One Banker nation

mepbmlist
#61

Okay now I am confused or missed the first email about this. So as the Noldo I send 25k to NG second turn to name characters bc he used all his gold to start armies but he does not have a Deficit and he is selling food this turn I the Noldo lose the 25k? This is something that is done in the spirit of the game not for the ON b/c NG could use any money if you sent it to him. .

Serra

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: ME Games Ltd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 7:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] "OBN" and Consequences

  >If I try to send 25,000 gold the order gets reversed.

  No you lose that gold.

  >Fine. I try again, what happens...? Do you penalize
  >me, Brad, or do you penalize my nation over and above
  >reversing the order?

  We reserve the right to take appropriate action. Most likely that would be
  to remove not only that second gold send (say of 25k g) but give that
  player a final warning. Further impacts and you'll be removed from the
  game. Note if we feel that a player is deliberately breaking the rules
  then we might well enact such a ruling earlier. That would be for players
  who've already publically claimed that they are going to do it for example
  and as we see fit. Ie if you break the rules we'll take appropriate action
  and that can be anything from removing the gold sent to removal of further
  in game funds and removal of that player from that game. Any player that
  brings the game into disrepute we reserve the right to act further.

  Clint

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

#62

Does this include games already being played?

Serra

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: ME Games Ltd
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] "OBN" and Consequences

  One banker Nation explored

  When does this apply? As from Monday 11th December you cannot employ this
  strategy. If you have sent in orders for a game which runs on Monday or
  later, and which would break this new rule, you should send in a new set of
  orders.

  What is being banned? The One Banker Nation (OBN for short) strategy is now
  banned. There is no effective counter that an opposing (FP) team can
  employ to deal with it. We will update the ruling in the Front Sheet GM
  Message section should updates occur and on the forum and list.

  Why is this a Bug? and not mid-game change of rules. I chatted to the game
  designer about this and it's unintended. It is an error of coding. They
  come up so rarely in Middle Earth, I'm very glad to say, that action has to
  be taken now to stop its impact. Due to the enormous impact it has on the
  game we feel that steps need to be taken now. In most cases it removes the
  entire need for a strategic economic element to the game and therefore
  benefits the DS majorly. There is a direct correlation between gold in the
  One Banker nation (the nation with the highest level of gold) and the
  market prices and natsell limits. (See below for example Leather @23 sell
  price employing this strategy).

  Has everyone been contacted? Yes - note if you want to see some of the
  discussion check out the forum (it's the sticky thread called One Banker
  Nation Ruling) and the list.

  For now we'll do that by hand (and I'll implement a code change as soon as
  we can get something sorted and tested):

  Ruling 10th December 2006; "Gold sent to a single nation with the goal of
  significant upward increase of market prices is not allowed, whether
  through caravan transport, ransom demands, or other methods. 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.

  Such an attempt may be judged to have occurred if the upward increase of
  market prices occurs coincident to the transfer of gold. Judgement may be
  requested by the opposing team if it feels this ruling has been violated.
  The judgement will be made by the moderator with opportunity for
  explanation by the team in question if requested

  Later offences will be dealt with more strongly. Examples of this include
  removal of additional gold from the receiving nation but other penalties
  might apply. We reserve the right to take appropriate action. Most likely
  that would be to remove not only that second gold send but give that player
  a final warning. Further impacts and you'll be removed from the
  game. Note if we feel that a player is deliberately breaking the rules
  then we might well enact such a ruling earlier. Ie if you break the rules
  we'll take appropriate action and that can be anything from removing the
  gold sent to removal of further in game funds and removal of that player
  from that game. Any player that brings the game into disrepute we reserve
  the right to act further."

  It's simple to moderate - if players feel that the market has been bumped
  unfairly get in touch and we'll check the orders. If we find that it has
  occurred, we'll remove all the gold received from that banker nation and we
  will consider further measures. (Note sending gold to nations is still
  fine for other reasons - it's easy to moderate).

  This is the simplest short term solution and workable, especially if
  players abide by this ruling. Players are generally very ethical, so a hand
  moderated ruling will work well. We do something very similar in Gunboat
  and find it works fine.

  We will not make any changes to the market prices in current games, even if
  the banker nation tactic has been used. However, from Monday we will
  enforce this new ruling.

  I intend to take no action about using high tax rates or market buy-outs to
  affect the market prices. They are tactical choices, with both positives
  and negatives, and there are strategies which opposing teams can employ to
  counter them. (Eg Emmissaries for low loyalty PCs, ease of Threatening for
  high tax nations, and selling product and keeping a low gold level for
  reducing the impact of Buy-outs). We might look at keeping gold levels
  below 200k in future for other nations in the game as we appreciate that
  some Neutrals will look at increasing their own gold values appropriately.

  I'll soon look at implementing code changes. These will aim to emulate the
  present market, with removal of the One Banker nation strategy. No doubt
  this will have minor changes to the market code, but I feel that something
  needs to be done here.

  ** Thanks to everyone for bringing this to my attention; it is very, very
  much appreciated. **

  Data I've looked at the One banker nation strategy in some depth
  now. Starting from the same database I set up a game and run from Turn 0
  the following examples. Data from which I've garnered this evidence (and
  other games but here's the short version).

  Test 1) No orders - I just run the game.

  MARKET PRICES
  Product Leather Bronze Steel
  Mithril Food Timber Mounts
  Avail 6930 4620 3825
  600 29250 5925 2400
  Buy 9 11 13 113
  3 10 18
  Sell 6 7 8 71
  2 6 11

  Test 2) No orders other than 325s (Natsells) of around 25k value (basically
  food @2).

  MARKET PRICES
  Product Leather Bronze Steel
  Mithril Food Timber Mounts
  Avail 7380 9886 3375
  593 67792 10326 2400
  Buy 10 9 19 123
  2 9 26
  Sell 6 5 11 73
  1 5 16

  Test 3) No orders other than all gold in the game sent by all nations to
  the Long Rider. Minor changes to gold levels to test 1) (948s 10%).

  MARKET PRICES
  Product Leather Bronze Steel
  Mithril Food Timber Mounts
  Avail 6930 5040 3825
  563 30750 6375 2340
  Buy 65 102 117 981
  14 93 194
  Sell 36 56 65 541
  8 51 107

  Test 4) No orders other than Tax of all nations to 100% and 325s of around
  25k value (basically food). Ie testing to see what a large amount of gold
  in the game does.

  MARKET PRICES
  Product Leather Bronze Steel
  Mithril Food Timber Mounts
  Avail 7110 8219 3465
  600 111942 9093 2490
  Buy 15 17 24 185
  3 16 41
  Sell 10 11 16 123
  2 11 28

  Test 5) No orders other than Tax to 100% and 325s of around 25k value
  (basically food) and all gold in the game sent by all nations to the Long
  Rider. Ie a large amount of gold in the game and it all under one nation.

  MARKET PRICES
  Product Leather Bronze Steel
  Mithril Food Timber Mounts
  Avail 7650 10996 3510
  570 275474 9093 2400
  Buy 170 175 329
  2617 9 202 520
  Sell 88 90 170
  1350 5 104 268

  Test 6) To emulate a Grudge game: No orders other than all gold in the game
  sent by all 11 other DS nations to the Long Rider. Minor changes to total
  gold levels in the game as compare with test 1) (948s 10%).

  MARKET PRICES
  Product Leather Bronze Steel
  Mithril Food Timber Mounts
  Avail 6840 4500 3465
  563 30750 5775 2550
  Buy 36 60 67 516
  7 51 101
  Sell 23 38 42 324
  4 32 63

  This basically covered the broad spectrum (you can tell I was trained as a
  scientist uh?!) of possibilities (there are other options of course but I
  think the results are clear). My reading is as follows:

  Tax @100% basically doubles the market if everyone did it (upto half if
  some players did it) and although has an inherent disadvantage (low
  loyalties throughout the nations on high tax) is probably okay.

  One Banker nation: leads to 4x the market and has minor disadvantage (which
  can be dealt with by sending slightly less gold). Although it doesn't give
  unlimted gold to the DS, it does deal with their very major disadvantage of
  a (relative to FP) weak economy. (Note it doesn't, IMO, allow you to get
  extra product as the raised buy and sell prices preclude this). Note also
  that almost all cases the increase in market prices is immediately rewarded
  in that you can natsell at the new value and make back that initial send
  the very next turn. (Ie no loss of gold effectively and a very big market)

  Clint (GM)

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

#63

Tara, don't be concerned. When Brad gets emotional, it clouds his judgement. Ed

···

From: "Tara Silva" <vanya1@comcast.net>
Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] OBN DS Screaming
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:49:40 -0500

Brad I said every time I have seen you. As I said at the bottom of my email I was not trying to offend you. I was just using you because you are the player I recognized the most. If I am wrong about your actual playing that is fine. Since I do not keep tabs on you. All I wanted to know if the players who were complaining about the OBN were mostly DS players or if they played both sides equally. Please do not take it as an attack because it wasn't. Seriously.

Serra
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Brad Brunet
  To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:05 PM
  Subject: [mepbmlist] OBN DS Screaming

  --- Tara Silva <vanya1@comcast.net> wrote:

  > I am not sure if I agree with you Clint or not. I
  > would like to know how many of these protesting (or
  > should I say screaming players) play mostly evil
  > nations and how many play mostly good. Almost every
  > time I have seen Brad he has played DS is this true
  > for most of these guys.

  Sorry Tara, you're impression here doesn't accurately
  reflect reality. I've played mostly FP in my life
  (2/3 FP) and all my Grudge games as FP (expecting a
  new one next year as DS..). 2 current games are DS as
  I feel like getting around to playing all nations one
  day. One game we've pumped the market and another we
  haven't. I care not either way, and have been on
  record with numerous teams as FP not caring to affect
  the Market. I'm on record in a number of places as
  saying I wouldn't mind/care as a FP if the market went
  crazy and think it would benefit the FP in a number of
  ways that would make it interesting to play it out.
  Imagine the Eothraim or Woodmen running max
  mililtaries and never needing help..? Imagine if the
  FP never sold their 10-20+ thousand Timber a turn but
  instead *used* it..?

  It's very difficult to think that in the vast majority
  of cases this market scheme will *not* benefit the DS
  to the detriment of game balance in general. But I
  was proven wrong when I believed that the DS were
  already winning 2/3 of the games. So maybe I/we are
  overreacting to this as well...? Something to
  consider.

  So while I agree it's 95+% of absolute benefit to the
  DS, and frequent use of the Single Banker Nation will
  skew the game results towards the DS, I'm not
  absolutely convinced that these conclusions are
  "proven" in any way and in general, I react poorly to
  what I perceive to be reactionary and arbitrary
  decisions. I've made enough of those in my life to
  understand the odds of "correctness" are low (in
  principle).

  Regards,

  Brad

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

_________________________________________________________________
Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends list. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk

#64

Yes

···

Does this include games already being played?

Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: ME Games Ltd
To: <mailto:mepbmlist%40yahoogroups.com>mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] "OBN" and Consequences

One banker Nation explored

When does this apply? As from Monday 11th December you cannot employ this
strategy. If you have sent in orders for a game which runs on Monday or
later, and which would break this new rule, you should send in a new set of
orders.

What is being banned? The One Banker Nation (OBN for short) strategy is now
banned. There is no effective counter that an opposing (FP) team can
employ to deal with it. We will update the ruling in the Front Sheet GM
Message section should updates occur and on the forum and list.

Why is this a Bug? and not mid-game change of rules. I chatted to the game
designer about this and it's unintended. It is an error of coding. They
come up so rarely in Middle Earth, I'm very glad to say, that action has to
be taken now to stop its impact. Due to the enormous impact it has on the
game we feel that steps need to be taken now. In most cases it removes the
entire need for a strategic economic element to the game and therefore
benefits the DS majorly. There is a direct correlation between gold in the
One Banker nation (the nation with the highest level of gold) and the
market prices and natsell limits. (See below for example Leather @23 sell
price employing this strategy).

Has everyone been contacted? Yes - note if you want to see some of the
discussion check out the forum (it's the sticky thread called One Banker
Nation Ruling) and the list.

For now we'll do that by hand (and I'll implement a code change as soon as
we can get something sorted and tested):

Ruling 10th December 2006; "Gold sent to a single nation with the goal of
significant upward increase of market prices is not allowed, whether
through caravan transport, ransom demands, or other methods. 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.

Such an attempt may be judged to have occurred if the upward increase of
market prices occurs coincident to the transfer of gold. Judgement may be
requested by the opposing team if it feels this ruling has been violated.
The judgement will be made by the moderator with opportunity for
explanation by the team in question if requested

Later offences will be dealt with more strongly. Examples of this include
removal of additional gold from the receiving nation but other penalties
might apply. We reserve the right to take appropriate action. Most likely
that would be to remove not only that second gold send but give that player
a final warning. Further impacts and you'll be removed from the
game. Note if we feel that a player is deliberately breaking the rules
then we might well enact such a ruling earlier. Ie if you break the rules
we'll take appropriate action and that can be anything from removing the
gold sent to removal of further in game funds and removal of that player
from that game. Any player that brings the game into disrepute we reserve
the right to act further."

It's simple to moderate - if players feel that the market has been bumped
unfairly get in touch and we'll check the orders. If we find that it has
occurred, we'll remove all the gold received from that banker nation and we
will consider further measures. (Note sending gold to nations is still
fine for other reasons - it's easy to moderate).

This is the simplest short term solution and workable, especially if
players abide by this ruling. Players are generally very ethical, so a hand
moderated ruling will work well. We do something very similar in Gunboat
and find it works fine.

We will not make any changes to the market prices in current games, even if
the banker nation tactic has been used. However, from Monday we will
enforce this new ruling.

I intend to take no action about using high tax rates or market buy-outs to
affect the market prices. They are tactical choices, with both positives
and negatives, and there are strategies which opposing teams can employ to
counter them. (Eg Emmissaries for low loyalty PCs, ease of Threatening for
high tax nations, and selling product and keeping a low gold level for
reducing the impact of Buy-outs). We might look at keeping gold levels
below 200k in future for other nations in the game as we appreciate that
some Neutrals will look at increasing their own gold values appropriately.

I'll soon look at implementing code changes. These will aim to emulate the
present market, with removal of the One Banker nation strategy. No doubt
this will have minor changes to the market code, but I feel that something
needs to be done here.

** Thanks to everyone for bringing this to my attention; it is very, very
much appreciated. **

Data I've looked at the One banker nation strategy in some depth
now. Starting from the same database I set up a game and run from Turn 0
the following examples. Data from which I've garnered this evidence (and
other games but here's the short version).

Test 1) No orders - I just run the game.

MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel
Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 6930 4620 3825
600 29250 5925 2400
Buy 9 11 13 113
3 10 18
Sell 6 7 8 71
2 6 11

Test 2) No orders other than 325s (Natsells) of around 25k value (basically
food @2).

MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel
Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 7380 9886 3375
593 67792 10326 2400
Buy 10 9 19 123
2 9 26
Sell 6 5 11 73
1 5 16

Test 3) No orders other than all gold in the game sent by all nations to
the Long Rider. Minor changes to gold levels to test 1) (948s 10%).

MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel
Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 6930 5040 3825
563 30750 6375 2340
Buy 65 102 117 981
14 93 194
Sell 36 56 65 541
8 51 107

Test 4) No orders other than Tax of all nations to 100% and 325s of around
25k value (basically food). Ie testing to see what a large amount of gold
in the game does.

MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel
Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 7110 8219 3465
600 111942 9093 2490
Buy 15 17 24 185
3 16 41
Sell 10 11 16 123
2 11 28

Test 5) No orders other than Tax to 100% and 325s of around 25k value
(basically food) and all gold in the game sent by all nations to the Long
Rider. Ie a large amount of gold in the game and it all under one nation.

MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel
Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 7650 10996 3510
570 275474 9093 2400
Buy 170 175 329
2617 9 202 520
Sell 88 90 170
1350 5 104 268

Test 6) To emulate a Grudge game: No orders other than all gold in the game
sent by all 11 other DS nations to the Long Rider. Minor changes to total
gold levels in the game as compare with test 1) (948s 10%).

MARKET PRICES
Product Leather Bronze Steel
Mithril Food Timber Mounts
Avail 6840 4500 3465
563 30750 5775 2550
Buy 36 60 67 516
7 51 101
Sell 23 38 42 324
4 32 63

This basically covered the broad spectrum (you can tell I was trained as a
scientist uh?!) of possibilities (there are other options of course but I
think the results are clear). My reading is as follows:

Tax @100% basically doubles the market if everyone did it (upto half if
some players did it) and although has an inherent disadvantage (low
loyalties throughout the nations on high tax) is probably okay.

One Banker nation: leads to 4x the market and has minor disadvantage (which
can be dealt with by sending slightly less gold). Although it doesn't give
unlimted gold to the DS, it does deal with their very major disadvantage of
a (relative to FP) weak economy. (Note it doesn't, IMO, allow you to get
extra product as the raised buy and sell prices preclude this). Note also
that almost all cases the increase in market prices is immediately rewarded
in that you can natsell at the new value and make back that initial send
the very next turn. (Ie no loss of gold effectively and a very big market)

Clint (GM)

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 09/12/06

****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook, NJ 08880
         Tel (732) 642 8777 EST
         Fax 503 296 2325 (comes straight to us)
****************************************************************

#65

Hopefully reading my ruling will help.

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.

So if the gold send brings his monies above 80k then he'll lose the additional money. In the scenario you put this won't happen and everything is fine.

Clint

···

Okay now I am confused or missed the first email about this. So as the Noldo I send 25k to NG second turn to name characters bc he used all his gold to start armies but he does not have a Deficit and he is selling food this turn I the Noldo lose the 25k? This is something that is done in the spirit of the game not for the ON b/c NG could use any money if you sent it to him. .

Serra

#66

Can't speak for all of them, only myself. I would
like to think that it's about doing the right thing
and not selfish interests.

Brad

···

--- Tara Silva <vanya1@comcast.net> wrote:

I wanted to know if the players who
were complaining about the OBN were mostly DS
players or if they played both sides equally.

#67

--- Tara Silva <vanya1@...> wrote:
Brad I said every time I have seen you. As I said at the bottom of

my email

I was not trying to offend you. I was just using you because you

are the

player I recognized the most. If I am wrong about your actual

playing that

is fine.

* Yeah, you were way off . . . Brad B. was a tree-hugging freep most
every game I saw him in years ago. Even when he was a Newt, he'd go
join those FP hippies usually . . . might have been because joining
my team was the alternative?

* Woah, where did I come from?! I haven't been on here in a couple
years. I still glance at email headings from this group and all the
drama over the OBN caught my attention. Neat stuff. :slight_smile: We always
knew gold reserves affected market prices (duh) . . . just can't
believe this OBN thing didn't come about a LOT sooner. I guess no
one realized ONE nation could have such a dramatic effect. Seems
like the market prices should react to some formula that considers
not only individual nation's reserves, but ALL the gold currently in
reserves held by all nations. Some kind of "check and balance" if
you will. Yeah, I'm not a programmer or mathematician so I'll just
shut up now . . .

* I've been thinking about dusting my boots off and joining up
again. I have this new boardgame I've been playing, "War of the
Ring", and MAN it brings back fond memories of getting owned in
2950. Well, some of you probably remember how unpredictable, crazy,
and bit__y I am so you should probably talk me out of coming
back. :slight_smile:

Russ Floyd

#68

I have some snow shovelling to do, don't you have a
lawn to mow? Tree hugging hippie, geez, you're still
into the hard stuff I see...

Brad

···

--- Russ <xfloyd-222@charter.net> wrote:

Well, some of you probably remember how
unpredictable, crazy,
and bit__y I am so you should probably talk me out
of coming
back. :slight_smile:

#69

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 :slight_smile: Why you don't change it too? :wink:

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 :stuck_out_tongue:

By the way I think OBN give an irrational advantage to DS in
all kinds of game but above all in standard games:

Standard games
Game Master cannot prevent corsairs or harad to collect and
sending and receiving gold to other nation without changing concept
of neutral :slight_smile:
I' m the harad and I could sell my fleet to the corsairs receiving
50-100 k gold for it ,
or simple buying a lot of artefact by the DL and sending him 100 k
gold for 4 artefacts , I could be the rhudaur and ask 50000 gold to
DS for going with them (I have seen it to happen and not for
market reasons)
It's difficult to put a limit of sending gold in standard games,
best way to balance the game is fixing market code in order That
gold of OBN influence less the market than the total amount of gold
of all nations, For now you can simply ask to people don't use
this tactic in order to pump the market

P.s. Clint I was not able to post it on the forum could you check it
please? My login diavolicolorati

#70

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

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 :slight_smile: Why you don't change it too? :wink:

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 :stuck_out_tongue:

By the way I think OBN give an irrational advantage to DS in
all kinds of game but above all in standard games:

Standard games
Game Master cannot prevent corsairs or harad to collect and
sending and receiving gold to other nation without changing concept
of neutral :slight_smile:
I' m the harad and I could sell my fleet to the corsairs receiving
50-100 k gold for it ,
or simple buying a lot of artefact by the DL and sending him 100 k
gold for 4 artefacts , I could be the rhudaur and ask 50000 gold to
DS for going with them (I have seen it to happen and not for
market reasons)
It's difficult to put a limit of sending gold in standard games,
best way to balance the game is fixing market code in order That
gold of OBN influence less the market than the total amount of gold
of all nations, For now you can simply ask to people don't use
this tactic in order to pump the market

P.s. Clint I was not able to post it on the forum could you check it
please? My login diavolicolorati

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 09/12/06

****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook, NJ 08880
         Tel (732) 642 8777 EST
         Fax 503 296 2325 (comes straight to us)
****************************************************************

#71

P.s. Clint I was not able to post it on the forum could you check it
please? My login diavolicolorati

Can't find you on the forum. Can you try creating a new account please? I'd need your username for this (off list is probably best).

Clint

#72

So apparently this OBN strategy somehow favors the DS in 1650 games. I still
can't see how this has such a big impact, and I haven't heard anything but
vague conjecture as proof that it does. However, since I haven't played 1650
games in quite a while so I'm willing to conceed the point. In fact, as far
as I'm concerned, any ruling that brings yet even more controversy to the
1650 scenario is a good thing, as it may drive more players to 4th Age. :wink:

Still, I do have an issue with the ruling, as well as one of the items
mentioned for the proposed future code change.

1. If high market prices are only unbalancing in 1650 games, then why foist
this arbitrary ruling (and any associated future code change) on 4th Age
games? 4th Age most definitely does NOT favor one side or the other
economically. At least it doesn't inherently do so, though it could wind up
that way from one game to the next, depending on how everyone has built
their nations.

2. Would the proposed code change regarding the 200k treasury ceiling be a
hard limit on actual gold in the treasury, or just on how much gold would
affect the market? I sincerely hope it is NOT the former.

Thanks,
Mike Mulka

#73

I haven't heard anything but vague conjecture as proof that it does.

Check out my tests - what more proof would you like?

1. If high market prices are only unbalancing in 1650 games, then why foist
this arbitrary ruling (and any associated future code change) on 4th Age
games?

It's not only that it unbalances 1650 - it unbalances all games. Any team that can organise a transfer gold to one nation can make the market go extreme. I find that this makes the game un-balanced, not only in terms of DS 1650 (which I grant is the biggest concern) but rather that removes almost entirely the need for an economic aspect of the game. Turns it into a monty-haul game.

4th Age most definitely does NOT favor one side or the other
economically. At least it doesn't inherently do so, though it could wind up
that way from one game to the next, depending on how everyone has built
their nations.

Yes - so some nations with say hire army at no cost would effectively lose their SNA "advantage".

2. Would the proposed code change regarding the 200k treasury ceiling be a
hard limit on actual gold in the treasury, or just on how much gold would
affect the market? I sincerely hope it is NOT the former.

I'm not sure yet. That's open for debate. I checked through a bunch of turns to get a feel for it and I think this limit would hardly impact on the game at all (game 118 the exception of course).

Clint

#74

The reverse of this extreme is when they crash the market and I spend my nation orders every turn selling everything just to stay afloat. That seems more or at least just as unbalancing.

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

I haven't heard anything but vague conjecture as proof that it does.

Check out my tests - what more proof would you like?

1. If high market prices are only unbalancing in 1650 games, then why foist
this arbitrary ruling (and any associated future code change) on 4th Age
games?

It's not only that it unbalances 1650 - it unbalances all games. Any team
that can organise a transfer gold to one nation can make the market go
extreme. I find that this makes the game un-balanced, not only in terms of
DS 1650 (which I grant is the biggest concern) but rather that removes
almost entirely the need for an economic aspect of the game. Turns it into
a monty-haul game.

4th Age most definitely does NOT favor one side or the other
economically. At least it doesn't inherently do so, though it could wind up
that way from one game to the next, depending on how everyone has built
their nations.

Yes - so some nations with say hire army at no cost would effectively lose
their SNA "advantage".

2. Would the proposed code change regarding the 200k treasury ceiling be a
hard limit on actual gold in the treasury, or just on how much gold would
affect the market? I sincerely hope it is NOT the former.

I'm not sure yet. That's open for debate. I checked through a bunch of
turns to get a feel for it and I think this limit would hardly impact on
the game at all (game 118 the exception of course).

Clint

···

---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.

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

#75

Ah but the game is 50/50 then. That's the present balance of the game - is it bad - I don't think so. Reason being that i) DS can do something about it, ii) the game is even chance of winning. To remove that crash would mean to remove an advantage the DS have then (1650 games).

Clint

···

At 23:13 11/12/06, you wrote:

The reverse of this extreme is when they crash the market and I spend my nation orders every turn selling everything just to stay afloat. That seems more or at least just as unbalancing.

ME Games Ltd <<mailto:me%40MiddleEarthGames.com>me@MiddleEarthGames.com> wrote:
>I haven't heard anything but vague conjecture as proof that it does.

Check out my tests - what more proof would you like?

>1. If high market prices are only unbalancing in 1650 games, then why foist
>this arbitrary ruling (and any associated future code change) on 4th Age
>games?

It's not only that it unbalances 1650 - it unbalances all games. Any team
that can organise a transfer gold to one nation can make the market go
extreme. I find that this makes the game un-balanced, not only in terms of
DS 1650 (which I grant is the biggest concern) but rather that removes
almost entirely the need for an economic aspect of the game. Turns it into
a monty-haul game.

>4th Age most definitely does NOT favor one side or the other
>economically. At least it doesn't inherently do so, though it could wind up
>that way from one game to the next, depending on how everyone has built
>their nations.

Yes - so some nations with say hire army at no cost would effectively lose
their SNA "advantage".

>2. Would the proposed code change regarding the 200k treasury ceiling be a
>hard limit on actual gold in the treasury, or just on how much gold would
>affect the market? I sincerely hope it is NOT the former.

I'm not sure yet. That's open for debate. I checked through a bunch of
turns to get a feel for it and I think this limit would hardly impact on
the game at all (game 118 the exception of course).

Clint

---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date: 09/12/06

****************************************************************
                 ME Games Ltd
         me@middleearthgames.com
         www.middleearthgames.com

UK: 340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
         Tel 029 2091 3359 12-6.30 Weekdays
         Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours

US: 73 Edgewood Terrace, South Bound Brook, NJ 08880
         Tel (732) 642 8777 EST
         Fax 503 296 2325 (comes straight to us)
****************************************************************