Well, I realized after posting that as I’m simply here to play, I really don’t see how my opinion on Clint’s recent behaviour matters to anyone else - so I removed it and went away. Obviously, I didn’t delete it fast enough.
And I agree with you. Entire teams have quit games for various reasons on and off, they didn’t require code changes. This issue is certainly much greater than the Northmen not starting with a 40 emissary… 
I do think Clint tries to pay attention to various arguments. I find that he and I don’t agree on two aspects of this particular situation, but he’s the moderator. I’ve argued with him and lost. I definitely agree that the Banker Nation exploit creates an unlevel playing field that favors the DS and that seriously harms the game. I applaud Clint taking quick action.
Like Brad, I’m straight-forward in expressing my views, whether in support of a Clint position, or against it. So I can also be called “disruptive.” Sometimes he listens to me and agrees. Sometimes he listens and doesn’t agree. C’est la guerre. At least he does listen and considers what people think.
I don’t think we want to squelch players expressing their views. Diversity of opinion ultimately improves the game. When we first brought this up to Clint, he didn’t believe it. It took a lot of people telling Clint and ultimately we convinced him to run the experiment. Once he ran it, he acted quickly - to his credit. But it was the noise created by “disruptive” players that finally got the ball moving so that Clint actually came around and believed us.
Thus I support Brad’s right to be “disruptive”. Mine too. Anyone who is civil in expressing their opinions or suggestions is cool by me. And again, I applaud Clint taking action to fix the game. We knew it was broken after PoWeR 16. Now it’s getting fixed. Huzzah!
Dave
Actually, I think it would be fun to try to win as an FP grudge team against a DS grudge team using this exploit. Is it unwinnable? no. I don’t think so. Is it slanted toward the DS in a big way? yes. Sure it would be a major uphill struggle. And you’d have to really rethink FP strategy. That would be the fun part - completely turning all the “conventional wisdom” on its head and starting with a blank sheet of paper. Are the odds long? yep… But hey, sometimes it’s fun to take on a daunting challenge. Even if you don’t win, you might discover some very neat ideas along the road.
The key would be going into the game with an expectation that discovery is an acceptable outcome and winning is “icing on the cake.”
Dave
p.s. Savenger - Nothing in what I’m saying in this post should be construed to disagree with your major point - that this exploit had to be fixed. I agree 100%. I’m just saying that it could be fun to play against if you had the right mindset going in.
Clint,
Took you a while to get convinced, but when you are you take prompt action, I applaud that.
I do not always agree with your decisions (especially in the past on gunboat nation combinations) but I do think that you generally succeed in doing the right thing and keeping this game enjoyable for all to play.
Cheers,
Alain
Clint - what support would you expect from those using it in their games (the change is a downside to them) or those not currently impacted by it (change is irrelevant to them)? I dont think there is any irony there…
As an aside I was part of the original “the game is broken” brigade and I think you’ve taken sensible interim action.
I think the final action needs to look at market collapses too: it is frankly just as miserable for the DS to be faced with repeated sell prices of 1 across the board, as it is for the FP to see the wholesale market inflation. And saying "aha… but non-OBN manipulation can be countered) ignores the practical difficulty of getting 12 disparate individuals in a random 1650 to coordinate…
Cheers
Mike
Counter strategys have been tried in several games. There is no countering it.
Every other tactic has its down side. The ONB has no down side. I am on a team that has used it in Game 37 and a team fighting it in Game 51. It detracts from the game as there is now no frugal counting of the cash as DS. It is a flaw and should be removed IMHO.
Regards Herman
Yes it would be fun to do, but it would have to be a team of committed (in more ways than one;) ) well integrated players. The standard group thrown randomly together with the usual clash of egos is doomed to fail against anything but a totally incompotent DS team.
Regards Herman
But the fact remains that that coordination can and will raise the market. There are counter strategies available. So far there is none against the ONB.
Regards Herman
It seems strange that the programmers didn’t understand what their code would do… I suspect that they knew exactly what would happen, but the game was set up originally so that not every DS would help each team member and not every FP would help their team member.
I suspect that the original intent was to have a slightly more darker team game… not quite drawn in 2 lines, but blurred with the introduction of objectives that often meant attacking parts of your teammates to achieve.
Sheesh, people on these forums post their views and express to be experts on the game, and have a go at others… if you were face to face, most of you would curb your language or be in constant fights!!
So the bug was probably never expected to be exploited, as originally who would have envisioned a game where only team play is acceptable.
And before someone writes… “but Clint said that Bill said blah blah blah”… I ask… do you remember all the decisions you made 15 years ago exactly and correctly… is this going to be one of those issues that would have held up development of a program… I doubt it… he’s only Human and probably doesn’t really remember other than to think it wasn’t an issue.
Right on Scorpion. This game COULD be a team game but it was not designed to be a team game. It was designed to be an alliance game. Somehow. some Brits assumed it was a team game and convinced Harley they had to make changes so that it could be a more effective team game. When the Americans arrived on the scene the game was already ‘locked down’ by the 'Brit Clique".
Aww. I think you are just sore that we are doing it better in G51 than you are in G37 
But I guess I agree with you 
Mike
G37 FP
G51 DS
I always thought grudge matches were the team games and individual games more of a free-for-all. It’s impossible in an individual game to ensure you have good team players, whereas with a grudge game you recruited players for precisely that quality. Thus I think it’s a little of both at the same time. I find both sorts of games enjoyable, though I generally try to play my single games as a good team player as well as the strategic advantages good teamplay allows makes victory for your alliance much more likely. Who wants to be the Noldo with umpteen artifacts and a monster economy but with both Gonders fallen and the Witch-king and Rhudaur having crushed Arthedain and Cardolan because you were out looking for artifacts and making camps and not paying any attention to the struggle in the Northwest?
Regarding the issue at hand, I think it’s great that this loophole is being addressed as I do believe it imbalances the game, but I wonder if the correction attempted will work in the long run? What if 80k was sent to say, the Quiet Avenger on the first turn? In my experience the QA can quickly build a monster economy anyway, and were she to retire her light troops would be running a huge surplus in short order due to those nice warm hills filled with gold. Would this be enough to pervert the market? How much gold in one treasury does it take to get those prices to double or triple?
How fortunate that Dave and I are in exactly such a team, and will probably try and face the challenge
Here’s something that occurs to me: imagine the Eothraim with no economic contraints on them cranking out some 1600-2000 HC a turn one force march from the Black Gate…
The disadvantage I see for the DS is they’d have to let all that cash just sit there uselessly, while the Free Peoples would be free to spend everything on their military. Being as the Free have the larger economies and recruiting base, one would imagine with very good team play they could just bludgeon the DS to death.
Ecthelion, that is exactly what GSI games were and I liked it that way. Harley’s replacement policy, the co-mingling of mini-teams and random individuals, the publication of the players’ names, the exclusion of random victory conditions in the PRS and various services all move towards the elimination of the free-for-all in the Harley variant that is now the ‘standard’ game.
>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?
With smileys. Sorry that was a post by a player Brad, not me - I cut and pasted it to the forum (My comments are the ones without >). Apologies if that wasn’t clear. I attempt to treat every ones viewpoint with respect.
QA as OBN: You wouldn’t be able to send 80k to the QA “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.” You could indeed retire the armies and make an OBN that way but it’s a lot slower than the all nations send to one nation and therefore has a lot lower impact on the game. (This has come up a few times - so if my description isn’t clear then get back to me). Neutrals could more easily bump up their gold of course.
Programming: It’s not always clear. Chatting to Bill he mentioned how before they fixed the market when it went into freefall. He wasn’t aware this was in the game (or its impact).
Market Crash: For market falling to 1s across the board - with the DS winning 51% of games (and more Grudge) I don’t see a need to improve the DS. If I improved the market then I’d have to lower a different aspect of the DS game to make sure that it was still an equitable battle and that no one side had an advantage. There are many aspects of the game that could be improved of course, but for now I have no plans to do such. Check out Hermann’s post - pretty much agree there for what the DS can do (and the difference between FP crashing the market and OBN).
GB: See the new rulings that I think have taken into account player feedback and seems to have a broad layer of support. It’s a game format in development so I think we’re all learning.
Posting: I prefer a polite style (where I’ve not been please excuse me I’m human and get tired - it’s been a hard week). It’s easier to see the point that everyone is trying to make and actually deal with the problem when you don’t have to read through the annoyed language. Saying that I do use the form to gauge public support (or lack of) and so far I’ve had a lot of support for this so I’m happy that although not a perfect solution, it does help a lot. Ie I try to listen to your feedback - and implement it where I think it’s appropriate.
However, the quantity of posts an individual (or regularity thereof) doesn’t particular persuade me either way. Passion for the game is great (I’m reasonably passionate about it myself - got our meet tonight for the Grudge game!) but tempered with politeness (as if you were chatting Face to Face) would be ideal. Do I expect that… well no, I’m not that naive. Do I want that? Yes… Each person has their own style and motivation for posting. I think that sometimes we all “lose it” to one extent or another. I use the Asimov technique. Write what I reall want to write, go away, delete it and re-write it in a form my mother-in-law would be content with… The game is all about having fun, stretching your mind in a competitive environment against other humans and the restrictions of the game. Trying things out is fine within that game just if you do see something weird get back to me (like you have here).
Testing: We’re presently testing the code without the OBN and see how that impacts on the rest of the market. I’ll keep you posted.
Thanks again.
Clint (GM)
<<Market Crash: For market falling to 1s across the board - with the DS winning 51% of games (and more Grudge) I don’t see a need to improve the DS. If I improved the market then I’d have to lower a different aspect of the DS game to make sure that it was still an equitable battle and that no one side had an advantage. There are many aspects of the game that could be improved of course, but for now I have no plans to do such. Check out Hermann’s post - pretty much agree there for what the DS can do (and the difference between FP crashing the market and OBN).>>
Clint I disagree with your view here and ask for you to please keep this issue active in the games to come. That fact is, that large % of FP wins is center around their ability to crash the market, and ANYONE who knows this game knows this fact. Keep in mind ONB has been used A LOT in that 51% DS win rate. It’s been used knowingly and unknowingly I believe a great deal. It’s clear the key to doing this is in the hands of the players, in how much gold any single nation holds. FP teams now can target this and now have a greater edge in crashing the market. If smart they will now NEVER hold gold on their nations, they will target those that do. You’re about to see the largest struggle in the game, it’s going to be over crashing the market and the FP really have to many tools to do this, its just not hard. DS are now going to start being very painful to play vs. FP teams with this view point. This single issue I feel is going to ruin the games fun for half the players. Why should have the players in a game be able to total crash the market? If the Market is so venerable and SO critical to who wins this game then why not fix it right? I do recall Bill Fields saying the Market was the hardest thing for GSI to program, I agree and it’s clear it needs more work, if your going to crack it open to fix things please do it right!
JohnL.
Hrm, however as I recall the DS won basically two thirds of games under GSI, and from all the snivelling by Freeps on the Deft site I read some seven years ago I doubt it got any better under them. In almost all my games the market crashed, in fact I recall reading in an issue of MoS it was expected by many players to happen.
Keep in mind the DS can still increase market prices through maintaining a large treasury in one nation, it appears there’s really little the Freeps can do about it either. They just can’t do it instantly the first turn of the game anymore.
Interesting thought… market crashes have been around for a long time… as long as market booms… yet only this 1 “bug” needs fixing as it probably hurts the FP more than the DS and as we all know… DS win more (well 51% of the time, if I remember the recent stats)
So since there is a pressing need to not allow this bug to continue, is there a need to look at stopping the market from crashing…
Oh, and before someone comes back with “there are lots of counters to that blah blah blah”… is that because we’ve had time to develop these counters and disseminate their use to others?
I read somewhere on this thread that the ONB has been around for ages!! really??.. I’ve known about it since it first became a public thread… know people who have been in the game where it is attributed it was first used… not long ago really… and there really has been no time for FP teams to try different ways to counter it.
I’d like to be on a side that both uses it and has it used against me… bug, I personally don’t see it as a bug. I can see the reason the programmers tied the market prices to the nation with the highest amount of gold in the treasury… seems to have been a smart move for at least most of the life of this game… so I can see now that the flavour of the game has changed that this needs revisiting.
How strange that the programmers probably (and I say probably, but have no data to base this on) tied it to the Harad’s economy… how ironic… the fate of the treasury potentially in the hands of a neutral with the potential to take prices either way… nice one.
Can we then at least look at the whole economy part of the game and see if there’s a smarter way of calculating prices… it seems strange that DS nations building economies and armies are tied to the prices of the FP caravan routes… yes, I know its just a mechanism but still… why not go the whole hog and see what can be done to <eg> put limiters on the lowest/highest prices… just like there is on market sells etc…