Announcing a new variant or X-game: TRINITY

[Brykovian]

Can it be an all-Scholar affair? If so, I'll play in it.

(Assuming Duke isn't in my game and going to kill me in 2 turns again. )

-Bryk

[korexus]

Good plan. Game is set up, now please see the rules on bidding and let me know your choices.


GM Chris.

[Duke]

Can it be an all-Scholar affair? If so, I'll play in it.

(Assuming Duke isn't in my game and going to kill me in 2 turns again. )

-Bryk

Make it an all-Scholar thing and drape it all in velvet and walk around in soft pink rabbit slippers saying nothing but nice things to eachother.

You'll last about 30 turns in a game played by sleepy Scholars. Biggest fear is to go M-3 due to forgetting about the whole thing even taking place.

[Brykovian]

Do you consider my style in the Duel I played against you to be "sleepy"?

Sure you completely crushed me in 2 turns ... but not for lack of me tryin'!

-Bryk

p.s. I do like the robes & slippers idea though ...

[Duke]

Ah well no. That was more of an UFC fight as I said in some post.

Got to have the one exception to every rule.

[korexus]

Make it an all-Scholar thing and drape it all in velvet and walk around in soft pink rabbit slippers saying nothing but nice things to eachother.

You'll last about 30 turns in a game played by sleepy Scholars. Biggest fear is to go M-3 due to forgetting about the whole thing even taking place.

You're just jealous because we play in a civilised manner! - Port in the library after each turn, so we can discuss how the game's going, folks?

Got to have the one exception to every rule.

Does that mean there has to be an exception to that rule too? If so, what is it?


Duke did bring up a good point in passing though. It's possible for 2 players to have entered orders and be waiting on the third. What should the protocol be in this situation? (Currently the engine will wait until all three hit 'ready'.)


Chris.

[Duke]

I like the Duel-system when things can go at the pace that fits all players. I say we start off with the current system when the game waits for all to press the button and if that doesnt work we discuss what to do then.

[Tinker]

I like the Duel-system when things can go at the pace that fits all players. I say we start off with the current system when the game waits for all to press the button and if that doesnt work we discuss what to do then.

Agreed. Real life doesn't always give me the leeway I need to get my turns in on a tight time schedule. (Kids) Playing at a more relaxed pace suits me in duels.

[Tinker]

Regarding the Bid System:

I'm a bit put off by the bid being a silent auction with a single bid. In our Trinity startup there is one position that looks to be superior, but I have no idea how much I need to bid to get that position. Everybody is guessing at the "market value" of a start position and I don't think anybody has a good feel for what a superior position is worth.

I think it would be much more fair -- and fun -- if we could have a more traditional auction for each position, with open bidding taking place in turns. I assume we're going with a one-bid silent auction because of the (perhaps painfully long) time it would take to do anything else?

[Hryllantre]

Interesting thought!

Could we use the commentary system above the game map...

The first two bids could be open for all to see but the third bid could be a secret bid. These two bids would ascertain the importance of any particular starting position but to ensure a degree of strategic advantage, the third bid would only be known between the GM and the winning Player...

In a Trinity game the 2nd preference of colours could either remain anoynomous or could again be revealed. Tactics would seriously could into play here bc if 2 players go for the same preferencial colours, the other player could grab the next best colour combo. If the third player decides to gamble and duck out of the initial bidding they would automatically secure the next best colour, which in turn would make the preferencial colour bidding even more intriuging...

The way to decide who bids first could be decided by each players initial starting berth...

[trewqh]

Alternatively, bids could be submitted secretly to the GM and only then published by the GM. This eliminates the problem of who bids first.

[Dragonette]

im not happy with any bidding thing, if its for places my orders are in and i dont want to move, im not getting into gambling habitits ever.

d

[Brykovian]

The bidding isn't for gambling purposes ... it's to determine who starts where in the game.

You want your starting spot ... but perhaps I do too ... so, how many POP are you willing to give up to keep that spot? We both tell the GM how many POP we will give up to get our first choice in starting spots and the highest bidder wins.

If you don't care where you start, then you tell the GM that you bid zero ... and the other players who did bid some POP will lose their POP and gain their favored starting spot, and you would get what is left over.

Does that make more sense?

-Bryk

[Hannibal]

What Bryk said.

H

[Hannibal]

Regarding the Bid System:

I'm a bit put off by the bid being a silent auction with a single bid. In our Trinity startup there is one position that looks to be superior, but I have no idea how much I need to bid to get that position. Everybody is guessing at the "market value" of a start position and I don't think anybody has a good feel for what a superior position is worth.

I think it would be much more fair -- and fun -- if we could have a more traditional auction for each position, with open bidding taking place in turns. I assume we're going with a one-bid silent auction because of the (perhaps painfully long) time it would take to do anything else?

I do have sympathy with your point, Tinker, and I agree that revealed-increasing bidding would be a more perfect reflection of "market-value" of each position. But it has its own problems; effectively what you said at the end: Painfully long time it would take to do anything else!

For a game designer (sorry if I'm about to go off at length here, Duke), this is one of the big differences between turn-based-online and face-to-face. In FTF, I'd do it along the lines you say, round and round the table, takes 5 mins. In turn-based-online, I wouldn't ...

Imagine that all 3 players think they'll start with a low bid, might get that Violet/Yellow that they want cheaply; after all, they can always come back and bid more if needed ...

So the first bids from the 3 players are, say, 5, 6 and 9, each hoping to get V/Y cheaply Then 10,10 and 12. Then 13,13,16, then 17,20,21. Hmm. That's already 4 rounds of 3 people bidding, AND waiting each time for the slowest to find RL time to get a bid in. 10 rounds, 30 bids, and 3 weeks later, one has dropped out, and the other two are at bids of 68 and 69, waiting to see if the 68-bidder wants to increase his bid ... It could go on for weeks. There's no easy way to speed it up. You miss out if you take more than a day? Bad vibes, and may "only" reduce it from 3 weeks to 10 days...

Meanwhile, all 3 players are wondering whether the actual game itself will ever start ...! As I say, OK round a table, not OK online when you have to wait for the slowest?

Sure, in many games the bidding MIGHT be all over in 2 or 3 rounds of bidding. But a designer has to cater for worst-case, or at least "possible common problem".

I agree it's not perfect. It's just better for US than the alternatives!

You and I might find that first phase fun, but others might not, they just want to get to the game itself. They didn't sign up for a bidding game for 2 weeks. See Dragonette.

I also have to keep Korexus happy! Or he won't code it. He has something against bidding anyway (board games he's played), and continues to call even MY version of bidding for starts "needless and complicated". I wouldn't want to offend Godexus by ACTUALLY making it complicated ....

I reckon it will work well enough. And all in one simultaneous round of bidding (Don't ask about drawn bids, it wd lengthen my post, but I've got it covered). One email each and you are off. If one positoion is preferable, both or all three had one chance to bid the max they thought it was worth in their view. In fact, T, you could say it was actually MORE FAIR: Imagine you had one good player and two novices. By your system, the good player is MORE likely to get the best position too cheaply, as the other two drop out; by MY system, he only has one shot, so might have to make his REAL bid first time !

Sorry if it's too long. I like talking game-design.

BTW, Kor, is this the right place? Why do you say bidding is needless? And are you sure you find the current system complicated?

Han

[Hannibal]

Meanwhile, as if to underline the point .... For Trinity#01, I have bids in from one player (Hryll), but not yet from the other two, Yond or Duke ...

We can't start or submit orders till bids are in, and therefore start-positions decided. Don't worry about the Robos being strangely reluctant to press Ready - they will be sorted by the time you tell me your bids and I tell you your starts, it doesn't affect your bids and starts.

So, time to get your bids in, Yond and Duke. Reminder: it is in the form of TWO bids from each player: what Pop you bid for your First choice, AND, in case you don't get your first choice, what Pop you bid for your second choice. You only pay for successful bids. If you don't care on first, or don't mind on second-choice, pls state that as a bid of zero, rather than telling me you don't mind.

OK? Any questions?

Han

[Brykovian]

The other thing to keep in mind here is that 1-round blind bidding *does* work here because there is a strategic value based upon the game system that can be evaluated without having to think about the human-based "market" value ... bidding 50 POP essentially starts you with 12 fewer armies in the game (or 25 fewer WOK, if that's how you swing).

So, I've been bidding based upon how much of an *operational* disadvantage I care to undertake in order to have a *geographical* advantage. There is a point where I won't pay for that geographical advantage no matter how much the other player(s) want it.

-Bryk

[korexus]

BTW, Kor, is this the right place? Why do you say bidding is needless? And are you sure you find the current system complicated?

Needless because I've never seen a duel where it wouldn't be interesting to play from both sides. Complicated because of the amount of time people seem to spend trying to explain it...

Your idea about making it fairer on new players is odd too. How does a new player know what value a starting position is worth?

I'm still waiting for one player's bid in my Trinity Test (You know who you are). We could have had a turn by now...

korexus.

[Duke]

Meanwhile, as if to underline the point .... For Trinity#01, I have bids in from one player (Hryll), but not yet from the other two, Yond or Duke ...

We can't start or submit orders till bids are in, and therefore start-positions decided. Don't worry about the Robos being strangely reluctant to press Ready - they will be sorted by the time you tell me your bids and I tell you your starts, it doesn't affect your bids and starts.

So, time to get your bids in, Yond and Duke. Reminder: it is in the form of TWO bids from each player: what Pop you bid for your First choice, AND, in case you don't get your first choice, what Pop you bid for your second choice. You only pay for successful bids. If you don't care on first, or don't mind on second-choice, pls state that as a bid of zero, rather than telling me you don't mind.

OK? Any questions?

Han

I havent read this thread close enough to understand how I bid but I dont even care so put me down for an official 0.

Man, me and Hryll have already put orders in for cryin out loud. We are locked, stocked and good to go.

[Brykovian]

put me down for an official 0

Duke is officially a zero! (just bein' helpful )

-Bryk