Auction for 2 Shares in Settler from The Asylum.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

The Asylum is building a Settler (so is Feudality but there won't be any tiles generated from it to auction) and has stated it will be founding a city NW, NW, NW, W of The Asylum.

You CAN go into debt bidding on one of the two shares from this Settler. Tile choice is assigned by highest bid. I am trying to get the bid prices from the city shares in The Asylum.

You are NOT bidding on tiles, you are bidding on a share and precedence on picking a tile.

[Tassadar500]

F1 and F2 are Feudalitys' settler.

[Aeson]

In general I have to say allowing going into debt (unlimited) on bidding is a bad idea. There should at least be an interest charge at work. I'd rather see loans and such handled by players using 'real' money (something our nation has produced, as opposed to an unlimited stack of cash that comes from nowhere).

[Aeson]

You said city shares could be appointed. How are bid prices supposed to be determined in that case? Where does the money go after?

Does the money just go back in the city funds pool or does it evaporate? I don't like the 'evaporate' option, as it's money from nothing... back to nothing again. It can't be money from nothing that then stays in the economy... otherwise someone bids $12 billion and everyone in the city gets a share of it back... buying up all spare tiles with the money, and gifting some of the tiles and remaining dollars back to the original bidder (all coordinated of course).

So it needs to be money from somewhere, which goes somewhere. Landholders in the city which created the Settler get the money from the city auction. Landholders from the empire which created the Settler (all of us) get the money from the Federal auciton. No "fake" money in the bidding... only what has already been produced.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

The reason players were allowed to bid into debt (on one thing and one thing only, once in debt they can't bid on anything until they get out of debt) was to prevent a few players with a lot of money shutting out all other players from getting any land.

As for where the money goes, I think a percentage should go to the central government and a percentage to the city that built the setller.

Say 50/50.

The city can auction off its settler shares to whoever it wishes or simply assign them if it wants. If it auctions them off (to everyone or to city citizens only) then 50% of the money from the winning bids would go to the central government and the city could do whatever it wanted with its half.

And the central government would have to give half of the proceeds it gets from the winning bids to the city that build the settler.

[Aeson]

The reason players were allowed to bid into debt (on one thing and one thing only, once in debt they can't bid on anything until they get out of debt) was to prevent a few players with a lot of money shutting out all other players from getting any land.

It's not going to work that way though.

It would have no effect if everyone just plays smart. People would not bid higher than they 'should' and those with more money and assets are able to safely bid higher.

Or it will have an unintended effect. Some players will take themselves out of the game entirely to outbid players who would have gotten the bid otherwise.

Either way those with lower net worth will not do as well. Either they still lose the bidding because they can't viably go as high (no chance to pay it back), or they destroy their chances completely.

It also opens up "vengence" bidding. Someone who really has not chance to affect the rest of the game can bid insane amounts to make sure that someone else (who they don't like) doesn't get what they want and could get otherwise in "rational" bidding. Or worse yet, that same someone can just up every bid, to the point where it becomes painful but maybe still worth bidding for the other side, in every auction, until their bluff is called and they win one.

[Jonny]

The city's shares of the settler are to be assigned as follows:

1 share to Jonny
1 share to Aeson
2 shares to TORARADICAL
2 shares to Makahlua

[Aeson]

As for where the money goes, I think a percentage should go to the central government and a percentage to the city that built the setller.

In combination with unlimited debt this can end up ruining the game.

As an example... there are 3 other people in The Asylum. If I just want to get at everyone else (I don't, but between tarriffs and cutthroat play, and/or a player relegated to inconsequential status, someone could easily end up that way), then I could have bid $60 billion (for ease of calculations). $30 billion of it goes to those of us in The Asylum, $30 Billion to split between everyone. That means the 4 in The Asylum end up getting $12.5 Billion + $1 billion... $13.5 billion. Everyone else gets $1 billion.

See the problem?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

We played with debt bidding in the $MiniGame and it was never a problem. If someone is dumb enough to bid $60 Billion for one tile, that's there decision. They will effectively be completely out of the game from then on with no chance to ever recover. But that was their decision.

In fact I propose this.

All settler shares be auctioned off in one thread (this one) The Asylum and Feudality should post if they are auctioning off or assigned their tiles (or a combination) and what limits they want for those auctions (only citizens of The Asylum can bid on Asylum's Settler) etc.

This thread would then be open for 72 hours from the start time of the first post in this thread. Thus all bids from various sources would be organized and available for all to see. It also sets a fair ground for central government/city citizens to bid in.

[Aeson]

They will effectively be completely out of the game from then on with no chance to ever recover. But that was their decision.

That was the point... someone to the point of being out of it anyways (either due to frustration or economics) could take their revenge out on all but a friend or two, who would then almost surely win the game. (at least until the next person does the same thing in reverse... at which point it becomes a game solely about who can get who to bid the most where... which isn't a "feudal" game at all).

You also didn't address my points about whether or not this would have any benefit for 'poor' players or not.

I see this as a potential game-breaker, and one with nothing to offer the game to offset that risk.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Aeson


That was the point... someone to the point of being out of it anyways (either due to frustration or economics) could take their revenge out on all but a friend or two, who would then almost surely win the game. (at least until the next person does the same thing in reverse... at which point it becomes a game solely about who can get who to bid the most where... which isn't a "feudal" game at all).

You also didn't address my points about whether or not this would have any benefit for 'poor' players or not.

I see this as a potential game-breaker, and one with nothing to offer the game to offset that risk.

I see in no way how this could be a potential game breaker, in fact I see NOT having this a potential game breaker.

The Asylum builds a Settler, moves it next to X, gains 3 tiles of X and then outbids all original X citizens and takes all Settler shares from X, the Asylum and the new city for itself. With Citizens of X having no ability to try to outbid them for tiles. That's pretty much a gamebreaker.

A person can only go into debt on ONE THING. So they can only bid billions on one single tile. They would most likely lose interest and quit at which point it goes back to the central government anyway.

[Aeson]

I see in no way how this could be a potential game breaker, in fact I see NOT having this a potential game breaker.

The Asylum builds a Settler, moves it next to X, gains 3 tiles of X and then outbids all original X citizens and takes all Settler shares from X, the Asylum and the new city for itself. With Citizens of X having no ability to try to outbid them for tiles. That's pretty much a gamebreaker.

I would trade you positions still. (If I wanted to be in the best position)

Everyone else gets Settlers too. We all operate under the same rules (when/if they are defined/explained). Besides, that was tactical advantage we have worked (and chose tiles) towards given your explaination of the rules.

A person can only go into debt on ONE THING. So they can only bid billions on one single tile. They would most likely lose interest and quit at which point it goes back to the central government anyway.

All they have to do is stay in the game a few days until the damage is done. Like I said, it opens up the opportunity for someone who otherwise would have no ability to affect the game to destroy the game for everyone else (or a selected group/person thereof).

--------

The other issue is that one of Feudality's tiles should be up for auction Federally too:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3157290#post3157290

so it's a 3:1 split, utilizing option 6 (which is a clear winner).

What if there are only two biddable tiles? Are both city, or is 1 federal?

1 City and 1 Feudal. The central governement won't get as many tiles due to overlap also.

[Aeson]

GF,

I've thought about it some more, and have held my tongue long enough.

Since you laugh at my (and other's) arguments... and imply that it is I and the Asylum who are in danger of ending the game when it is clearly you who are in the most advantageous position to win... I will use the loophole you've just defended to ruin your bid for winning this game. I bid a $googleplex on my city settler share. It's a few too many zeros to do the math, but let's just say Jonny, TORARADICAL, and Makahlua have the inside track to win (I'm sure they are classy enough to not accept). I'll take the Jungle 1 of the city site with it... thank you very much!

Actually, no. I won't do that. I'll leave the ruining of your game to you.

I haven't liked how you've handled this game at all. I hoped you would be trying to help players understand the rules instead of beating them about the head and face with them (as you make them up) and mocking their arguments/questions. Ideally you should not be playing, at least until the rules are finalized and made public, to avoid conflicts of interest.

You make most of the rules, and then either fail to explain, poorly explain, wrongly explain, or post those those rules in inconspicuous places.

You took the best tile, and did so for free. Given your advantage of understanding of the rules, I'd think taking a lesser tile would have been more appropriate. You made lip service to how unfair choosing tiles without bidding would be, but then took full advantage of it. Given the dissent on the issue (everyone who mentioned it once the game was underway was against it unless I missed something) we probably should have at least had another vote on it given all the new players who weren't represented in whenever you took your vote to do it the other way.

When I offered to do coding to automate the game, and asked for a spreadsheet from the $minigame to help me understand the process, you said you would post it shortly thereafter. Then it never materialized.

When I put some of the website and database together and asked for you to upload it, and basically press a button to create the database, you said you'd do it in the morning (a couple weeks ago now), and nothing happened.

I don't recall what happened in chat (I was eating dinner during that stage), but did you support trading for BW instead of WC and more cash?

You posted the rules on alcohol markets, buildings, ect. but hidden away in a thread where finding it is problematic, and probably would have been missed by at least a few people who weren't following the current discussion. I try to follow everything, and only stumbled into when looking for quotes on Settlers.. though I remember most of it from when I was trying to work out how to code it all. It should have been it's own thread, or at least at the start of a thread.

You have gone from a tile with no shields to enough to build your Brewery and Tavern, while receiving the labor you need, through trades that I can only hope had some very heavy promises with them. It looks more like you hoodwinked a few people who didn't understand the rules yet, or at least how they would apply. (and how could they be expected to?)

conmcb25 is loaning GhengisFarb the use of his Vassal and 3 Shields.

Was this sanctioned by conmcb25 or have you just added his tile/vassal/holdings to your estate? I can see why conmcb25 choose you to manage his estate, given that you understand the rules, but I'd think at least trying to maintain some seperation to avoid conflicts of interest would be in order. (If it was sanctioned by conmcb25... I'll direct my displeasure at him for this instead. We are starting a game and this basically just doubled GF's "holdings" in comparison to everyone else. He'll pay it back, but a little advantage at the start is worth a lot more later on in 'iterative' games.)

You, as the "timekeeper" of the trading session then bid $1 on two different labor right before closing and built your Brewery and Tavern. That's going to be... ~$2400 for you next trading session? And then you have the gall to laugh and say The Asylum's Settler could ruin the game? Even if you are splitting all that cash between the 6 or so players who were giving you Vassals and shields, it's still more powerful than any Settler.

Oh, lest we forget, you argued against the city placement (7777) The Asylum first planned on which would have given 3 of your constituents in X shared tiles with the new city. You don't care so much that either way the same 3 new shared tiles will be claimed, you just don't want 3 more overlap tiles on top of that to give more people a chance to compete with you. Aidun, Ennet, and Esoteric should be pleased at how well you've represented their interests.

Then you claim 'our' (Asylumers... though this isn't a team game) 3 tile representation in a city of 11 would somehow allow 'us' to rule X with an iron fist keeping all the Settlers for 'ourselves'.

I can only imagine that by allowing debt bidding on Settler shares you hope another few people take themselves out of the game by completely drying up their income so they can't bid on labor and try and force their way into your alcohol markets.

[Thrumble]

Aeson, I understand the rules, the few questions I have had were all answered shortly after I asked them.

In my opinion, if you have had issues with the way the game has been operating you should have spoken up and said something. I haven't seen anyone try to take any positon in this game by force and most of those who have taken those postions appear to have done so reluctantly and typically when no one else appeared to be willing to do so.

From my point of view, Ghengis doesn't appear to be winning the game, in fact the players who have the Gem tiles appear to be doing well along with those in Asylum. Most of the suggestions I've seen have been to try to equalize out uneven gameplay and give everyone a chance to be involved.

I also don't understand your desire to kick Ghengis out of the game. He has obvious been putting in a lot of thought and effort in to trying to make this work and I don't see why you are so committed or resentful of him being involved.

I believe I will stop now before I say too much, but I feel your personal attacks are unfounded.

[General Locus]

Please see Turn Session 5 thread...