One Banker Nation Ruling

General
#121

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.

I’ll keep it as something in mind. That would be under development of the game though.

Note at present there haven’t been many OBN wins. It would alter the % very slightly in detriment to the DS win % of course if we didn’t count them (I’m not suggesting that) but it’s a minor change.

Most games have the FP crash the market. In that situation most DS teams do buyouts. Ie they largely counter each other out. Where the FP fail to do the crash, the DS can fail to do the buy-out - I see them as being strategy and counter-strategy within the game.

Now I think this leads to the overall concept of having enough fun to do things in the game for both sides - for which you often need gold but there’s lots of ways to have “fun”.

So removing the crash of the market would mean we’d have to detriment the DS in some other way right? (If we want to keep the balance. If you don’t want to keep the balance so that DS win 50/50 then please explain why you feel that way. If you think OBN has been a large part of that then you can debate the win% but it’s not a biggy for DS wins - there’s been say 4 games with it as a big factor? Those games might well have 50/50 of the time gone DS anyway [I agree the DS in 16 were better organised and I think that’s the crux of any team, the major factor in win/loss])

Clint (GM)

#122

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…

That would be cool. This would lead into a different discussion on should we change the game… :wink: If so how? Ideally I need to focus on getting the OBN stuff finished but I’m happy to see if this leads to stuff that we can use for that (or anything else).

We’re presently testing the first game of the conversion program (in-house) btw. It’s hit the usual bugs so we’re working through them.

Clint (GM)

#123

Scorp, just so happens my team has opened up a dialogue with our opponents in a game where we have employed the so-called OBN tactic, hoping for exactly that. My fear is that the game code will be rewritten and implemented before this rematch can come to pass.

Clint, can you give us a heads-up before you implement the new code? Enough time that anyone could start a new game and process T1, so that an agreed OBN game could get underway first?

Drew
TC for Team Veta Schola

#124

Clint, can you give us a heads-up before you implement the new code? Enough time that anyone could start a new game and process T1, so that an agreed OBN game could get underway first?

I will warn people. Note I’m not sure what I can do in this situation though as it’s difficult to have two sets of code working simultaneously. We’ll see what the opposition says.

Clint (GM)

#125

I was under the impression that you guys didn’t have access to actual code changes? This was the conversion issue that has recently been resolved?

Brad

#126

Thanx Clint. I wouldn’t realistically expect you to have two sets of code running; I was thinking more along the lines of, let us process T1 (if timing permits) so that we see the effect on mkt prices before the code changes. But this discussion is still premature, as we don’t have a deal as of yet.

P.S. I realize G118 is an outlier, statistically speaking, but please keep it in mind as to the effects of any economic code changes.

#127

And where will you get those 2000 mounts per turn? Mounts being 53 gold each would take you 84K to buy them each turn. I have never seen more than 35K of sales in a turn? So your allies are going to spend 2 orders every turn to get their entire production of mounts to you? And you forget the DS can simply up their production too and meet you in steel plated HI armed with Bronze weapons since they no longer have to sell it to keep their economies afloat.

Regards Herman

#128

[QUOTE=IronLord;31297

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.[/QUOTE]

But the Free pay a penalty for having this low market. If you have no gold reserves (eg below 2-3K) and you are trying to 770 or name characters, learn spells, your orders will fail if you have 1 or 2 steals from pops. That is a fairly large price to pay to keep the DS broke.

Regards Herman

#129

I’m just guessing here, but my guess is that you have to keep two versions of the code:

a. Original: for existing games
b. Revised: for new games

Is it fair to put all the games under the revised code if that causes the “inflated” market to “crash?” Remember, the market might be inflated for many reasons. Maybe one nation got a big balance over time because it is a successful nation. Maybe the game is 5 years old (Drew’s game). Etc. etc. I think you’re better off using your “bandaid” rule for existing games and using the new code for new games. The law of unintended consequences will bite too many players in the rear if you implement the code change on existing games.

Dave

#130

The Sinda? The Noldo? Don’t the Dwarves start with two little combat artifacts allowing acess to Conjure Mounts? Isn’t it still common strategy to hand them off to the Sinda or the Noldo as they’re almost entirely useless to the Dwarves? I wouldn’t know, perhaps those old ‘stable’ powers are no longer active, it’s been a long time since I played outside one turn with Deft seven years ago I had to drop as I was sent to the wilds of Iowa for National Guard training.

If not, then how about Arthedain and Cardolan which generally have excellent mount production which they don’t need to take down the Witch-King and his hillman lackeys in Rhudaur? I’m just thinking aloud here and relying on knowledge about the game that’s mostly fifteen years old now, this might make no sense at all to you. :slight_smile:

#131

If you keep the One Banker Nation…

Does it really matter how much Heavy Cavalry the free can send to Mordor?
They are still limited to the amount of commanders they can send as backups.

This still makes it easy for the DS Mordor nations. They position agents waiting at the choke points into Mordor. With a OBN they no longer have to go stealing to boost gold reserves (stealing only required to boost agent skill? They can go steal off a team mate instead as gold is now plentiful for the DS) They can just sit and wait for the targets to arrive. Not exactly cunning tactics needed here!

Eothraim can send 2000HC to Morannon, or 10000HC. If they only have 2 or 3 backup commanders, the army still disappears when the DS have 2 or 3 agents waiting for them for assasinations. They are still limited…tell me if i am wrong here :o

Now if you take off character limitations, then let the same army ride towards Mordor with 8 backup commanders, see how balanced and fair the game is then!

#132

Naw Clint I feel you have it right. Stop it right now whether is is being used or contemplated. However give the people using it a turn to readjust their gold if they don’t then take all the gold away and let them start over again playing game with out using tricks in the program. Now they too have the option of dropping and starting a new game. After all that has been what was suggested that the Free who were victims of this ploy do if they thought the game unfair. The shoe is now on the other foot.

#133

I couldn’t tell you you’re wrong for sure, I’m so rusty it’s pathetic, but when I played if you hit hard enough, fast enough, the DS couldn’t effectively kidnap guarded commanders and generally ended up losing their agents and artifacts if they tried through desperation. Maybe we just always got lucky, this is only about a three game sample where I can verify the results with certainty as I actually saw them. It was usually not until about turn seven or so I’d start losing guarded (and I’m not talking guarded by 10-20 point agents here) commanders.

What would concern me me is the liklihood that there wouldn’t be the scarcity of DS MT/Cities there used to be and you couldn’t force DS nations out of the game as Urzahil and Angulion (or Murazor if Pectoral was handed off like I used to suggest) would be creating new potential back-ups from the very beginning thus the DS wouldn’t lose certain nations. I found that if you tried hard enough you could take or burn Barad-Ungol, Barad-Wath, Barad-Dur, Goblin’s Gate, Mt Gram, Carn Dum, Dol Gulder, Durthang, Lugarlurl (or whatever the BS’s back-up is called) and have the new recruits from S. Gondor or the Corsairs or Harad you seduced take Vamarg by about turn five with perfect coordination and a little good fortune. Once you smash through Barad-Ungol and have the Eothraim and all that Gondarian cavalry there you’ve got 10k or so cav after losses and three nations to supply commanders for them, and Kal Nargil is but a step away at that point.

Mordor starts with 18 MTs as I recall, if you could take ten of those quickly in my day that meant at least two Dark Servants were toast, and sometimes more as bankruptcy would get others. Naturally your highest priorities were the Ice King and Cloud Lord, though the latter ended up with Obermarl in all of my games but one which always left me gnashing my teeth. :frowning:

Thus I don’t deny it would be an uphill struggle, but the warrior in me wouldn’t be adverse to giving it a go. I’m pleased the loophole/bug was dealt with, but that doesn’t mean like DH et al I can’t wonder how they might be beaten in that scenario (assuming superior play from their team which would likely entail a number of new towns by that turn five cut-off in my estimation) as to beat them then would offer the “greater share of honor” as King Henry would put it. :slight_smile:

#134

Brad J,
Your response is funny. Really. Think about it. Many of us have been playing this game for over 15 years. Over that time, we’ve been tirelessly working to figure out how the game works so that we can play it to the best of our ability. To say that it’s a “trick” in the program that people should be penalized for using is really no different than saying that any of a number of things that a subset of people know & use is a “trick.” So I know which response gets the right reaction to an encounter. Is that a trick? So I know at what level agent skill I can safely attempt a kidnap or an assass. Is that a trick? So I know what hexes to send characters to in order to get gold encounters. Is that a trick? So I know what hexes to send emmies to for early dragon encounters. Is that a trick? So I know how to have the FP tank the market. Is that a trick? People who used this OBN thing did nothing wrong. The program worked a certain way. It was discovered. People used it. No harm. No foul. In fact, Clint has often argued that parts of the game are supposed to be left for “player exploration and discovery” and that the code needs to remain secret accordingly. Should we fault players for doing exactly that? I think not.

Should it be changed in games going forward? Absolutely. It creates an unfair playing field.

Should the bandaid ruling be put into effect for existing games? debatable ad nauseum. But Clint has decided to do so.

Should he change the code for existing games? Well, if he can do so in such a way that he doesn’t adversely affect nations not employing OBN, and in such a way that he doesn’t crater players/teams who are using it, then perhaps so. But again, it’s debatable as people using it were doing nothing wrong. They issued perfectly legal orders in the game to achieve a result that is highly desired for all DS teams: an increase in the market prices. By changing the code he’ll be changing the rules mid-game. How that change affects the game will really determine the answer to this question, and only the testing that ME Games does in preparation to a new code release can hope to answer the question definitively.

In summary, I think people who are decrying the use of this program quirk are not thinking logically. We all play any game by a set of rules. MEPBM is defined by three sets of rules:
a. the rulebook (white box)
b. the house rules (white box)
c. the code (black box)
All you can do in any game is play by the rules. Clint has repeatedly encouraged folks to use discovery (black box testing if you will) to discover the rules in c.) above. People did that. Problem is, this discovery is viewed to favor one side too much vs. the other. This is commonly perceived wisdom that is not statistically proven. I do agree with the common wisdom, but I admit it’s not statistically proven and I agree that we can’t wait to form the statistics as that would damage ME Games and the player base. So I agree that Clint needs both the bandaid and a code fix.

Also I think the arguments against the FP “tanking” the market are on-target in a very similar way to the arguments against this. It’s just as effective an anti-DS measure (and just as easy) as is this an anti-FP measure. The fact is that few FP teams have had the self discipline to use it, and that the statistics thereby don’t reflect its impact. Do I think people who’ve used this “trick” of the FP are bad? heck no. Should it be fixed at the same time that OBN is fixed? heck yes. Try playing DS in winter with a market of 1. If the FP aren’t incompetent, you’re in a world of hurt. This is the mirror of the argument against OBN.

Finally, as I’ve already said, I’m happy to “wear the other shoe” and play FP with my grudge team (including Bernd and Drew who have posted to this effect) against our current opposition, with them using OBN as DS against us just as we used it against them.

Dave

#135

DEFINITIONS:
OBN (One Banker Nation) Strategy: All nations in an allegiance send all spare gold to one nation to inflate the market.
ORN (One Rich Nation) Strategy: One nation builds up their economy on their own to such a level that there is a significant effect on market prices.

I won’t get into the argument of whether or not the OBN strategy favors the DS more than the FP in 1650 games. I still can’t see it myself, but I haven’t played 1650 in many years, (and don’t plan on doing so ever again), so those of you who have more recent experience with 1650 obviously have a better idea about this. However, I have yet to see any valid argument that says this strategy favors either side in a 4th Age game, yet the temporary fix (80k transfer limit) and the proposed code changes would apparently affect all games (including 4th Age). The question I have is; Why?

I guess I can see that, even in a 4th Age game, a suddenly hugely inflated market might be a surprise to the allegiance that didn’t cause it, and could possibly destabilize their economies in the short term. I still think that it would ultimately benefit all sides in a 4th Age game, but if players don’t want the “sudden” market change of the OBN strategy, then I guess I don’t have a real problem with trying to mitigate its effects.

What I do have an issue with is trashing the ORN strategy along with OBN. Although this argument might also apply to 1650 games, (which I won’t get into), I’m speaking specifically about 4th Age games here. ORN takes a lot of time and effort, and doesn’t cause any sudden wrenching of the market prices. The market is gradually inflated, and in 4th Age games, both sides can benefit equally from an inflated market, so there isn’t any unbalancing effect for either the DS or FP (or neutral) allegiances.

Personally, I would like to see the proposed code change to completely decouple the largest treasury size from the effect on market prices dropped altogether. If most players want to mitigate the effects of OBN, then please do so in a way that doesn’t eliminate the ORN strategy. Fix OBN if there is a need to, but please leave ORN alone, ESPECIALLY in 4th Age.

4th Age isn’t 1650, and I’d hate to see it hurt by something intended to fix an issue only applicable to 1650.

Mike Mulka

#136

Understood Mike. It’s not my personal take here as I think it an be destabalising in all scenarios due to it basically removing one entire aspect of the game - ie the economy. In addition for 1000 games many of the SNAs would become superfluous. Eg SNA - would be wasted, Buy/Sell etc would no longer be effective so some nations would be very much penalised by a “broken” market.

ORN seems a good definition. I’m looking at getting tests done to see how things are affected. I’m not convinced that one rich nation should modify the market, but that overall gold in the game seems appropriate. I’ll get back to you with the results of my simulations when they’re done so that you can feed back on that. So far very favourable. (Ie look at it, see what differences there are, suggest modifications if need be - I think you’ll be pleasantly suprised).

I was under the impression that you guys didn’t have access to actual code changes? This was the conversion issue that has recently been resolved?

We’ve got the code - well GSI has anyway. We’ve not converted the program from Mac to PC for player use at present (we’re testing our conversion at present but there’s still some bugs there.) Part of the problem is that some of the code is very old so has inefficient use of databases etc ( for example lots of the encounters are hard coded etc). We’re looking to tidy that up at the same time, and before you worry, with no changes to how the code actually simulates the game environment. We’ll be checking this as well to see how things vary (so far no variation nor should there be but just in case we’re being thorough). If anyone wants to work on the Print routine that would be cool as we’re in the process of prettying that up to the present standard and after that to improve the look over all.

Should we actually change anything I will be in touch both before the event, during and after. (Well artwork I might just improve without reference to you guys as we’ve got some better stuff, but anything that does change the game we’ll be in touch about). For examples of the see many lists of what we do in such situations. I believe I’ve assured you all of this on numerous occasions but just in case we’ll be in touch.

Clint (GM)

#137

Hi,

Not trying to be offensive, but you really do make lots of sweeping statements.

Do you know how much of a guard 10,000 HC would act like?

I’ve played ClL and sent 6-7 great Ag w/Ste to stop a NGo Huge Cav army with a couple of backups from squishing mordor. In my experience it seemed easier to kill the backups but my best Agents got creamed in the process… we needed to get a dragon army to intercept the army to stop it.

This was a while ago… but I don’t think Agent code has been changed for a number of years now.

I think there are unlimited ways the FP with huge cash and resources could win against DS also with huge cash and resources… you just have to use your imagination in the same way that every strategy invented so far has caused a counter to be invented.

I know… there is no counter to this new tactic… yet… but its not as if its been either common knowledge or around for long.

Early in the game, Agents were superkillers, able to sweep through tons of guards to get to their target… once statistics showed that DS tended to win more than loose this part of the code was changed… I think Allsorts were the UK GMs at the time… might even have been GAD games… phew… long time ago.

Slingshot characters was also stopped… moving a company 12 hexes and then moving all character bar the company commander another 12… that was with Harlequin I think.

I’m pretty sure the economy has been changed a few times… definitely seems to work differently to the original games I played… maybe I’m getting older :frowning:

Still, whatever the rules in existence at the time, there have always been strategies and counterstrategies in play… either known by the masses or known by a few… you just have to play the game and work through ideas.

It’s not handed to you on a plate, so why go all nuts(and I’m not directing this at you) when something different happens in the game.

Just play to the current rules or vote by dropping and start in a new game.

Well, let’s turn our attention to seeing ifwe can hypothesize an economic model that is easy for Clint and the team to code… but still gives a decent amount of randomness that allows tactics to be developed by both FP and DS… not easy without actually seeing the code…

Seem to remember threads on the economy from years ago… Laurence Tilley seems to spring to mind as the collater/instigator… this was before Harley got the code so ideas for game changes were parked… maybe we can relook now…

#138

Dave Holt

I don’t see it your way. You speak about a level playing field, clearly ONB is not a level playing field. Another solution if ONB is being used and the Free decided they do not want to continue then the game ends result no decision. Using tricks that are open to both sides to exploit is one thing. Clint has ruled that this gambit favors only the DS and that there is no effective counter move that the Free can use. I am in agreement with Clint.
Bravo if you know someone who showed you how to do this or if you figured it out on your own. The fact that it became known and now has been ruled on as improper means in my view that you should not be allowed to profit by using this tactic.

I posted that if you feel having the fruits of this illicit strategy ( as now ruled by Clint) taken away from you that you could choose to drop the game or play on with the now leveled playing field. This is no different than proponents of the ONB saying that the Free could always drop. Perhaps as a way of notching another win. Ending a game with a no decision and restarting a rematch seems perfectly fair to me. Why not you?

Brad J

#139

Brad J.,

Quitting a game is a tough decision. While ONB favors the DS, it doesn’t make the DS unbeatable (IMO). I personally only quit a game if I believe my team has lost and that we should concede (I hate bughunts). If on turn 2 as FP against an ONB DS team you have enough forsight to conclude that your FP team has already lost, well then quit if you want to.

Regarding the moderators changing the rules mid-game: I personally think this is highly questionable and debatable behavior on their part. People come up with strategies based around the rules as they understand them. We pay a non-insignificant amount of money to play the game. If the rules change mid-game, negating a team’s strategy and causing that team a disadvantage, is that fair? I don’t think so. Your argument seems to be that it is fair because use of the legal orders in the game (ONB) in the first place wasn’t fair. I disagree. It was only ruled unfair this week. Previously it was fine. In fact, exploration of the game & its quirks has been encouraged. Changing the rules mid-game is the problem.

Dave

#140

I don’t think Clint has any other option. All his data tells him its unfair and an exploitation of the code.
If he continues to run with this code and allows it, he is not providing a good service. He is providing a product that he knows to be flawed. Its tough for the people that wish to continue with the game how it was, but why not let him fix it. Both sides have strategies in place, both will have to adapt. What is so unfair in that?