Pitboss 4 Signup

[Cyneheard]

- The illegal trait problem can theoretically be compounded by the person not having enough money. To almost completely remove this possibility, give everyone $200 to start and another $50 each in the second and third round.

I disagree: players should be able to spend as much as they want on traits, and be stuck with their 11th choice of civs. Note: for civs, the 11 largest bids must be unique; all legal traits should have unique bids.

- I think it would be more fun to do trait1, civ, trait2.

- This is not necessarily an excellent idea (like the above ), but I think it might be good: Instead of resolving the auctions in order of most expensive to least, do in in the order of largest disparity between first and second bids to least.

Not sure about the trait/civ/trait idea, could go either way. Maybe put that up to a vote, if we go with this system?

I think here's the way to do the awarding:
Traits are awarded to players in the order of largest disparity.
The price paid for a trait is 1g over the next-highest price that anyone bid (or in the event of a tie, your own bid), including those who've already won traits. So if I bid $185 for Fin, and you bid $184, it doesn't matter if you go and win Imperialistic, I still pay $185 for Fin. Otherwise, if two people tie as the high bidders for Financial (say, at $300 each), then that trait won't be resolved until one of them is removed...which may be at the very end leaving only one of them left, and no other bids to compete against. Who would then pay $0 for Financial. Oops. This change minimizes the significance of the resolution order, and makes it possible that everyone ends up paying something for a trait.

So under this system, if the bids are (4p, in order of A, B, C, D, and the other traits don't exist):
Fin: $150, $145, $140, $130
Exp: $160, $150, $139, $129
Cre: $120, $155, $135, $128
Pro: $0, $0, $0, $0

So, the largest disparity is Creative: Player B wins Creative, and pays $136 for it.
The next-largest disparity is Expansive, where A pays $151, since we aren't removing B's 2nd-highest bid.
Then C wins Fin for $131: C's now the highest bid out there, and therefore pays the next-highest bid out there, D's $130 + 1g.
D wins Protective for $0: the tie bid ends up going to the person who doesn't win any other auctions.

I can run the auction if needed, but will definitely make sure that lurkers check that the system works the way it's supposed to. I should have computer access daily, but it will be at erratic times. If we run this system, spoiler thread posts are preferred over PMs, for record-keeping sake.

Before the auction happens:
Sign-ups
Rule decisions, especially map characteristics, insofar as the map designer is willing/asked to disclose.

We have a mod that Ruff made for Adv41 that includes the three forbidden combos, but does it by replacing the original leaders (Gandhi, Isabella and Saladin). Changing the mod by making those leaders Gandhi II, Isabella II, and Saladin II would be easy enough, and then adding back the three original leaders. So if players do end up with one of those, it can be done. (Actually, Adv41's mod works if we get Cre/Cha, Phi/Ind or Org/Pro, but no Spi/Pro, Spi/Exp, or Spi/Phi).

[SevenSpirits]

I disagree: players should be able to spend as much as they want on traits, and be stuck with their 11th choice of civs. Note: for civs, the 11 largest bids must be unique; all legal traits should have unique bids.

Let me clarify. If someone spends $300 on philosophical, and then industrious is the $0 trait next time, there is a problem in that your system will force them to buy, say, protective for $10 but they don't even have $10. They get an unfair advantage because they didn't keep any money for later bids. IMO this is kind of moot since I don't believe any trait is worth 300, but it could matter if you go trait-civ-trait because I could see a excellent civ bringing the total up that high.

I think here's the way to do the awarding:
Traits are awarded to players in the order of largest disparity.
The price paid for a trait is 1g over the next-highest price that anyone bid (or in the event of a tie, your own bid), including those who've already won traits.

I suspect this might be terribly broken, though I will have to think about it a bit more. Say everyone else submits bids equal to how much they value the items. I instead submit bids that are $20 higher than how much I value each item. What happens under that system?

1) I will almost certainly win the first bid, and I will get whichever one the other players are undervaluing the most according to me, and I won't have to pay anything more for it than if I'd just bid my true values!

2) I've just inflated everyone else's costs, because every item where I had the high bid is now effectively a first price auction for the remaining players!

Meanwhile, someone else submits all zeroes. And if every item gets at least a single $1 bid, that zero bidder will be the last player in the auction and will get some random item that's only still in because it had a ghost high bid on it from someone who won something else early. Crazy!

Therefore, this auction system is not stable at everyone bidding their true valuations of things.

Even worse, your modification doesn't even solve the problem you brought up. If we have those mythical dual $300 bidders on FIN, eventually both will win other items (since the bid differential is always zero on FIN) and the bid differential will STILL be zero on FIN. Thus a very likely situation is in fact that FIN is resolved last and whoever bid the LEAST on FIN might get it!! At least in the rules I suggested it's likely that one of those $300s will win something else earlier and then the other $300 will immediately win FIN.

[Locke]

This is all way too complicated. Are you even playing in this game? You should make a list of teams in this game and see what they want. See what interests them. I think you are making game that interests watchers not game that is good for teams. This will be a long game. Crazy setup can ruin it before it starts. Are you making game fun for players or making game fun for watchers? I see your thread on redesigning Civ combat. It is stupid and silly. You build castles in air and loose sight of good game. Do not want that for Pitboss game.

Gold Ero Sum, you should make list of teams first. See what they want to do. This game is for players not watchers. My team does not like these ideas. I vote for snake pick.

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I have a list of players so far, but the sign ups are not done.

Explain to me the logic of paying essentially what the second highest bid was? I don't follow why that is important or a good thing?

[SevenSpirits]

Explain to me the logic of paying essentially what the second highest bid was? I don't follow why that is important or a good thing?

See here.

http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost....stcount=37


Locke, the current list of players is in the first post, and if you read the thread you will see that there's a lot of interest in an auction combined with admitted lack of understanding about what's a good way to make that work. You don't have to read all the posts about that! Either people figure out a good auction system or they don't, and then if there is a decent candidate the teams can vote on whether to use it or not. You don't have to insult anyone, and you also don't have to post the same opinion again, I think people saw it earlier too.

[Ruff_Hi]

So under this system, if the bids are (4p, in order of A, B, C, D, and the other traits don't exist):
Fin: $150, $145, $140, $130
Exp: $160, $150, $139, $129
Cre: $120, $155, $135, $128
Pro: $0, $0, $0, $0

... C wins Fin for $131

This doesn't make a lot of sense for me. I thought the main aim of an auction was to (help to) determine the market price for an object. How can Fin be worth $131 when 3 or 4 people are willing to pay more for it.

I vote for snake pick.

This might be the best solution for this game.

I think that the main difficulty is that we haven't hit on an ideal way of 'selling' a scarce resource. Isn't there anyone out there with enough economics to suggest a suitable method that will work?

[SevenSpirits]

This doesn't make a lot of sense for me. I thought the main aim of an auction was to (help to) determine the market price for an object. How can Fin be worth $131 when 3 or 4 people are willing to pay more for it.

The market price is dependent on the market price of the other items. $131 isn't a promise that you want that thing for $131, it's a promise that you want it IF you can't get some other thing at a better price. It's essentially because of the rule that you can only get one thing.

[Speaker]

This thread is making my head hurt.

[Cull]

Don't think I have enough time to devote to this even as a dedicated helper monkey. Withdrawing signup, sorry.

[sunrise089]

Cyneheard, believe it or not I'm totally fine with your idea, at least at first glance. I still think the live auction might be fun and not overly burdensome, but I think your idea hits what are my key goals (simultaneous auction, prevention of an item winner massively overpaying) and works for those who are reluctant to commit to a live auction.

This will be a long game. Crazy setup can ruin it before it starts.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I have a completely opposite view. Yes, setup can get ridiculous (see the Apolyton demogame), but the length of a pitboss game justifies MORE setup not less. If we have a little oversight, like vassals being left on in a multi-continent game like the demogame it has huge repercussions over hundreds of real-life hours per team. We want to get the things we can get right right. And this idea isn't coming from a vacuum, it's based on direct experience from other pitboss games. Is this the biggest area for potential improvement? No, IMHO it's Sullla's double move rules and exploit list, the removal or extensive limitation of pauses, and a commitment to having a dedicated lurker/sub for each team. But this is still a pretty nice idea to experiment with since the game organizer has designated this as only a signup period anyways.