many that Clints doing somthing about it.
Cheers
John L.
Thanks, John, for the clarification. Brad was getting so evasive my paranoia was kicking in. Look forward to continuing crossing swords with you in 18.
I can’t evade that which I deny exists. It and the voices are all in my mind, cloudy or not, my emotions are always in complete control of my behaviour. 
bg
Instead of making Short-Sighted, Knee-Jerk rulings in order to appease those who do not wish to even attempt a counter, why not try to determine some sort of real fix, if it is even a problem at all.
The so-called statistics presented can not possibly be taken seriously, considering that a single run of a small number of configurations is not sufficient for statistical analysis. Attempting such a weak ‘test’ would get you laughed out of a high-school algebra class. A larger number of runs per configuration would be necessary to achieve reasonable results, signficantly larger to provide statistically accurate ones.
In addition, in none of the aforementioned ‘testing’ was a counter-strategy attempted. In fact, no evidence of any counter-strategy attempts, short of whin(g)ing and despair, has been provided by the detractors of the strategy. Making rulings based on such claims of uncounterability would set quite the precedent. For instance, the DS can’t easily counter the FP market-tanking strategy: Should that be banned? According to this philosophy of bowing to those too lazy to attempt a counter, it won’t be long before it is. How would ME adjudicate that?
Also, the actual fix presented is ridiculous. Outright banning of orders made legal by the game code if they meet a certain, Subjective, criteria leaves plenty of room for abuse. Since rulings are made by people which attempt to divine ‘intent’, bias is likely to be cited as part of reasoning, of the ruling, by the losing parties. Its going to happen. Hard limits restrict the mid to late game and vague limits are easily worked around. In either case, judgement will be called upon to determine things that can’t possibly be known.
Apparently, the original market programming didn’t work as well as the designers would have liked. In order to attempt a fix, part of the game was removed/damaged. The game was designed for both high and low markets. By placing hard restrictions on food prices, for one, and generally weakening the market forces the high-end functioning of the market was destroyed. The game appears to have been created to account for high-end economics (recruiting characters, ransoms, 100K Dragon recruiting, mass character replacement, ship building, fortification, etc.) This has resulted in the loss of a significant portion of the original game, in which economies could stabilize in the mid-game and the economic portion of the war represented a more even split with the character and military portions; this was a portion of the game where powerful characters and very large militaries were commonplace.
If the “ONB” strategy were really the unfair strategy it has been presented as (and we don’t actually know if it is such), I would propose a code change that doesn’t limit gold transfers. Instead, an algorithm in which the computer adds product to the market to dampen (not remove) the effect of a single nation’s gold reserve on the game economy. This would actually create new opportunities for strategic and tactical thinking, as opposed to merely being a limit on such strategies.
Okay let’s try it again. It’s not a statistical anayalysis as I don’t need to do one. I’ve got enough scientific background to be aware of the difference (ie you’re saying it’s a random element and that you might do a OBN strategy and see no or minimal, benefit - that’s not the case here - you will always gain a benefit and I’ve put the ranges of benefits that you will gain - 4x starting, that’s starting prices mind - not mid-game ones - for natsells - ie every camp you make is worth 4 camps, and then you have an increase sell limit so that increases things even more so that you now have each camp you create worth more than 4 camps - probably anything upto 8 camps from the x2 increase in sell limit with a limited, short term [4 or so turns] of OBN use).
If you don’t agree with the above then, as requested, I’d like to see your counter-analysis.
In this situation it is not to appease anyone - although ironically I’ve had considerable support from many quarters, and somewhat less support (cough) from those that appear to be using it in their games (or not having it used against them). (For those interested there is a strong correlation between the players who are less supportive and thei own use of OBN [or not being affected by it due to the enemy not using it]. That doesn’t mean that those arguments don’t have value - I’ve incorporated changes to my initial rulings based on the information there for example).
I check the basis of the gold transfer and checked with the original programmer and our programmer. There is a direct correlation (ie 1:1) between the OBN gold and the market prices and natsell limits. End of. This isn’t opinion. It’s a fact. (Now you can debate the philosophical meaning of the word fact etc but then we’re into metaphysics).
It removes the entire need for an economic game as part of the strategy - that’s a bad thing in my opinion. It’s like removing agents from the game. Suddenly you lose an entire part of the game. There is no counter strategy (that was my original argument). [See below as I answered that very question on the list].
Without this the game is 50/50 (slightly - that is 1% in favour of the DS) so crashing the market etc can both be dealt with for DS (high gold, buy-outs etc).
Although this doesn’t mean the DS are unbeatable (that’s not my claim and if it’s come across that way my apologies) it does strongly favour them in the 1650 scenario, somewhat in the 2950 scenario and not really in the 1000 game.
For those who have dealt with me before you will be aware that louder the out-cry the same impact you have… I try to keep out of the way of getting involved emotionally (ie I try to keep professional) and where I have a player opinion on a subject (due to a lot of experience of the game) I try to make that clear. Where I have become slightly less than professional you have my apologies (here in writing!).
Have fun guys…
Clint (GM)
From the list: Countering OBN.
My reply first: That will reduce the levels of gold somewhat but the OBN strategy is linked directly to the OBN nation’s gold so reducing the FPs gold to zero and stealing gold won’t work. Each turn that OBN increase its gold reserves by 30-40k by natselling, and can even get more gold from other nations if they want to bolster the market. By the time the FP get enough stealing agents to impact the damage has already been done (say turn 6 for competent steals?)
One order transfers all the gold from one nation to another and it’s going to be hard to tell which nation that is - a quick cover up from other nations will do that with a 948 1 gold to other nations for example. Ie you aren’t going to get the market to behave in any manner that you’re used to whatever the FPs do (incompetency aside!). (I thought you could but I’m convinced otherwise now).
Affecting the OBN capital can impact on the ability of that nation to send out gold but note there is no need to do so for that nation. All the other DS nations are self sufficient due to the big markets. It removes the need for other team-mates to support others financially.
Note the above is very much my opinion (the FTF gave me some backing for what you can do with OBN but I’ve not actually done it in a game but have seen what has been done).
Clint (GM)
> A competent team can try to manipulate market and market is
>influenced by the total gold amount of all NATIONS
>
>The problem is to counter 1 DS banker nation
>
>1)all player of Free took their total gold amount to 0,
>buying and getting low taxes
>, you never send gold to an ally (remember you don’t have)but you
>can send food and resources
>
>2) you go steal, you go steal, and you go again steal the
>banker nation at first , even if you can’t do the firs turn ,after
>turn 5 competent team can make it
>
>3)you steal from all the ds that are not 1-banker nation you
>suppose-understand have some gold during the turn yes people try
>to steal before CL name his agents ,before BS learn curse and
>before WK recruit new army and spend this gold in the same turn by
>naming your characters and learning spells with their gold .
>
>4) go to challenge to OBN capital,even at second turn in
>hiddens 4215(LRBanker nation) or assassinate-curse later
>characters in capital of OBN Surprise if he doesn’t t make all the
>948 he should do maybe DL will say goodbye…(rumours will tell you
>who is the banker nation) resources of DL and WK are very poor
>with very high deficit what happens If he send all his gold to
>LONGRIDER and DL doesn’t receive it again on turn 3?
>
>5)If Competent FP in grudge team are able to break the market
>they’ll very probably win 
Why you don’t change it too?
>
>To find a way to counter OBN tactic is difficult but still
>possible in grudge game pay me one game with 12 positions and
>I’ll show it crushing the DS team 
>
>By the way I think OBN give an irrational advantage to DS in
>all kinds of game but above all in standard games:
Clint, appreciate that all the snarky “cough”'s, winky-winky apologies and “no names” little schoolyard hits on your customers in this public forum are taken by many to be quite decidedly unprofessional. Not to mention private emails of the “nah nah na-nah nah” variety and semi-subtle intimidation style messages to more than one player who happen to have challenged you on this issue.
You run a monopoly. If I want to play this game, I have to send you my money. Feel free to take further action as you see fit to punish my “disruptive” behaviour.
Brad Brunet
Brad,
I have to disagree with you. I think Clint tried to stay out of it for as long as he could. I do not believe that he has been unprofessional about it at all. As an oldtime player from GSI days (early 90’s) this exploit, if it was known by others, it surely wasn’t known or even hinted at by anyone I played with. The OBN strategy entirely removes the ecconomic constraints on the DS and would slant all games forward towards the DS. The only tactic I could see working as a Freep would be to have my entire team DROP the game if it was used against us. The reason the dropping tactic would be effective is, who wants to play a game that is so lopsided against the free where the DS win on turn 2? Would you want to play a DS knowing that if you use the OBN tactic the free would drop on turn 2? I know I sure wouldn’t. I also know that when I play DS I like the game to last a while. And after a number games ending on turn two, Clint would be forced to do something about it. I also don’t see your actions being “disruptive.” I do not believe that 80,000 gold is the correct cutoff point. When I played SG there were times I sent the woodmen 60K at a time because the woodmen was running a huge military and had an Eothraim sized deficit. As for his use of the “winky-winky apologies” some people are offended if they are told the truth in blunt terms.
Scavenger