One Banker nation

[ME Games Ltd]

One banker Nation explored

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.

Test 1) No orders - 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 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).

I propose that we ban the One Banker Nation strategy. There is no effective counter that an opposing team can employ to deal with it.

For now we'll do that by hand :

"You may not send gold with the intention of bumping up the Market prices"

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).

If this hand moderated rule is broadly popular, I'll 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.

Please discuss and give me your feedback.

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

As from Monday 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.

Clint (GM)



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

[DrakaraGM@...]

Hey Clint --

I presume that a player that has his nation mostly sit on its gold -- i.e. the team doesn't ship him gold, he just tends to like a high reserve, so he doesn't raise as many troops or spend as much gold as many players, and as a result market prices do tend to be higher but not skyrocketed per se, is still fine?

I have had players like that in some of my games -- and can remember being simultaneously appreciative of the fact that prices are high (when I sell stuff) and annoyed that the player doesn't otherwise seem to be doing as much to support the team overall...

In 4th Age which is what I mostly play it is less of a problem anyway as all nations of all allegiances are pretty balanced at this point, so you don't have the same situation at least at the start where one allegiance has a significantly stronger economy.

Anyway, nice to confirm that a single nation with huge reserves does indeed skew the market. We always thought that was the case, just not sure how much so as opposed to other market forces. Thanks for running these tests!

-- Ernie III


-----Original Message-----
From: me@...
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] One Banker nation


One banker Nation explored

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.

Test 1) No orders - 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 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).

I propose that we ban the One Banker Nation strategy. There is no effective counter that an opposing team can employ to deal with it.

For now we'll do that by hand :

"You may not send gold with the intention of bumping up the Market prices"

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).

If this hand moderated rule is broadly popular, I'll 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.

Please discuss and give me your feedback.

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

As from Monday 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.

Clint (GM)

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

[Charles Crooks@...]

I have a few comments.

1). Is it really a good idea to change rules in the middle of the game?

2). How do you know there's no counter? Have you tried selling only one item, or having the Goods run a banker nation, or having the Goods sell everything?

3). Each side has advantages. In general, the Frees have greater militaries, the Evils have agents. In order to utilize their advantage, the Evils have to do a better job of coordinating; hence, equal play by both sides gives the Goods an inherent advantage. The One Banker Nation (OBN) strategy would seem to merely even the playing field. Would you deny the Goods their advantage by permitting only a certain number of troops over bridges? Or by allowing the Cloud Lord only a certain number of Agents?

4). I REALLY DO NOT like the "hand-moderated" solution that you've proposed. I don't understand how you intend to determine when someone intends to bump up market prices by sending someone Gold.

4). It's not clear what you intend to do when you've guessed - er, determined - that one Nation has sent another Nation Gold with the intention of bumping up market prices. It's also not clear what you intend to do when an individual attempts to break this rule repeatedly.

6). I percieve that, in Gunboat games, there's an inherent advantage to the Goods, in that the Evils can't communicate in order to send Agents where they're most needed. I percieve that this is a far greater problem than the ONB problem. Because of this inherent disadvantage on the part of the Evils, I don't participate in gunboat games. What do you intend to do about this problem?

In summation, it seems that ME Games has rushed to amend a situation that may or may not be a problem, (probably) based on a complaint by a few players on a Goods team who blamed or are blaming their defeat on legitimate strategies employed by their opponents, when there are other, more pressing, problems to be solved. ME Games' solution to the problem is poorly defined, poorly researched, poorly thought out, and may well create more problems than it solves, in the long run.
----- Original Message -----
From: ME Games Ltd
To: mepbmlist
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:03 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] One Banker nation


One banker Nation explored

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.

Test 1) No orders - 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 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).

I propose that we ban the One Banker Nation strategy. There is no effective counter that an opposing team can employ to deal with it.

For now we'll do that by hand :

"You may not send gold with the intention of bumping up the Market prices"

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).

If this hand moderated rule is broadly popular, I'll 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.

Please discuss and give me your feedback.

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

As from Monday 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.

Clint (GM)

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





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

[ME Games Ltd]

Hya guys To save answering the questions multiples times and potentially
confusing the issue can you check out the forum - I've answered the
questions there

http://www.mepbm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1855

for ease of reference as these exact questions came up. For the bits I
haven't replied to there: I'm pretty convinced (ie you'd be hard pressed to
prove otherwise) that the same situation wouldn't develop in the same way
each time the OBN (One Banker nation) strategy was employed. I'm pretty
experienced in doing research (I've done a fair bit in my time and my
background is both in Maths (Double Maths and Physicsat college and
Astrophysics at University) and other players seem to back up my figures
(that's why it came up!) I thought of around 3 other iterations I could
have applied but it was clear straight away and confirmed by others.

Note GSI was the moderator and owner before.

Clint

At 19:35 07/12/06, you wrote:

>I know I'm not even active in MEPBM right now, BUT ...
>
>Learning to use and taking advantage of the market is a key factor of the
>game. You could just as easily argue "the CL has an unfair advantage in
>K/A, so will be 'easily to moderately' monitored in his use of the 615/620
>order, and results will be changed by hand where we feel it has been used to
>an excessive degree."
>
>On a more specific note, how do you know there's no counter to the "Banker
>Nation" strategy? Before you implement a significant change to the rules
>based on some (non-DS playing perhaps?) people's lack of knowledge, lack of
>effort to countermand, or just plain incomplete research (no offense - I'm
>sure you've done as good a job as time allows, but, for instance, how many
>times did you try each scenario - at least 30, I assume, so we know there's
>no statistical variation in results?), I strongly urge you to reconsider.
>
>I'm also troubled by the "by hand" enforcement suggested. This seems to be
>the type of thing that people were worried about when English-language
>moderation was consolidated, then that same consolidator became the program
>owner as well. I'm not crying "fascist" - but others might, and I wouldn't
>entirely blame them.
>
>$2.00
>
>b

[ME Games Ltd]

>I presume that a player that has his nation mostly sit on its gold -- i.e.
>the team doesn't ship him gold, he just tends to like a high reserve, so
>he doesn't raise as many troops or spend as much gold as many players, and
>as a result market prices do tend to be higher but not skyrocketed per se,
>is still fine?

Check out the forum - he can do both IMO (from the FTF experience).

>In 4th Age which is what I mostly play it is less of a problem anyway as
>all nations of all allegiances are pretty balanced at this point, so you
>don't have the same situation at least at the start where one allegiance
>has a significantly stronger economy.

I agree it has least impact on the 1000 environment from a differential in
economy perspective but it does impact on the game.

>Anyway, nice to confirm that a single nation with huge reserves does
>indeed skew the market. We always thought that was the case, just not sure
>how much so as opposed to other market forces. Thanks for running these tests!

You're welcome.

Clint


>-- Ernie III
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <mailto:me%40MiddleEarthGames.com>me@...
>To: <mailto:mepbmlist%40yahoogroups.com>mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Sent: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:03 PM
>Subject: [mepbmlist] One Banker nation
>
>One banker Nation explored
>
>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.
>
>Test 1) No orders - 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 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).
>
>I propose that we ban the One Banker Nation strategy. There is no
>effective counter that an opposing team can employ to deal with it.
>
>For now we'll do that by hand :
>
>"You may not send gold with the intention of bumping up the Market prices"
>
>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).
>
>If this hand moderated rule is broadly popular, I'll 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.
>
>Please discuss and give me your feedback.
>
>** Thanks to everyone for bringing this to my attention; it is very, very
>much appreciated. **
>
>As from Monday 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.
>
>Clint (GM)
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[ME Games Ltd]

Note I do understand that I'm not going to make everyone happy here but
I'll try to do what I always try to do and that is fun a fair game for
everyone. If you see I've made an error please get back to me.

Clint (GM)

[ME Games Ltd]

>1). Is it really a good idea to change rules in the middle of the game?

No - that's why we're not penalising nations that have already done it.

>2). How do you know there's no counter? Have you tried selling only one
>item, or having the Goods run a banker nation, or having the Goods sell
>everything?

I 99% sure there's not one. Yes, yes and yes. Selling product would only
increase the prices more, further inflating the market. To counter it you
need to some how bring prices down - see my message about how I think
that's not feasible.

http://www.mepbm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1855

>3). Each side has advantages. In general, the Frees have greater
>militaries, the Evils have agents. In order to utilize their advantage,
>the Evils have to do a better job of coordinating; hence, equal play by
>both sides gives the Goods an inherent advantage. The One Banker Nation
>(OBN) strategy would seem to merely even the playing field.

At present the game is very even - ie both sides win 50/50 (as checked out
when I did a study on this for DS to FP win ratios see below for exact
figures). As a player I think that FP need to co-ordinate more effectively
than DS to win but that's by the by. This OBN would massively swing it in
favour of the FP (and has IMO already won at least 2 games for the DS). As
DS you can certainly compete financially, buy-outs, two Emi Artefacts
etc. This makes it a no-contest.

>Would you deny the Goods their advantage by permitting only a certain
>number of troops over bridges?

If there was shown to be something broken about the game I would certainly
consider it yes. In this case there doesn't seem to be anything broken
about such (DS have dragons to reduce the impact of the FP superiority in
armies for example, better characters over-all, and better access to
reduction of the FP armies via Agents, Curse etc).

>Or by allowing the Cloud Lord only a certain number of Agents?

If that was similarly broken - it doesn't appear to - although I have had a
lot of complaints about agent power I don't perceive any problem - I even
wrote an article in Bree about how to deal with Agents! Note in 1000 games
we did do that though. The game, as agreed by the majority of the players,
has been improved because of this and similar changes to the set-up routine.

>4). I REALLY DO NOT like the "hand-moderated" solution that you've
>proposed. I don't understand how you intend to determine when someone
>intends to bump up market prices by sending someone Gold.

Possibly I need to re-phrase it. How about - if the team send gold to a
nation (or nations) such that the market increase beyond a certain level
that the opposition feel that they must complain then we'll investigate
it. If your intention as a player is to increase the market by sending
gold that's not allowed. If you're doing it solely to support an ailing
nation that's fine. If you can see a better way to write it that would be
useful. I'm not a lawyer and generally intent is good enough for me but I
understand that others might want something more concrete.

>4). It's not clear what you intend to do when you've guessed - er,
>determined - that one Nation has sent another Nation Gold with the
>intention of bumping up market prices. It's also not clear what you intend
>to do when an individual attempts to break this rule repeatedly.

Like in GB we generally just remove the bonus. We would remove the gold
sent. Say turn 1 LR sends gold to the Fire King, turn 2 the CL does and I
check that the market has increased dramatically and that the FK had 40k
with deficit of say 10k - ie there was no need for the CL to send
money. Ie something's fishy... :-) I've had a lot of experience running
games and can usually get a good feel for when something is up.

I could put a hard limit on how much gold a nation can have - that would be
a solution but removing the code that relates OBN to market prices is the
clearly the way forward to stop this abuse.

>6). I percieve that, in Gunboat games, there's an inherent advantage to
>the Goods, in that the Evils can't communicate in order to send Agents
>where they're most needed.

There is no such advantage - GB games Part of your point here seems to be
that you feel DS need an advantage (I see that you presently only play DS
and I wonder if that impacts on your thoughts here). 2950 normal games DS
win 63% of the normal games (57% of the Grudge games and 83% of the GB
games). For 1650 it's 51% in favour of the DS for normal games, 54% of
the Grudge and 52% of the GB games. Ie the DS need no help.

>I percieve that this is a far greater problem than the ONB problem.
>Because of this inherent disadvantage on the part of the Evils, I don't
>participate in gunboat games. What do you intend to do about this problem?

Check my data above and get back to me please. IMO the better players like
to play the DS due to the perceived interest in the character development
and game. Ie if anything the DS get an advantage that way.

>In summation, it seems that ME Games has rushed to amend a situation that
>may or may not be a problem, (probably) based on a complaint by a few
>players on a Goods team who blamed or are blaming their defeat on
>legitimate strategies employed by their opponents, when there are other,
>more pressing, problems to be solved.

Um not so I'm afraid. Check out the hundred of so posts about this on the
forum. I was very much a proponent of not changing it - I didn't believe
that there was enough evidence to back up the claims of some of the
players. I've now check that data out thoroughly, checked with the game
designed, had others check my data and ask them to tell me what they
inferred without prompting from me, etc and changed my mind. Note that
very clearly please. I'm not prone to making snap decisions, or pandering
to the vocal minority either, each thing I do is from a considered point of
view in all cases.

> ME Games' solution to the problem is poorly defined, poorly researched,
> poorly thought out, and may well create more problems than it solves, in
> the long run.

Um, I don't agree. I think I have many facts to back up my
interpretation. I might not have enough facts, I might be misunderstanding
them, but I put forward the "experiment" that I did, based on requests by
players. I certainly may have missed something so please point that out
for me if you can as that would be a great help. I'm pretty convinced now
that gold sent to a nation impacts on the prices of the market in a manner
that was i) not designed into the game [Check out
http://www.mepbm.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1855 for more details please]
and detrimental to the fun, enjoy and strategic play of the game. It's
going to be some work for us to moderate it (when we can come to a rough
understanding then I'll look at code implementation).

Feel free to get back to me. I hope that helps give some background to why
I've put forward what I perceive to be a problem and what I perceive to be
the solution. (Note it's not just me if that's an issue to some players).

Clint
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ME Games Ltd
>To: mepbmlist
>Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:03 AM
>Subject: [mepbmlist] One Banker nation
>
>One banker Nation explored
>
>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.
>
>Test 1) No orders - 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 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).
>
>I propose that we ban the One Banker Nation strategy. There is no
>effective counter that an opposing team can employ to deal with it.
>
>For now we'll do that by hand :
>
>"You may not send gold with the intention of bumping up the Market prices"
>
>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).
>
>If this hand moderated rule is broadly popular, I'll 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.
>
>Please discuss and give me your feedback.
>
>** Thanks to everyone for bringing this to my attention; it is very, very
>much appreciated. **
>
>As from Monday 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.
>
>Clint (GM)
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>[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: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 07/12/06
************************************************** **************
ME Games Ltd
me@...
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)
************************************************** **************

[ME Games Ltd]

Wouldn't you then be able to use the gold to finance your troops, etc?

I think the market prices need to be fixed for the reasons I gave.

Clint

At 02:26 08/12/06, you wrote:

>I'm not sure I like the proposal to adjust the program code to "fix" this
>"problem". While I haven't yet been in a game where everyone sent their gold
>to one nation to do this, I have been in a few where I've built my own
>nation's economy from the ground up, and aquired a treasury of 100k-200k on
>my own (around turn 10-15) in order to raise the market prices. (For those
>who are curious, I still recruit and send out large numbers of troops as
>well to support the team, as well as sending out gold to those who need it.)
>
>If the code is changed to decouple the market prices from the max treasury
>size, this strategy wouldn't work anymore. Since I've never sent nor
>received gold in order to raise market prices, you'd be eliminating a valid
>strategy to deal with large deficits.
>
>Mike Mulka
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 07/12/06
************************************************** **************
ME Games Ltd
me@...
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)
************************************************** **************

[ME Games Ltd]

Note high gold in the market will still influence the prices. I think I
showed that in my tests (and my estimate of what impact it would have).

Clint

>I'm not sure I like the proposal to adjust the program code to "fix" this
>"problem". While I haven't yet been in a game where everyone sent their gold
>to one nation to do this, I have been in a few where I've built my own
>nation's economy from the ground up, and aquired a treasury of 100k-200k on
>my own (around turn 10-15) in order to raise the market prices. (For those
>who are curious, I still recruit and send out large numbers of troops as
>well to support the team, as well as sending out gold to those who need it.)
>
>If the code is changed to decouple the market prices from the max treasury
>size, this strategy wouldn't work anymore. Since I've never sent nor
>received gold in order to raise market prices, you'd be eliminating a valid
>strategy to deal with large deficits.
>
>Mike Mulka
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.14/578 - Release Date: 07/12/06
************************************************** **************
ME Games Ltd
me@...
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)
************************************************** **************

[ME Games Ltd]

As to bringing the ruling in mid-game because it's a bug in the program,
(ie something that was programmed that has an unexpected, and unwanted,
side effect), then I feel it's warranted. For now that's a hand-moderated
fix (fixing future offences, but not dealing with OBN at present if it's
already occurred - ie the nations will gain a benefit for the market), when
I've worked out exactly how to fix it for all games I'll sort that out.

Ideally I'd like the teams that have the gold to send it out to their
team-mates but I'm not ruling that you should do that. (The bug is still
there) It's seems a fair compromise.

As for nations getting gold up themselves, I think that's fine at present.
We'll remove the link with OBN and the market (I suspect - or reduce it's
impact) but keep the gold in market reflected in prices etc. That seems
both the way the market is supposed to work, fits within the game framework
and should make for a competitive game. I can see how that can be
tactically done in games. So it will have a lower impact I can forsee as
OBN won't be strongly linked to gold prices on the market but overall gold
in the market will impact.

I'll look at getting an example of the changes to the code that I'd like to
implement (run some tests so that you can see the impact with various
tactics and garner feedback). That will take a little time.

I've seen the bug where you could use Companies and 870 to get effectively
24 hexes. When the fix occurred it just was implemented and we had
complaints. Basically if you're using a bug (and I'm classifying this as
one for the above reasons) then beware. I'm no critisicising anyone who has
used it btw - I just think the impact is too strong in the game for the
loss (IMO no loss as you make your money back the very next turn and end up
with 200k+ gold in one nation and high natsell prices for the rest of the
game) incurred.

Note as an aside, Sam's laughing at me (Legends has just had 17 bug fixes!)
the beauty of an old program, assiduous players and the like...

Clint (GM)

[ME Games Ltd]

>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

[ME Games Ltd]

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)

[ME Games Ltd]

Yes as well - but we want to fix it.

Clint

At 08:43 08/12/06, you wrote:

>Clint et al
>
>Would it not be possible to introduce a voluntary
>moratorium on the tactic ? Make it part of the initial
>pre-game negotiation.
>
>Cheers
>Stuart
>
>--- ME Games Ltd
><<mailto:me%40MiddleEarthGames.com>me@...> wrote:
>
> > One banker Nation explored
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Test 1) No orders - 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 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).
> >
> > I propose that we ban the One Banker Nation
> > strategy. There is no effective counter that an
> > opposing team can employ to deal with it.
> >
> > For now we'll do that by hand :
> >
> > "You may not send gold with the intention of
> > bumping up the Market prices"
> >
> > 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
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>

[Charles Crooks@...]

But I'm SO good at ridicule...
----- Original Message -----
From: ME Games Ltd
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) 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]

[ME Games Ltd]

>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

[ME Games Ltd]

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.

[ME Games Ltd]

>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

[ME Games Ltd]

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.

[ME Games Ltd]

>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?

Why would you want to do that? You brought up the bug in the first
place... :-) Why would you want to waste our time deliberately?!

> Are you going to take LR's gold away from him? Penalize my innocent Banker
>"ally"? Bankrupt the LR nation as "punishment"..?

I've described the action we'll take.

>Or, are you going to penalize ME. Brad Brunet.
>Instead of the Long Rider in game 51.

Consistent offences will incur greater penalty. If a player (such as in GB
games) continues to offend we will take action appropriately.

Clint

[ME Games Ltd]

>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.

If that was a game breaker then we'd act. In our house rules we reserve
the right to do this - so you have actually already signed up to this
ruling. Say it was realised that if you named your character Clint
Oldridge you gained 100k gold for no loss. You'd want us to take action
straight away right? This is an aspect of that situation. Do 1 948 order
for each nation gain 100k gold per turn for you and your allies. If you
don't think that's out of order in the game then I don't know what you'd
think would be....

We've interfered in games (and I realise this is interference - but note we
very, very, very rarely do it - so the fact that we are doing it implies
that it is very broken).

Anyone actually agree with me out there btw? :-) It would be good to know
what players feel here.

Clint

[Tara Silva]

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. Because then of course we know why they are protesting, perhaps if you did do the limited bridge crossing one player proposed most of the protesters would be people who tend to be free people players. I am just curious. Brad just so you know I am not picking on you I just recognize your name the most out of the protesters.

Serra

----- Original Message -----
From: ME Games Ltd
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] One Banker nation - update ruling



>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.

If that was a game breaker then we'd act. In our house rules we reserve
the right to do this - so you have actually already signed up to this
ruling. Say it was realised that if you named your character Clint
Oldridge you gained 100k gold for no loss. You'd want us to take action
straight away right? This is an aspect of that situation. Do 1 948 order
for each nation gain 100k gold per turn for you and your allies. If you
don't think that's out of order in the game then I don't know what you'd
think would be....

We've interfered in games (and I realise this is interference - but note we
very, very, very rarely do it - so the fact that we are doing it implies
that it is very broken).

Anyone actually agree with me out there btw? :-) It would be good to know
what players feel here.

Clint





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

[ME Games Ltd]

>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.

As you asked. Most are playing DS with OBN strategy in play for their
sides. Where they are playing FP the DS are not using OBN.

Clint

[Mele]

Hope your defecit ain't 80,001

----- Original Message -----
From: ME Games Ltd
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:56 PM
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]

[ME Games Ltd]

>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

[ME Games Ltd]

Whose is going to be? If that's the case then we do allow exceptions.
:-) Biggest I got mine to was around 35k. Can you show me an example
where this has occurred?

Clint

>Hope your defecit ain't 80,001
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ME Games Ltd
>To: <mailto:mepbmlist%40yahoogroups.com>mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
>Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:56 PM
>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]
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/580 - Release Date: 08/12/06
************************************************** **************
ME Games Ltd
me@...
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)
************************************************** **************

[ME Games Ltd]

Brad you want a perfect solution. The only solution that will fit that
criteria is one is done with code fix. Nothing else wil. The hard limit
I've put forward will fix it in most of the situations but there are
loopholes in even that. (Ie even 80k gold will affect the market price as a
OBN).

As to defining terms, feel free to call it what you want. A Grudge game
is technically not the correct name for such a format, should I spend
several hours to find a better name?! We're not, as someone pointed out,
the US Penal system with a thousand pages of laws etc. We''ll check the
markets where players complain and by ourselves and if we've found that
gold has been sent in the manner I've described then we'll take the action
described. OBN is fine - One Banker Nation.

There are ways around it - I've attempted to show them and stop
them. However, it doesn't seem appropriate to take gold away from one
nation that has earned it itself but will slowly impact on the market over
the game - rather than the immediate impact that a team sending gold to one
nation will have - ie there's a big difference both in intent and impact
here for a, say, Neutral building up its gold reserves and a team sending
gold. The code change will reduce the impact that such will have on the
game and, in the case of a Neutral, you will be able to interact with that
from both teams. I agree with you that DS are the primary beneficiaries of
this bug.

All I have had are complaints from you. I've asked you for real world
examples as you complained that 80k was not accurate, but you've not given
me such an example, (whereas I have done so).

Why am I calling it a Bug? Because it was something that was put into the
program - it was 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.

Lars brings up an interesting point. I like that maybe we can have a limit
on any nation having gold only upto 200k by its own efforts (ie natselling
and tax changes). That will reduce the impact on the game for Neutrals that
are in the game. Thoughts welcome. (Note until we code change it we can't
encode it).

Clint

Clint

>To start, Clint et al (Tara brought up "screaming
>DS"...) I'm not "complaining". I'm insisting things
>get done properly. Reactionary and arbitrary are not
>proper. So Clint, I'm simply pushing you to be as
>complete as possible. You can't do anything to
>"please" me, because I'm already quite content,
>thanks.
>
>First off, it's not a One Banker Nation that 1) we're
>talking about and 2) you want to change the code to
>prevent.
>
>Harad working by himself can have over 300,000 gold
>before turn 10 easily enough to be a "One Banker
>Nation" who greatly impacts the market. So both find
>a new name for this allegiance gold transfer ploy AND
>ensure any "code" changes impact the gold transfers,
>NOT the behaviour of the market due to a Single
>treasury having lots of gold.
>
>Brad
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/580 - Release Date: 08/12/06
************************************************** **************
ME Games Ltd
me@...
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)
************************************************** **************

[ME Games Ltd]

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)

[ME Games Ltd]

Happy to listen to reasoned argument and suggestions on clarification. For
example, I looked into your request earlier about the OBN at your request I
believe. If I switched off every time someone went a bit "loud" then we'd
be out of business a long time ago... ;-)

Clint

>Not true. But I've obviously coloured your glasses.
>"Oh, Brad again, he's going to complain and whine."
>Therefore, no matter what words I use, no matter how
>many different ways I try to explain my intent, all
>you see is "Complain". I don't even think you read my
>words, you already know what they are. Good enough
>then, no more "complaints" from me.

[Tara Silva]

Does this include games already being played?

Serra
----- Original Message -----
From: ME Games Ltd
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) 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]

[Tara Silva]

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 (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) 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]

[ME Games Ltd]

Yes

>Does this include games already being played?
>
>Serra
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ME Games Ltd
>To: <mailto:mepbmlist%40yahoogroups.com>mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) 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@...
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)
************************************************** **************

[ME Games Ltd]

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