One Banker Nation Ruling

General
#161

As far as I know none of the DS in 51 are sending money to the Banker Nation. That’s against the rules now. Brad LR-51

Correct - I’ve requested (not ruled mind) that teams that have used OBN send gold back to team-mates or otherwise dump it. It’s upto those teams to do so (or not). Like I said before I feel this a fair compromise.

As to running 2 sets of codes - it’s a nightmare to keep all the things in check that we do have to do for all the games. We try to get that all out of the way at game start but with GB there are many formats with many different rules (and therefore confusions) so I don’t really want to go there. Also I strongly suspect that we don’t have the player base to run such a thing.

I might look at a one-off game (or games) but that depends. As I strongly feel that it’s a bug in the game I want to remove it and move on. I’ve already spent over a week’s work on this problem alone which means that my other projects are now behind schedule and I’ve got people waiting for me there (I’ve got another weeks work doing the fix and testing it I suspect with half a staff’s assistance - that means they are not doing the other work we desperately need done for example). There’s levels of service and then there’s basic needs… :wink:

I’ll see what happens when we’ve implemented the code change and see what players want then but rather than deal with what ifs, when maybes I’d like to see what occurs in actuality and then get a feel for player desire at that point rather than when we’re in the middle of the fix.

Clint (GM)

#162

Guys

I was the the First to call the One Banker nation a Cheat Code… I never meant for those who used this manipulation to be termed Cheaters for using it… I had to use such strong words to get peoples attention how devestating I seen the effects of this manipulation of market prices by in effect one nation having a huge gold reserve did to unbalance the Game…
I said this to get everyones attention including Clints that immediate action had to be taken… Or simply put the game would lose alot players and friends and foes alike I would miss becuase of it…

As for understanding economics something is lost now that the old players when this was a PBM learned long ago… How to build your economic base alone… With no help from teamates ever by 948 gold transfers… It’s from this expierence that I drew from informing how badly this OBN strategy adversely effected the game…

Maybe one Day I will write an article on how to economically grow your nation not matter what game position or scenerio your in… give some guidelines becuase really it’s more feel than anything else.

#163

Clint,

While my grasp of the impact of OBN was non-existent before you folks announced the correction, and is now enlightened (to at least the one candle power my poor brain can manage) after your much-appreciated posts explaining it all, I am in support of a code change. Thank you very much for your willingness to explain the problem and research a solution, all while engaging us in open dialogue on these boards.

To those who feel that the Free driving prices to 1 every turn is a “bug” or “exploit”, please remember that the free must be organized enough to do so, and can only do so only by effectively surrendering a big part of their economic advantage at start, and even then DS can still steal from them. I try to drive prices to 1 in every game I’m in as Free, simply to have a fighting chance. And, I’m almost embarrassed to say, I’ve never been on a winning team yet…because our gold gets stolen and our characters whacked by agents.

And I would ask, does the Prices to 1 “strategy” yield the same overall impact as the OBN “strategy”? Likely not, since prices can’t get much lower…but I only theorize. I welcome commentary, so I can learn more of what you all know about ME economics. :slight_smile:

But Clint, I would offer a word of advice, to take or leave as you think best. I work as a policy analyst for a state/provincial lottery here in North America. We consider it poor form to change the rules of a game mid-draw. If it is possible to allow those games to continue, wherein both sides have enough players willing to continue with their OBN strategy/ counterstrategies, then please consider doing so, if at all feasible. It would be viewed very ethically by those players, and will allow you a few “test games” of data that are less clinical and more applied in outcome.

There are many who imply that there are usable counters, and if so, we would all benefit as a community from seeing them employed. But in the end, it would be best if those counters didn’t ruin the game, too. It is, after all, a game based on Middle Earth, designed to offer the flavor and at the same time provide room for the strategies. If you can allow these games to run their course, great. If it is not feasible, then thank you for considering it.

James

#164

Firstly, well done Clint for identifying this and investigating it.

I agree with Griffy here but would you need to trial it first of all?

Ages ago, we used to use the 870/810 combo and that was rightfully stopped; I don’t see that the OBN is much different. It will make the game more interesting as we’ll have to get accustomed to the effects of the code change. :confused:

#165

The fact is that it IS a bug in the program that is being taken advantage of.
All the numbers and opinions mean little to the ruling.
The rules of the game should be explored and not any bugs in the computer program.
That way the table is even.
I am more concerned with the spirit of the game rather than mins and maxes. It seems that Clint made his ruling with the spirit of good gaming.

#166

Socrates,

I very much agree, it is a bug and should be fixed. But please remember, the numbers and opinions are important, as they form the basis of the definition of what is (or is not) a bug. Clint did his due diligence, including contacting coders of the game, and also running some simulations of OBN behaviors to effectively prove his very strong suspicions. These were necessary because the bug was not obvious like that 810/870 one was (before my time, but I understand the situation). I agree that the spirit of the game is what matters, but having supporting information is what proves or disproves something. Otherwise, all we have is conjecture. I’m appreciative of his efforts, as they show that Harley cares about the spirit of the game too.

Good games to all,

James

#167

I agree that the OBN should be gone. I do however feel that the freep market crash also has out of proportion effects to effort made. Any half good freep team can have the market dead by first winter. It is not that hard to sell lots and then spend it on troops to keep the reserves flat. In real life, suddenly having thousands of extra, paid workers would lead to inflation. I know that the game doesn’t mimick real life in many ways, but if one side is not allowed to make the market ‘boom’ unrealistically, why should the other team unrealistically be able to crash it.

Adrian

#168

In real life, speculators and producers of certain goods can flood or withold goods from the marketplace creating price collapses and spikes. See oil going from 40 to 70 to 50 US dollars per barrell in recent history. (Not to mention the Hunt brothers attempt to corner the Silver market in the 1970’s?)

The FP can attempt to flood the market with certain products and also take money out of the economy. The DS can create market shortages to counteract this (a curious omission on your part?). Certainly if the FP promise not to crash thier economies and the DS promise not to do buyouts the markets will somewhat crash on their own. Was the FP economic attack on the market the first blow or was in response to DS buyouts? :wink:

The existing market manipulations are fairly balanced in my opinion.

#169

[QUOTE=
The FP can attempt to flood the market with certain products and also take money out of the economy. The DS can create market shortages to counteract this (a curious omission on your part?). Certainly if the FP promise not to crash thier economies and the DS promise not to do buyouts the markets will somewhat crash on their own. Was the FP economic attack on the market the first blow or was in response to DS buyouts? :wink:
The existing market manipulations are fairly balanced in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

The DS have to create market shortages by
(a) a full product buyout, which the freep can counter by selling each turn
(b) not selling anything. hahahaha

C’mon AD as a long time player u should know that the market is the freeps best friend, and the DS biggest difficulty. And i would state that in team Aussie we have been seen as great market players BUT, every game has the DS on the economic ropes if the freep are even half competant.

#170

You missed the point while constructing your straw men.
Your point b above is insulting so I think further discussion with you on this is a waste of time.

#171

Your suggested counter to the FreeP market crash require significantly more effort for less gain than the crash itself. In order to have an equal-opposite counter-effect, the DS would have to both create a market shortage and maintain a significant reserve. This appears to be a virtual impossibility and is a major asymmetry, since the in-game effects of not spending money have little tangible benefit and spending money typically has a significant benefit.

The Free can easily flood the market in such a manner that even a good DS team can only hope to mitigate in a minor fashion and for a short time period. Arguing that the DS can counter the market crash is roughly similar to arguing that the FreeP can counter the “OBN.” Both are possible in the small scale, both require far more effort than the benefit of countering the strategy can provide.

#172

Clint (player) I’d say that you can counter a market crash with the DS - market buy-outs are tried and trusted methods of doing that. (Note it doesn’t give free reign of course but it does largely mitigate such situations).

I, however, can’t see a solution that stops OBN working for any team if it wants it to.

#173

Has anyone really tried? Just because nobody has figured it out yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Agents can do it, maybe not quickly, but it can work.

Really, it sounds like nobody has tried, the nay-sayers have given up without any actual effort or, at best, a truncated attempt.

In reality, a boosted market has a far less negative effect on the FreeP than the market crash has on the DS. In fact, the only negative for the FreeP is that the DS struggle less. There is absolutely no direct harm done to the FreeP by a strong economy. An enterprising FreeP team could probably benefit from the boosted economy more than the DS, if they based their strategy around it. However, nobody seems to want to try.

The lack of a willingness to change with tactics seems to be a major flaw of this community. Do those of you who oppose this method also cry when presented with real-life inconveniences?

#174

Steve,
I think your point regarding the difficulty of the DS countering a “market crash” being as difficult as the FP countering the OBN is a valid one. However, OBN really advantages the DS. I can’t see ever losing a game playing on a competent DS team using OBN. It’s just too powerful to have tons of money as the DS.

As to the ability of a DS team to do “market buyouts” vs. the FP market crash… hahahahahaha. not if the FP have a clue and prevent the buyouts from working. In other words, I completely disagree with Clint that there is a DS counter to a competently executed FP market crash. The “market crash” strategy for the FP includes both a component to crash the sell value of all commodities by keeping zero balance in FP accounts AND an ongoing turn-by-turn maintenance component requiring buy/sell of all commodities to keep any possible market buyout by DS from succeeding. It’s a bit more complex to do and requires more orders than OBN, but it is just as devastating in the reverse direction as OBN is.

So the pendulum has swung from DS advantage to FP advantage for competent teams. IMO.

Dave

p.s. in Grudge game 57 right now, we’ll see if a competent DS team can counter a FP market crash strategy executed by a competent FP team. I doubt it, but maybe they’ll prove my contention above wrong. The first DS buyout attempt failed miserably (turn2). Market prices aren’t completely crashed yet, but we’ll get there. Turn 3 upcoming next week… stay tuned…

#175

Agree or disagree, Clint missed the point - Yes, market buyouts are possible, nobody’s disputing that. The point was that it takes more orders across the allegiance to spike the market than it does to keep it down. Just like it takes more FP orders to combat the OBN.

And I like Holt’s point - I guess I’ll have to do as I’m told in 57… :slight_smile:

Brad

#176

Steve - players have tried, the problem is that you can’t impact on the OBN strategy. Check out the many posts on this subject rather than go over old ground I’d suggest. (I’ve posted my arguments for why I don’t think it can be countered quite a few times now).

Clint (player)
i) As for markets - well Dave and agree to disagree on this - that’s fine - that’s part of the beauty of the game that different players feel that there’s different strategies and counter-strategies etc so that’s cool IMO. I agree that you can llimit the impact of the buy-outs and I’ve occasionally seen teams stop it occasionally but it all needs to be tied in with other aspecst of economic control as well - it’s a fascinating part of the game for me.

ii) Brad - I think that it takes more orders to keep the market down that to raise it with (for example) a buy-out - we’re having a got at this in game 58 and it’s hard to do so efficiently. Buy-outs are very simple to do IMO - with any team that is prepared to sacrifice a little of their own stuff for the overall benefit of the team. With running low economies for FP it’s much harder to do this - there’s also more inherent dangers (like popping!) keeping a low market as well. That’s just my experience as a player so others might well have different experiences - that’s fine with me.

Clint

#177

My experience with much better players running buyouts generally involves multiple nations issues buys, bids, and of course, shipping to allies who can’t buy themselves. And there’s the risk that the buyout won’t work - very costly. Running a 0 deficit isn’t as difficult, IMO, neither is the odd buy/sell, strategic sell, etc. It takes some analysis, intelligence and intuition, which might come across as difficult, but order wise, is cheaper in my experience.

#178

Hya Brad - yep. Done both sides, and I find it much harder to have a team run zeros than to do a buy-out - same logistics involved pretty much though for buy-out as for zeros when done “correctly”.

I think that’s partially due to the our style of gaming though in that we try to maximise everything we can within the game. :eek:

Clint(player)

#179

Clint, we definitely disagree. We’ll see if LGT and team can implement your easy “market buyout” plan in grudge 57. So far, they’re 0-for-1. And after a few failed buy-out attempts, the DS will have wasted a bunch of cash they needed for other projects… <big smile>

The good news is that Clint (moderator) is willing to listen to reasoned arguments and after he was shown how powerful OBN was, he acted. Now I guess we need to show him how powerful an FP market crash is. So, if LGT & team can counter it, that’ll prove Clint’s point. If not, I think it will prove mine. So let grudge game 57 be a guinee pig experiment for this topic. We have tons of great players on both sides in this game.

Dave

#180

We’re experimenting with that (market crash) ourselves in our Grudge game so… :wink:

Clint (player)