One Banker nation

[Harlequin_Games1]

You *are* penalizing teams that have taken this route. It was not against the rules at the time it was implemented. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube; at the very least, let the current games play out to see what comes to pass. Rules should not be changed in the middle of a game -- not just MEPBM, any game -- and any rule, not just the OBN ploy.

I'm no longer allowing them to garner the major advantage (un-counterable) that they presently have. They still get the bonus of having done it, for no deficit, they just are not allowed to do it anymore. I'm not penalising those that have done it, nor do I think anything untoward has occurred. Note there is no loss for the nations sending gold as they get that money straight back pretty much next turn due to the increased market prices and natsell limits.

See my other post about why I think it appropriate to do this. It's very much something that normally I wouldn't do but I feel that the impact it has gives for a pretty much guaranteed DS win due to the impact it has on that set of nations' weakest part. I'm pretty sure I know what will come to pass with it - broken markets, and a major rise in DS wins because there is no (effective) counter to this.

Clint

[Harlequin_Games1]

Ruling version 2.

"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.

Later offences will be dealt with more strongly. Examples of this include removal of additional gold from the receiving nation."

If you see a flaw in the above rules then please suggest changes. Assistance, rather than ridicule, is very much appreciated.

Clint (GM)

[Jonathan_Shushan]

I know I'm getting into this late but one
question/clarification. If a nation, on its own,
without gold shipments from others, brings its
reserves over 80k, there will be no deduction? Or
will any reserves accumulated over 80k be confiscated?
Just curious. Thanks.

JMS

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

Ruling version 2.

"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.

Later offences will be dealt with more strongly.
Examples of this include
removal of additional gold from the receiving
nation."

If you see a flaw in the above rules then please
suggest
changes. Assistance, rather than ridicule, is very
much appreciated.

Clint (GM)

Jonathan Shushan
"We have the enemy precisely where we want him. Victory is certain."
General Cornwallis
Yorktown, Virginia- 1781

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

[Charles_Crooks]

But I'm SO good at ridicule...

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: ME Games Ltd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:56 AM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] One Banker nation - update ruling

  Ruling version 2.

  "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.

  Later offences will be dealt with more strongly. Examples of this include
  removal of additional gold from the receiving nation."

  If you see a flaw in the above rules then please suggest
  changes. Assistance, rather than ridicule, is very much appreciated.

  Clint (GM)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Harlequin_Games1]

I know I'm getting into this late but one
question/clarification. If a nation, on its own,
without gold shipments from others, brings its
reserves over 80k, there will be no deduction? Or
will any reserves accumulated over 80k be confiscated?

Correct. Such a nation might turn into a OBN itself but the impact will be much reduced (12 players compared with one player impacting on the economy).

Clint

[fax]

This is a rule that MEGames is creating, a House Rule
if you will. One day, the code might get changed, at
which point, a brief note in the Rules (whatever
they're called...) would suffice.

First thing that has to be clearly established is When
this Ruling will Apply. Are you going to review every
game, or just when someone complains. At which point,
what is the nature of acceptable complaint, or is it
just easier to investigate all complaints, etc. AND -
are you going to implement "anti-harassment" rules in
the House Rules that penalize players for unwarranted
complaints..

Otherwise, by what mechanism are you to be reviewing
ALL gold movements in relation to the turn-start
reserves of the recipient nation..? (good catch on the
Ransom, though, I've been ignoring this
intentionally...).

Secondly, this arbitrary 80,000 is totally
unacceptable. Heck, don't the Eothraim start with
something close to (or above..?) that? "Sorry, not
allowed to send the Eothraim gold, doesn't matter if
he's buying Mounts and Steel and Hiring Armies on 3
pops and Naming Characters, etc" Hiring, Buying,
Relocating Capitals, etc. There are big ticket items
in this game. If the FP want to lose 10% sending to
the Northmen, well, he can buy at a 20% advantage, so
it's worth giving HIM all the gold to buy all the
timber to make all the warmachines, etc. Of course,
if they give me tooo much and all prices rise, they
lose then, don't they...

It simply looks like not enough has been taken into
account. It can't be arbitrary, it has to be
relative, and it most certainly has to be Hand
Moderated for a reasonable period of time for all
these reasons because of my Third consideration
below...

Thirdly, you simply cannot do any more than cancel the
order. If I send my banker 20,000 gold every turn,
then my Game 51 Long Rider simply fails to execute the
order. Hand modify and correct for now, think of
interesting reasons for order failure in the future
("He was ordered to transport by caravans. He was
unable to transport by caravans due to the Kaltoo
Caravan Holiday. Continued efforts may succeed.")

But as a House Rule, you can certainly enforce
punitive actions against the Player. 1st offense is a
warning (and corrected game data). 2nd offense is a
stern warning (and corrected game data). 3rd offense,
the player has to win a grudge game made up of a team
Clint selects before that player is allowed to play in
any other games (and corrected game data).

Hmm. I had another item, a Fourth, I forget it, might
come back to me later.

Cheers,

Brad Brunet

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

Ruling version 2.

"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.

Later offences will be dealt with more strongly.
Examples of this include
removal of additional gold from the receiving
nation."

If you see a flaw in the above rules then please
suggest
changes. Assistance, rather than ridicule, is very
much appreciated.

Clint (GM)

[Harlequin_Games1]

Sure - so am I. I just try, very, very, very hard not to do it... Especially where I think things are very important.

Clint

···

But I'm SO good at ridicule...

If you see a flaw in the above rules then please suggest
changes. Assistance, rather than ridicule, is very much appreciated.

[fax]

Which is exactly why this has to be considered much
more carefully and hand-modified for a period before
hacking around in the code. The code cares about 1
nation's reserves - MEGames cares about "intent" and
"spirit". Hard to "code" those.

Brad

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

>I know I'm getting into this late but one
>question/clarification. If a nation, on its own,
>without gold shipments from others, brings its
>reserves over 80k, there will be no deduction? Or
>will any reserves accumulated over 80k be
confiscated?

Correct. Such a nation might turn into a OBN itself
but the impact will be
much reduced (12 players compared with one player
impacting on the economy).

Clint

[fax]

Consider Lars' Harad in Game 90. All by himself, he
built up high reserves. Easy enough to do if you are
a good tax Neutral and get ignored all game... Now,
what about a players "intent" to harm the "spirit" of
the "ruling" if he decides to go DS on turn 2 but
doesn't actually move militarily, preferring to
support his chosen allegience by casting Intel spells
and cranking the Market? Suddenly we have an
allegiance supported Banker Nation raising the market
due to exploiting a bug in the programming.

Brad

···

--- Brad Brunet <bbme@rogers.com> wrote:

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

>
> >I know I'm getting into this late but one
> >question/clarification. If a nation, on its own,
> >without gold shipments from others, brings its
> >reserves over 80k, there will be no deduction? Or
> >will any reserves accumulated over 80k be
> confiscated?
>
> Correct. Such a nation might turn into a OBN
itself
> but the impact will be
> much reduced (12 players compared with one player
> impacting on the economy).
>
> Clint

Which is exactly why this has to be considered much
more carefully and hand-modified for a period before
hacking around in the code. The code cares about 1
nation's reserves - MEGames cares about "intent" and
"spirit". Hard to "code" those.

Brad

[Harlequin_Games1]

This is a rule that MEGames is creating, a House Rule
if you will. One day, the code might get changed, at
which point, a brief note in the Rules (whatever
they're called...) would suffice.

*** Okay will put this on the Front sheet for each coming game.

First thing that has to be clearly established is When
this Ruling will Apply.

Monday

Are you going to review every
game, or just when someone complains.

I'll do a review of each game and then check when complaints occur. I won't say when I'm doing it deliberately just to check for players attempting to by-pass the rule.

At which point,
what is the nature of acceptable complaint, or is it
just easier to investigate all complaints, etc. AND -
are you going to implement "anti-harassment" rules in
the House Rules that penalize players for unwarranted
complaints..

Feel free to get in touch, as with all aspects of the game, if you feel that something is untoward. That doesn't mean that I want players to deliberately attempt to waste my time though...

Otherwise, by what mechanism are you to be reviewing
ALL gold movements in relation to the turn-start
reserves of the recipient nation..? (good catch on the
Ransom, though, I've been ignoring this
intentionally...).

I'll look at the turns and check the turn before and after. Easiest thing is don't do it and you won't get caught. Self-police. Note this format works very well in GB where players police themselves in this manner and other than the odd awkward moment I can see it working very well here.

Secondly, this arbitrary 80,000 is totally
unacceptable. Heck, don't the Eothraim start with
something close to (or above..?) that? "Sorry, not
allowed to send the Eothraim gold, doesn't matter if
he's buying Mounts and Steel and Hiring Armies on 3
pops and Naming Characters, etc"

But then he won't have the money right? Also that's the Eothraim - it's a FP - if you can actually show me a game where this would have a detriment I can look at that as an exception. Show me that please. So if the Eothraim is spending over 80k then you are correct it would be awkward - but I can't see any nation spending more than 80k in a turn can you). Deficit for Eothraim is in the 35k-40k mark with natsells for say around 10-15k per turn. As an Eothriam player I could forsee spending say 4 name Chars, move capital and a hire or two = 55k gold maximum in a turn and that would be a very rare situation (and my deficit in that would be very low as that scenario would be one where I was under the cosh big time by the DS). I don't think any other nations fit that bill. (Wood, NM, NG are some nations that might fit but they'd be in a better situation in most situations that I can forsee - DS - WK, Dragon, IK and (Rh in a Grudge) would be examples of such for DS but I can't see them doing it either for the values that I've proposed.

Note I agree this is a stop gap measure until I can look at getting a code change. Ideally as soon as I can stop writing emails here I can work on that...

Hiring, Buying,
Relocating Capitals, etc. There are big ticket items
in this game. If the FP want to lose 10% sending to
the Northmen, well, he can buy at a 20% advantage, so
it's worth giving HIM all the gold to buy all the
timber to make all the warmachines, etc. Of course,
if they give me tooo much and all prices rise, they
lose then, don't they...

But that's FP again. Okay say you could get a DS version of this - would they spend more than 60k in a turn that has occurred with say a 20k deficit? I agree you could create one to prove a point but that would be artificial. Show me a real-game example where that's been done. I thought I was being lenient....

It simply looks like not enough has been taken into
account.

I don't agree - the number might be incorrect (if so suggest a different ruling or gold amount please rather than complain about it).

But as a House Rule, you can certainly enforce
punitive actions against the Player. 1st offense is a
warning (and corrected game data). 2nd offense is a
stern warning (and corrected game data). 3rd offense,
the player has to win a grudge game made up of a team
Clint selects before that player is allowed to play in
any other games (and corrected game data).

I thought I described the action we'd take - did I miss something?

Clint

[Harlequin_Games1]

No it doesn't for the reasons I gave earlier. In addition, one nation trying to manipulate the market is 12x harder than a team to do so. It will achieve some results - I can see that particularly for Neutrals for example - but have a much smaller impact than those of OBN for a team of players. In games where the OBN has been used I request that the OBN nation sends the gold back as I think that you are using a bug in the game and that will reduce the markets appropriately.

No need for "spirit". As requested I've put forward a hard rule for this. It's open for debate and feel free to give specific modifications or a new rule entirely if you wish.

Thanks

Clint

···

>I know I'm getting into this late but one
> >question/clarification. If a nation, on its own,
> >without gold shipments from others, brings its
> >reserves over 80k, there will be no deduction? Or
> >will any reserves accumulated over 80k be
> confiscated?
>
> Correct. Such a nation might turn into a OBN itself
> but the impact will be
> much reduced (12 players compared with one player
> impacting on the economy).
>
> Clint

Which is exactly why this has to be considered much
more carefully and hand-modified for a period before
hacking around in the code. The code cares about 1
nation's reserves - MEGames cares about "intent" and
"spirit". Hard to "code" those.

[Harlequin_Games1]

Consider Lars' Harad in Game 90. All by himself, he
built up high reserves. Easy enough to do if you are
a good tax Neutral and get ignored all game... Now,
what about a players "intent" to harm the "spirit" of
the "ruling" if he decides to go DS on turn 2 but
doesn't actually move militarily, preferring to
support his chosen allegience by casting Intel spells
and cranking the Market? Suddenly we have an
allegiance supported Banker Nation raising the market
due to exploiting a bug in the programming.

Sorry Brad I'm responding to you simultaneously on two lists.... and it's hard to keep up. There is no spirit. There is a hard rule. If a player wants to up his gold by himself that's fine - it's much harder than a team doing it simply with 11 948 orders. Until I get the code changed that's not possible to stop. It will have a much lesser impact though than a team doing it and where it does not both teams can impact on that nation if they want to. If you have a different suggestion on how to police it that would be good.

Mostly the damage of the OBN is early game so if he hangs around slowly building up gold then it will have a lower impact on the game as well.

"Suddenly we have an allegiance supported Banker Nation raising the market due to exploiting a bug in the programming." Indeed we are agreed - it's a bug - don't use it.

Clint

[Drukarzun1]

Brad,
   
  Mark this day down on your calender: I agree with you 100%
   
  Drew
   
  PS Except for maybe your "third strike" penalty, where you and I might end up on a grudge team after all. <g>

  This is a rule that MEGames is creating, a House Rule
if you will. One day, the code might get changed, at
which point, a brief note in the Rules (whatever
they're called...) would suffice.

First thing that has to be clearly established is When
this Ruling will Apply. Are you going to review every
game, or just when someone complains. At which point,
what is the nature of acceptable complaint, or is it
just easier to investigate all complaints, etc. AND -
are you going to implement "anti-harassment" rules in
the House Rules that penalize players for unwarranted
complaints..

Otherwise, by what mechanism are you to be reviewing
ALL gold movements in relation to the turn-start
reserves of the recipient nation..? (good catch on the
Ransom, though, I've been ignoring this
intentionally...).

Secondly, this arbitrary 80,000 is totally
unacceptable. Heck, don't the Eothraim start with
something close to (or above..?) that? "Sorry, not
allowed to send the Eothraim gold, doesn't matter if
he's buying Mounts and Steel and Hiring Armies on 3
pops and Naming Characters, etc" Hiring, Buying,
Relocating Capitals, etc. There are big ticket items
in this game. If the FP want to lose 10% sending to
the Northmen, well, he can buy at a 20% advantage, so
it's worth giving HIM all the gold to buy all the
timber to make all the warmachines, etc. Of course,
if they give me tooo much and all prices rise, they
lose then, don't they...

It simply looks like not enough has been taken into
account. It can't be arbitrary, it has to be
relative, and it most certainly has to be Hand
Moderated for a reasonable period of time for all
these reasons because of my Third consideration
below...

Thirdly, you simply cannot do any more than cancel the
order. If I send my banker 20,000 gold every turn,
then my Game 51 Long Rider simply fails to execute the
order. Hand modify and correct for now, think of
interesting reasons for order failure in the future
("He was ordered to transport by caravans. He was
unable to transport by caravans due to the Kaltoo
Caravan Holiday. Continued efforts may succeed.")

But as a House Rule, you can certainly enforce
punitive actions against the Player. 1st offense is a
warning (and corrected game data). 2nd offense is a
stern warning (and corrected game data). 3rd offense,
the player has to win a grudge game made up of a team
Clint selects before that player is allowed to play in
any other games (and corrected game data).

Hmm. I had another item, a Fourth, I forget it, might
come back to me later.

Cheers,

Brad Brunet

--- ME Games Ltd wrote:

Ruling version 2.

"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.

Later offences will be dealt with more strongly.
Examples of this include
removal of additional gold from the receiving
nation."

If you see a flaw in the above rules then please
suggest
changes. Assistance, rather than ridicule, is very
much appreciated.

Clint (GM)

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

···

Brad Brunet <bbme@rogers.com> wrote:

---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[fax]

Yes (you missed something...), you described taking
increasing action against my Nation in the Game. I,
Brad Brunet, may flaunt your rule and send my banker
in G51 gold, every turn, just to keep you busy. What
are you going to do about it? Are you going to take
LR's gold away from him? Penalize my innocent Banker
"ally"? Bankrupt the LR nation as "punishment"..?
Or, are you going to penalize ME. Brad Brunet.
Instead of the Long Rider in game 51.

Brad

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

>But as a House Rule, you can certainly enforce
>punitive actions against the Player. 1st offense is
a
>warning (and corrected game data). 2nd offense is a
>stern warning (and corrected game data). 3rd
offense,
>the player has to win a grudge game made up of a
team
>Clint selects before that player is allowed to play
in
>any other games (and corrected game data).

I thought I described the action we'd take - did I
miss something?

Clint

[Drukarzun1]

The difference is, all players in a gunboat game agreed to a set of rules, variant rules or house rules, BEFORE the game. A proper analogy would be to say, ok in this regular game that happens to be on T7, as of Monday, you can not communicate with your allies. We are going to enforce this rule as we think it is best for the Game, and call you a cheater if you don't comply.

ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:
I'll look at the turns and check the turn before and after. Easiest
thing
is don't do it and you won't get caught. Self-police. Note this
format
works very well in GB where players police themselves in this manner
and
other than the odd awkward moment I can see it working very well here.

···

---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[fax]

Thank you. I'm just helping you be rigorous and
clarify for anyone else reading. It's all about
transferring gold (however one can surmise a method to
do so...) to a Single Banker that by all accounts,
doesn't need it.

And it's apparently only targetting the DS...? Free
Market societies let us eat at McDonalds...if we want
to. It's certainly less good for us than the FP
pumping up the market, but it's allowed.

And I disagree with "don't be hypothetical, show me an
actual pdf". How about, after all that testing, you
do some more to establish what you would consider an
appropriate level of Reserves that shows, by itself, a
marked effect on the Market such that that particular
level of reserves *is* the only culprit.

And then analyze that data by total game gold, total
market gold, gold production, total buy/sell values,
etc, and discover a number of *ratios* that clearly
demonstrate where this "bug" impacts the market.

If you've done that, instead of arbitrarily picked a
number that "sounds" good, you can not only justify
any complaint mediation in the future (either "Thanks
for your complaint, but..." or "It has been brought to
our attention that...") BUT you NOW would have
factors, parameters if you will, related _directly_ to
in game conditions, that would allow you to change
conde in the future.

(ie, flag any gold transfers and reverse them at turn
end if market circumstances met X, Y, Z, A11.01A, etc,
criteria).

Brad

···

--- ME Games Ltd <me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:

There is no spirit. There is a
hard rule. If a player
wants to up his gold by himself that's fine

[fax]

Yes, that was my line of thinking too, and why in Game
51, I am NEVER, EVER sending gold to ANYONE EVER
AGAIN!!!!

b

···

--- Drukarzun <drukarzun@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brad,
   
  Mark this day down on your calender: I agree with
you 100%
   
  Drew
   
  PS Except for maybe your "third strike" penalty,
where you and I might end up on a grudge team after
all. <g>

[Drukarzun1]

--- Drukarzun wrote:

Brad,

Mark this day down on your calender: I agree with
you 100%

Drew

PS Except for maybe your "third strike" penalty,
where you and I might end up on a grudge team after
all.

Yes, that was my line of thinking too, and why in Game
51, I am NEVER, EVER sending gold to ANYONE EVER
AGAIN!!!!

b

  DC2:Well I might still send gold through the first two strikes...

···

Brad Brunet <bbme@rogers.com> wrote:

---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Urzahil1]

Maybe this is just a 1650 thing (which I stopped playing a LONG time ago),
but I'm not sure how someone can support only one allegiance by affecting
market prices. Market prices are the same for everyone, so a high market
should be beneficial to everyone. Am I missing something?

If a specific tactic is proving unbalancing (and as I said I'm having
trouble seeing why), then mitigate that particular tactic rather than
implementing a major change in the market mechanics that would affect
several other tactics.

If you want to stop a team from sending all their gold to one nation, why
not just put a limit on how much money you can have in your treasury before
you can RECEIVE gold shipments (or ransom payments). (ie; Too much gold =
order failure.) Like other orders (at least in 4th Age), perhas that limit
could rise as the game goes on to reflect the inherently bigger economies
that happen later in the game. This should minimize the usefulness of this
allegedly unbalancing tactic without completely decoupling the max treasury
size from the market costs.

Earlier Clint said that manipulating the market using market buyouts is a
legitimate "tactic", while manipulating the market prices by having one
nation with a large treasury is a "loophole". I fail to see why one is "bad"
and the other is "good". Either market manipulation is a valid tactic or it
isn't. Either allow it or don't allow it. Allowing one type of market
manipulation (that some players might be better at) and not allowing other
types seems a bit like stacking the game in favor of one group of players.

Take action against the unbalancing TACTIC, not the entire market SYSTEM.

Mike

[Kevin_O_Keefe]

And then analyze that data by total game gold, total
market gold, gold production, total buy/sell values,
etc, and discover a number of *ratios* that clearly
demonstrate where this "bug" impacts the market.

Brad,

I've done that. Want to see it....?