The Worlds of Kaomaris

Point well taken on the time pain, Han. I tend to really enjoy auction mechanics in board games, but after seeing the comments here it's obvious that it wouldn't work to well in practice online.

I'll give one suggestion for the startup: If you really want people to buy into the auction mechanic then I suggest that you don't assign the start positions at the beginning. Call them A, B, and C, whatever, but don't give them people's names. Once somebody looks at a position and thinks "mine!" then the bidding system gets warped.

but i dont want to bet. Thats the point. I also dont want to lose pop as it means that i lose out on armies. To defend and attack in the later stage of the game.

sorry to be a pain, but i class that a betting as your betting pop for things otherwise known as gambling.

dragonette

Betting/Gambling is when you risk something you own for the chance to get more back. - You either lose everything or end up with more.

This is where you offer something you own to be given something you want. - If you don't win, you don't lose anything. That's much closer to "buying" than "gambling". You do buy things, don't you?

I disagree with the bidding system too, but it's much better to give it a chance (already had two other people post to say they agree as a result). I can put you down as a bid of 0, 0 if you wish, but you should be aware that you may well have a different set of home provinces as a result.


Chris.

It's not gambling at all, as korexus points out. You're offering to pay in order to pick your starting location. And the trick is that you don't want to pay more than you need to, because, as you said, no one wants to give away POP to start.

So, if you don't care where you start, then you bid 0 and 0 ... you won't lose POP and you'll get whatever starting spot is left over after those who put some POP down have taken the spots they want. If you really like a specific starting spot, then you need to pay to have it.

-Bryk

The problem I think Dragonette is having (and I agree with her, even though it's subtle) is that the way the startup was put together is deceptive.

We should have been offered a look at all three starting spots and asked how much we wanted to pay for each of them instead of being given one at the beginning and then put in the position of having to pay to keep it. The end result is the same, but the presentation could be more palatable.

exactly i want to stay where i am, i want to win, but id have to put a lot of pop at the side to buy it, so then id be weak and vunerable.

Tinkers idea is lots bettter, if you said where the positions were then we could bid for the place we wanted. I think that is much better than losing out on something you like.

d

I promise you I really AM open to suggestion! If I offer a counter-argument, eg on increasing-bids, it's definitely not automatic or defensive, OK!?

Tinker wrote:The problem I think Dragonette is having (and I agree with her, even though it's subtle) is that the way the startup was put together is deceptive.

We should have been offered a look at all three starting spots and asked how much we wanted to pay for each of them instead of being given one at the beginning and then put in the position of having to pay to keep it. The end result is the same, but the presentation could be more palatable.

Not a bad idea. If you think it would make it better, clearer, I'll be happy to put in the extra work. But there ARE counter-arguments:

1) The engine currently doesn't allow a GM to do it like that. (Kor won't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong!). The GM normally publishes a blank map (Turn -1) into Games to Join, then fills up player-places, then runs Turn 0, and Turn 0 is out, with players having colours having start-provs. Using edit-player data, I can just about swap over which player+colour starts where, ie swap over the start-provs; and remember to change the OOP to match. What I CAN'T do is run Turn 0 with 10 colours, Turn 0 is out, and then go back and enter new player-names. I tried that once, early in Duels, putting out a Game to Join, scoreboard names being empty, as a come-on, ie "sign up as G/LB/LG or as O/V/Y". Kor got antsy about me bending the system, and HE had to step in to retro-assign player-names after Turn 0 had run... I thought I'd "cleverly" cracked it by running a Turn 0 WITH names, but then swapping over start-provs rather than player-names. But if Kor says yes ...

2) What Kor said on the first page - I was trying to give me/the GM less work! On average, the GM would probably have to swap only 2 of the 3 players?! And if your hunch is correct (I hoped so) that players will be biased towards the colours they are "given", then, great, I have NO work of swapping over!! (Yes, I HAD thought of that!). After all, if it's fairly even, I don't WANT the work of swapping over; it's only there in case it's NOT even, and all want one pair of starts or want to avoid another. By paying.

3) I guess I could go rewrite the bidding rules on Page 1 of this thread. (they talk of swapping positions; and the example I give is on the basis of all preferring Yond's start ...). But then I think I'd also have to rewrite the main Duel Rules, last section on bidding, to match, and get Kor to republish them. But I can do that.

If it's worth it?

How sure are you that it's better, not worse? I don't accept the argument that the one is gambling and the other is buying. They are both buying, like at an auction. If you want to stay where you are, it's probably that it's an unfairly strong position; so you can only stay there if you are prepared to pay more than the other guys to start with that stronger position.

Clarity? Hmm. You might be right. Not sure. I suspect many people find it easier to study "Yond's position", Hryll's, and their own, and then decide who has the better start, rather than the more "abstract" version of look at G/LB vs LG/O vs V/Y ? Intuitively, they look at their "own" start, see whether it looks good or bad, look at the other guys', decide whether would rather switch ...

NB. You'd be amazed how lazy people are. I have to cater for nearly-all-comers. You are catering for the people like you, who would be happy to analyse equally all 3 possible combinations without bias, and then put in bids. I'm also catering for the ones who would look at what "their" start was, find it acceptable enough, put in a bid of something for it, zero for second choice, never have to pre-analyse two more positions. Eg Duke on a good day.

You suggest: "...offered a look at all three starting spots and asked how much we wanted to pay for each of them.". That might sound simple to you ...! Er. I'm sure YOU realise that your bid for your third choice ought logically to be zero? If you don't get your first or second preference, why pay anything at all for the one you'll get left with?! But not everyone will see that. So maybe a couple of extra paragraphs explaining it? Or else lots of queries to answer? Tinker, I'm not at all sure that either you or me could word your solution in a way that was shorter and clearer than the system currently is ...?!

If you STILL prefer it, I'll do it if Kor will code for it. You still want it?

BTW, do NOT let this put you off suggesting. I'm glad of the interest, I like talking design, and I know there are areas for improvement.

Cheers,
Han

It is a small thing, and I personally don't think it's worth a major engine rewrite. That said, I think it's pretty clear that in this (admittedly small) sample there's a lot of resistance to the bidding system as it currently stands, so something needs to change even if it's just education of the players.

Let me ask this of all the Trinity Testers (tm): Did you know about the bid system before you joined the game? I have the impression that Dragonette and Duke, at least, did not and they don't seem to care for the idea. I knew about it beforehand, and that may explain why I like it better.

Regardless, Han, I think it's time to put your foot down for now: Is bidding for positions an official rule of the Trinity game? If so, then let's bid and get on with it. (Dragonette, if you look earlier in this thread you'll see that bidding was posted as being part of the Trinity test.)

Tinker's solution could be quite easily implemented. All you do is add the players as normal, but set the names as Spot A, Spot B and Spot C. - You have allocated them a starting spot, but they don't know which one*. Players then bid for which spot they like and when you swap the players over you also change the names.

Of course this doesn't help people who dislike the bidding system, but it will at least stop them entering orders then having to change spots. Which would be annoying.


Chris.

They can actually find out by looking at the turn report, but the map screen will not seem so decided...

To make this thread chaotic enough for our standards

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

I meant this secret bidding could still be done in turns until two players pass.

I don't think that would take longer than waiting for each single bid.

Ok. I have now sent in my secret bid (and it isnt 0 since Bryk teased me)

To make one thing clear. I totally support your entus..ent...enthou..aaarrgh err devotion here Hannibal. That isnt the thing. I simply find the bidding thing a bad idea but hey, that is me. I'll do it if the majority wants to go with that setup but I simply cannot manage to whip up enough ....that word again....entousia...enthusias... intrest to do it properly.

I might have a gamestyle that is the equivalent of a RL slacker and sort of make things up as I go so obviously this isnt my cup of tea.

Please, dont let me bring this whole thing down. I have read the thread (well, most of it.....well the beginning of most threads.....most threads that looked importent) and I did read the rules post so I have gotten my act together.

C'mon Yon and Hryll. Us three must be the saddest test group ever. LOL!

Imagine us three in the Trinity test.
Oh, an ATOMIC bomb. Man we just brought our potatoguns along.
Ah, there is Oppy. Oh Oppy!! Could you be a doll and get that rocketything from my garage please? Seems like we would need it. You wrote it in a memo you say? Hmm, well I didnt read my memos about this test. Didnt seem importent. Maybe I should have. Whatever, just blow up the stupid thing already!

Ok. I have now sent in my secret bid (and it isnt 0 since Bryk teased me)

He's bluffing.

Yes. Listen to the guy who is siding with The Baggies. I belive he right there showed his true self.

Duke wrote:Yes. Listen to the guy who is siding with The Baggies. I belive he right there showed his true self.

People know who West Brom are in Sweden?

They certainly know of them in Bristol (City) and we're still Lol...

In any case Nemesis I hear Duke's a Bristol City supporter...

Tinker: Yes I have used the bidding system before...

---

Has anyone thought of the Duel-Lite Version but with two Clan members filling the A and B slots V's six Robo's. Then ofc there's the Full-Duel version, need I go on!!... I don't care who thought they thought of it first bc I thought I thought it first and that's all that matters in my world...

People dont. I have a history of obsession over Football Manager games. For some reason I usually chose to start as manager of Grimsby in every game but I have been managing West Brom as well.

Football Manager, previously Championship Manager. I think I have owned every game since CM 93/94

We nearly beat your lot Hryll. I was disappointed when you scored that last minute equaliser earlier this season

Is it possible for the GM to force the starting positions? If it is then the GM could setup a new game and announce the starting positions. That way we would be guaranteed interesting games where one or two starting positions could be clearly superior and worth bidding for, while at the same time we would avoid the problem with players preferring "their" positions.

I'm not sure if it's possible though...

It is possible, it just doesn't always work. Especially if you want specific players in specific slots. Haven't been able to figure out why not though...


Chris.

Hi guys. I hope we're all having FUN in this hobby of ours, right?

OK, for Trnity #01, the bids are finally, finally in, in the last few hours, after days and days. My stance has always been that I publish bids after they're all in (see argument elsewhere).

The bids were:

Hryll put in his secret bids first:
1st choice: 68Pop for Lt Green+Orange (start-position of Hryll)
2nd choice (if fails on 1st): 10Pop for Grey+Lt Blue (start-pos of Yond).

Duke put in a PUBLIC bid:
Zero for everything, don't care.

Yond finally put in his secret bids:
1st choice: 5Pop for Grey+Lt Blue (start-pos of Yond)
2nd choice: 10Pop for Violey+Yellow (start-pos of Duke)

Duke then complied with secret bids:
1st choice: 2Pop for Violet+Yellow (start-pos of Duke)
... and "eeeeh, 1 Pop for each of the other 2 players' " [he still doesn't get it!]

So, bidding finally in, Hryll would get Lt Green+Orange, paying 68Pop from the starting Pop of each of Lt Green and Orange. Yond would get Grey+Lt Blue, paying only 5Pop from each of them. And Duke gets the left-over, Violet+Yellow, paying no Pop as he gets the left-over. Such that the starts are now equalised, according to what each player preferred and was prepared to pay for.

EXCEPT. SANITY RULES. SO DOES THE GM's WRIT!

I am hereby voiding that bidding process.

Because Duke unknowingly screwed it by his public bid, favouring Yond and screwing Hryll and the GM. (I'll explain in a separate post if I can be bothered!).

No, I can't be bothered to re-run the bidding, so you are off and running with the start-positions the engine threw up, nobody paying ANY Pop for the start they wanted. If Hryll was right, he's got his preferred position for nothing instead of 2X68=136Pop.

Happily, this coincides with all 3 of you somehow also having put in orders for T1 as if you had "won" your own starting-positions, even before bidding was resolved! (Otherwise my life would be even harder).

OK, you are off. I'll go run Turn 1.

GM Han