A new encounter is only new till the first person solves it, then the info is posted here and that encounter will then be known by all. That’s a lot of work to keep new riddles comming in.
Unless of course the player doesn’t tell anyone to “Keep it safe, keep it secret.” and we get the situation where certain people will have a store of secret knowledge that will allow them to be far superior to all others playing. That is the very thing that the players who want a level playing field are trying to avoid.
To use the Chess analogy again, what dshimel is expecting is for someone who has just played their third game of chess to be able to play against a Grand Master and expect to win. It isn’t going to happen, you are going to get crushed. The same thing applies in MEPBM the Grand old Masters ED, Brad, Mike, Staggs etc will crush newbies like bugs, it’s not that they somehow have devised formulas or gained some sort of secret advantaged, they have just refined their games over time to the razor sharp edge that it is today. The advantage we have in this game is that Newbies (like me) have 9 other players (11 in a grudge) to give advice and pass on this experience to make them better players. Most of the information gained by these guys has been passed on over the years in articles and snippets posted here. From what I’ve seen most of the people posting don’t want the formula made general knowledge. This is not because they are trying to protect some secret advantage, it’s because they see it will be to the great detriment of the game as a whole.
Hi,
Sorry Christian it dosn’t, you asked for the codes to be released so we all could see how it works mayby I’m stubborn but in my mind thats is not moving the mystery/fog of war to the game world as then we all know what will happen.
Your side of the table have pointed out because the newbies are so far behind if they are facing a vet, yes I agree with you here but releasing the code wouldn’t help as newbies will still make errors.
Just take a game I’m in there is a newbi who would like to name a emmy with a commander very simple order if you look in the book this emmy came out with only 10 insted of 30. This will never happen to a vet. and it’s not because he/her knows somethink hidden he/her have just been in the circus for some time.
Just taking Hermans chees analog into ME (I agree with you Herman).
One last thing if the CODE are released then I’ll drop playing ME thats for sure. Hope you’ll keep it hidden Clint for I like the game as it is.
I am sorry to say so and please escuse me, but knowing how this games works doesnt make you to a Kasparov. In chess the better player win because he is better. Not because he knows hidden secrets about how the game really works. There are no secrets in chess.
Amen guys. There is no ‘magic’ in this game. In the end it is human relations skill, good judgement, timing and an ability to handle your personal finances which separate the ‘good’ players fom the alsorans. Go ahead and dumb it down and try to retain a greater percentage of new paying customers, but in the final analysis only the aforementioned will be ‘good’. Something the egos of many will not accept. It is the fog-of-war that separates the ‘great’ from the ‘good’.
Hi,
Is there secrets in ME!!!.
Why do you think Kasparov where so good to chees
couldn’t it not be because he played a lot and tried different moves and saw how that works and remembered it.
HI again.
Ben, you clearly understand that publication of formulae (whether its the actual CODE or not isn’t the issue) would remove mystery. We are on the same page so far. But from WHERE should or shouldn’t that mystery be removed?–that is the point of contention. Are we arguing to remove it from the Game World or from the Game Rules? If you answer “Game Rules” then you understand us. We WANT the mystery removed from the rules, but want also to have mystery restored to the Game World–they are entirely different spheres.
Ben, you went on to object that such a publication would be useless because newbies would still make errors and poor judgements. I agree that newbies would still do these things but that doesn’t mean the availability of more specific info is useless. I did not start this thread with the hope of making newbies as good as the vets. That never was my intent nor do I think was it the inent of anyone else here–we do NOT want an Orwellian Hell. There are other reasons why I want more specific info on game mechanics. I will repeat these below (as above, so below).
Partially randomizing the encounters easily fixes the problem of posting results…except in the case of riddles, as you mentioned. Work on new encounters and new riddles can be parsed out to players. these are only two of many many ways that a fog-of-war can be reintoduced to the Game World. Personally, I 'm not sure players should post riddle answers here. What fun is a riddle if the answer is given?
There isn’t much Secret Knowledge w/ regard to the Game World, but there is a fair amount with reagrd to game rules. We want secrets of the rules revealed, and secrets of the the Game World veiled (i.e. customized/randomized). No one would then have any advantage as a result of secret knowledge regarding rules.
Herman I agree with all of the above, except that I don’t think dshimel, and certainly not myself, expect a team of newbies or novices to be able to take on a team of Grand Masters even if everyuone on the newbie team is a rules lawyer. No one is trying to make new players as good as the old players. No one is arguing to make anyone equal to anyone. As Ed states above, and I agree, it is not access to magic formulae that makes you a good player. Equal access to info. is not going to make all players equal.
Benny J made the above point when he said that experienced players will put such info to good use and improve their own play, and I agree. In fact this is partly why I started this thread. I want this game to be raised to a higher level, smartened up, not dumbed down. Let me restate the example I gave very early in this thread to illustrate my point…Brian Mason’s work on the ImpPop order has enhanced the game, ie, smartened the game up, by opening up strategic possibilities that good players, regardless of experience, will take advantage of SO LONG AS THEY ARE AWARE OF THE FORMULA. By anology, equal access to such game info in MEPBM is similar to how chess players all have equal access to the rule about Castling. Castling opens up strategic possibilities, just as knowing the rules about the ImpPop order opens strategic posssibilities.
Now, it is true that more experienced players know better when and how to Castle, and less experienced players will fumble. Knowing the rules about Castling does not make all players equal. The same holds true in MEPBM. But no one in his right mind would argue that the rule about Castling should be left very vague and mysterious in the rules–to be learned by experience or by asking a more experienced player. Yet many believe, at least ostensibly, that MEPBM rules should be vague?
Why? Because they want the opportunity to discover the rules by asking other players or by fumbling around; or they are afraid that the excitement of the game will be lost if the rules are all laid out; or they afraid that the social aspect of the game will degrade; or they are afraid that the game itself will degrade from strategy to number crunching; or they are afraid that the fog-of-war will further erode, to name a few objections. All of these objections have been met I believe but perhaps they are worth revisting since many are still inconvinced.
Ed, I believe we agree on all the above points. Where we SEEM to differ is that you want the fog-of-war in the rulebook, I want in the game world.
Should there be a foggy haze around the rules/game mechanics? The proposition is highly questionable.
It implies (if we take your statement above at face value) that old players cannot rise to greatness because they are not in the fog. So the game has been “dumbed down” for them because they need not make command decisions with the same degree of inadequate information? I do hope you answer this one.
If you want fog in the rules then you should be advocating RANDOMIZATION OF THE RULES…no? I’m sure I’m not the only one who hates the idea but do you see my point?–then all players would be in a fog. If you really want fog in the rules then why answer questions on the board and clear up rules confusions for others? Like other experienced players you help to defog the vague rules and I am grateful for that. From my piont of view, if the old-timers were self-consistent on this issue they would be asking for the same thing I am since they work at it all the time–constantly advising their teammates and fellow players of what the secrets to the MEPBM rules are.
How can you calculate the exact chance of either when both have a ramdom factor involved? The whole point about not seeing the exact code is that there is a random factor in them, therefore there is no acurate prediction able to be known beforehand, therefore there is no point of knowing the equations.
There are no secrets to the rules. Hard orders are hard and if you try them with anything less than a 70 expect to have most of them to fail, 70-90 expect problems fairly regularly 100+ the odd failure.
The good guys are good because they have played lots, that’s it, no other reason. All the “Secret” information you seem desperate to have is already out there in Bree articles or posted on the Forum. I agree a source book putting all this gleaned knowledge together would be a great thing, especially for new players but cannot see any reason for any formulas being posted. At most some of the wording of the rules could be cleaned up.
If these are your only guidelines, you’re behind the power curve–you might benefit from knowing something about these formulae.
The rules WERE deliberately made vague (as Ed pointed out before), for a world without email. When certain HARD orders are about as difficult as certain EASY orders, that’s pretty darn vague. A mage casting two spells “may” be injured. Hard to be more vague than that. Before email, before all the massive player communication about the details of this game, these vague rules encouraged players to experiment and they were rewarded for experimenting by learning something that no one else knew. With all the shared info this isn’t true any more. Why find out the hard way if you will die from casting two hard spells when you can ask a veteran player? This justification for vagueness is gone.
I am not desperate to find out what the secrets are. I have read the material you are refering to and all the articles on the net. I/we have stated that making the game mechanics available to all will improve the game–I am not whining that I don’t know the secrets.
Isn’t the die roll the random factor? or are you talking about a SECRET random factor (the critical success/failure maybe)? Why can’t i look up on the table at Bobbins what the percentage chance of winning a challenge is?
I always know if I win/lose a military battle before hand (don’t you?) if I have done the requisite intel gathering–and I almost never number crunch. I use the combat calculator only once in blue moon like when pop center combat is so close that I’m unsure whether to issue a destroy or capture order without doing some calculating beforehand (isn’t this how everyone plays?).
There is no point to knowing what your chances are? Huh? So casting proficiency percentages are pointless because of some random factor–I may as well cast that 48% combat spell instead of the 89% spell? It’s pointless to know my challenge to that Warlord with my Hero is ALMOST surley doomed because of a random factor? Surely I misunderstood you.
Christian,
So what is it you want to know? For example do you want to know what hard agent orders are easier than others? What hard emmissary orders are easier than others? Or that if a mage casts two hard spells he loses 80 health, or a hard and an average it is only 40 health lost? If so, a list can be made.
As for your question,
“Isn’t the die roll the random factor? or are you talking about a SECRET random factor (the critical success/failure maybe)?”
I take you way back when to MERPS. The ‘die roll’ is on a d100 and DOES have critical sucesses and critical failures. On a roll of 1-5 it is a FAILURE and another d100 roll is SUBTRACTED from the total. On a roll of 96- 100, it is a critical sucess and another d100 is rolled and ADDED to the chance. If another 96-100 is rolled it is added along with ANOTHER die roll. So it is possible to actually get three d100 rolls added to your chances. The critical success/ failure is not a hidden secret.
So for a challenge, if Veteran Sluggo has a challenge 19 and Conjurer Elrond has a challenge rank of 150 odds are verrry good that Sluggo will die. Do you need to know the EXACT ODDS he will die? They are impossible to figure out as what if he rolls two 96’s and then a 22 so he gets three d100 rolls while Elrond only rolled a 72. Odds are that that will not happen. So is a 95% chance of death good enough for you?
So because there is more knowledge out there about these old vague rules we should hand over even more information and make the game even less mysterious?
Because of the die roll, how can you give a calculated result when the whole combat relies on random numbers???
So you always know the command rating of the army commander, what arties he has on him, how many war buggies he has in tow, the exact number of each troop type and what armour and weapons they are carrying or if there is a dragon in tow. I know I don’t know if I’m going to win a battle unless I have previously fought the force and got a report on what it consists of or I have vastly superior numbers.
The % cast is one factor, how hard is the spell, what natural rating do you have, what arties do you have, casting the 48% spell may be effective with the right combination of factors.
As for being behind the “Power Curve” I’m a junior member of Grudge Team Aussie which has never been defeated (So far) and has played most of the best teams. Some of the most experienced players in the game are on that team and they don’t have any magic formula for working out outcomes, just good old common sense and a hell of a lot of experience.
If you have mages out casting combat spells I would suggest you are missapropriating resources.
I belewe this debate was ended and decided with Clints post so we are really wasting our time, but like you others I cant allways resist to answer.
Firstly, I belewe the old players or atleast most of them are good players not only as a result of knowledge. Otherwise they would probabbly not have continued to play. I guess they did better in their first games than the most other newbies.
The biggest difrent between chess and ME is that in ME we dont have all informations about what the other players are doing and there is also an element of random. I think we all agree that it should be like that.
In ME as in chess are players using their judgement and experience. Experience define strategicly “thumbrules”. This is needed because our minds are limited. We cant calculate everything that will happend 10 or 20 turns later.
In ME unlike chess there is also an element of knowledge. Like exactly what the chances are for a surten order to suceed. This knowledge can be gained from experience, but it is nevertheless knowledge. Or we can get from other players. I would have preferd if ME games had published more of this, but I still think the game is fun the way it is.
This thread is needs to take a dirt nap so this is my last post.
Scavenger,
As for the first question, yes, I’d like to know what the results of casting two spells are, along with everything else–i won’t make list though.
As for the second part, my questions to herman were rhetorical–Scavanger, you and I were both making the same point–that its good enough to know that you have a 95% chance of failure, and such info, if not EXACT, is not at all useless as Herman was apparently trying to argue (although in the example you described Elrond has better than 95% even with the critical factor).
As for the assertion that the critical success/failure is not a secret…anything omitted from the rulebook (and there’s LOTS, Herman) I regard as having some degree of “secrecy.”
EDIT CORRECTION: Critical success/failure is NOT omitted. oops.
Once upon a time there were reasons for secrets in the rulebook. But this game is VERY different than it was 12 years ago when i first walked middle earth in the rainment of Hoarmurath. Bill Fields admitted in a discussion with Walton, if I remember correctly, that he did not expect this game to take the turn it did due to massive player communication, and that the game design was somewhat subverted as a result.
The game has changed, it changed long ago. Change requires adaptation. Vagueness and ommission enhance the exploratory aspect, but hurt the strategic aspect. Precision in the rules will enhance the startegic aspect and hurt the exploratory aspect. But the game is now more strategic and less exploratory than it once was. We can change to adapt to present circumstances.
The change i have advocated would allow for us to have the best of both aspects of this game with precision in the rules (and this includes formulae for the orders which is what i have specifically asked for), and fog in the game world. We can have both mystery and strategy, it is not an either/or issue, it is an issue of WHERE each belongs.
But Herman, You select a VERY poor example of why the formulas should be kept secret. Personal Challenge is one of the few areas where the formula IS clearly laid out. From 1650 rules, page 56 section “Sample Personal Challenge Algorithm”. The rules are clearly laid out, and I’ll psuedo code them below.
While (Health1 > 0 and Health2 > 0)
Attack1 = Random (1-100) + Challenge rank of character 1
Attack2 = Random (1-100) + Challenge rank of character 2
if Attack1 > Attack 2
Health2 = Health2 - (Attack1 - Attack2)
else
Health1 = Health1 - (Attack2 - Attack1)
end while
There is RANDOMNESS. Knowing the formula does not let us know what is going to happen before the turn is run. Yet if we assume the random number generator to be “random enough”, we can calculate the odds.
The “Fog of War” is still there. You can never be 100% sure what your opponents challenge rank is. You can never be sure there isn’t a more powerful character there that will challenge and kill you before your challenge goes off.
The randomness is still there. The fog of war is still there. Revealing how Personal Challenge REALLY works simply levels the playing field and helps a newbie know when he should challenge and when he shouldn’t.
Now, expand this to other areas of the game.
Let’s pretend the formula for a pop stopping an assassination order is
Well, sending an A70 to do an assassination in an enemy city/citidel with near 100 loyalty would be a waste of time. 100 + 25 + 25 - 70 = 80% chance you’ll get stopped.
But, if the formula is really
% stopped = pop loyalty + fortification adjustment(5 per level = 0 none, 25 citedel) + relations (-25 friendly, -10 tolerated, +0, +10, +25) - 2 X agent rank
Well, now it is a whole new world… 100+25+25-2x70 = 10% chance you’ll get stopped.
From personal experience, I think neither of these is very close to the truth. I’ve played far more military and “support” nations than the flat out assassination nations, so have no idea what the real formula is.
But some people do play a lot of assassin nations, and the do have a pretty good idea what the odds of getting stopped are. They have an unfair advantage, not because they are better, but simply because experience has lifted the “fog of the rules” a bit.
Would publishing the REAL formula remove randomness? No. It would let you know the odds, but there would still be a random roll done.
Would publishing the real formula remove “fog of war”? No. You can’t know the exact loyalty of the pop when your order goes off, what his relations are toward you, if there are guards present, if there is an assassination that will kill you first, etc.
Now, let’s take the current, “fog of rules” concept and apply it to personal challenge.
Instead of laying out the formula, let’s pretend the rules simply stated:
Issue Personal Challenge
Misc, 210, IssPers,
Required Info: ID of character of different nation that is at the same location, not a hostage, not in command of an army/navy unless the character issuing the order is with/in command of an army.
Only one challenge may be fought by any character per turn. Can be refused. Chance of success is based upon the skill ranks of the characters involved. Mages and commanders are best suited for issuing this order.
Okay… In this alternate example, challenge ranks are left to “fog of the rules” for the players to discover during the course of play. We’re not given the formula for calculating challenge rank. We’re not told of critical success and failure. We’re not told how much results are effected by rank and how much is effected by the random factor. We don’t know that a M65 can beat an A80 more than 50% of the time. We don’t know that an A60/M40 is exaclty the same as an A70 for challenge purposes.
Is the game in the second example (“fog of rules” extended to personal challenge) that much more fun than what we have today?!?!?!?
If the answer is no, then how could lifting the “fog of the rules” from other orders, such as assassination, make the game that much less fun?
Should Clint and company totally rewrite challenge, and then leave the formulas for the new challenge a total secret, to restore “fog of rules”. Would this make the game way more fun? If not, then why should they not give us as much information on the other formulas as we currently have for personal challenge? I don’t see how it removes any of the fun of the game.
Quite the contrary. In my very first game I got lucky and fell into a game with the likes of Mark Jaede (with whom I still play most of my games). I’d played about a dozen games over a 10 year period before suffering my first loss. (Game 233 that just ended a couple weeks ago.)
I was the more complient of the two types of newbies… The type that turns his orders over to the more experienced players to dictate actions to him. Makes me a great team member, that has won a lot simply because I’ve been on good teams and done what the other team members have asked.
As a stand-alone player, I’m still a pretty poor player.
Thank you for stating that. You have a much better understanding…and apparently, ability for making such statements…than myself. Yes, I definitely agree that game mechanics and rules should be transparent, while the details should be mysterious. Well stated, and thanks.
and we get the situation where certain people will have a store of secret knowledge that will allow them to be far superior to all others playing. That is the very thing that the players who want a level playing field are trying to avoid. 
Surely I misunderstood you.