MERGED: "Auc-blocking" / Minimum price doesn't return

[vox]

Keep it as it is mule should be cut throat.It's nobodys fault if you don't have cash play better.My biggest fear is this game is more and more watered down for so called balance.There all ready no collusion/no cash penalty or advantage for diffrent speices because whiners would claim it unfair.I also notice next land for safe afther the 1st/2nd/3rd in any round does not start contine upwards from the first

Example:

1st plot let say sells for $900

2nd plot if theres 1 to sell would then start from $900

Just like the Atari version did not shure about the c64 version?

[MrBrown]

And I don't believe that a player should be able to block the sale of land simply by having lots of money, and not having to sacrifice anything to have that advantage.

The "not having to sacrifice anything" part is which makes me doubt this mechanism - even IF it was exactly this way in the original versions.

On the other hand...

BUT... it does add a *new* type of auction to the game.  The question then is this exception worth adding?  Design usually works best when the rules are consistent as it makes the game easier to learn.  Once you know how one auction works, you know how they all work.

... I don't think any exceptions should be added for the PlanetMULE version which tries to resemble the original version as closely as possible (and AFAIK the current development branch at V1.2 aims at doing so).

[data2008]

another thought:

currently, the colony announces how many lands it will auction in a round at the start.

This could lead to a knowingly advantage of the player with the most money:
He could shut out players from buying the first plot, then secure the second for himself.

If the colony would not reveal how many plots it is going to auction, would this be more of a gamble(?):
If the player with the most money does buy the first plot, the remaining players could buy the second plot cheaper, unless the first player buys it at a maximum price, because the next plot would start at least at what has been asked for the last plot, so still no other player could buy the second plot?

So would it be better for gameplay reasons make the entry price of a second plot auctioned in the same round the middle of the initial first plot entry price and highest bid?

Can someone confirm exactly how multiple land auctions in one round were handled in the original with regards to price and announcements?

[Big Head Zach]

Reading Kroah's doc, here's what it says:

• The probability of land auctions is different between the Standard and Tournament modes. Since we're playing Tournament games (with Crystite), the probabilities are: 0 auctions 31.126%, 1 auction 37.748%, 2 auctions 24.303%, 3 auctions 6.248%, 4 auctions 0.562%, 5 auctions 0.013%
• First land auction of the game has a reserve of $160
• First land auction of the round has a reserve equal to the average price paid for land in the previous round - $60
• If there are additional land auctions in a round, their reserve is equal to the price paid for the last auction - $60
• If a plot does not sell, its "price" for purposes of determining the next auction's reserve is the reserve of the current auction divided by 2, + $52.
• The land auctions end when all the land is sold or when a land isn't bought. I think 1.2 doesn't reflect this yet.

Also, Intergalactic Mole and other classic fans help me confirm this, but the game did not indicate how many auctions were to be held; it just showed "Land for Sale" at the top, but no indication of the number of plots.

This would also suggest the actual purpose of the auc-block, would be to prevent players behind on cash or land to catch up (but chances are the player who is low on cash is that way for a reason, related to smithore buyout or land grabbing)...something to think about.

[hudson]

What I would definitely agree with is that the price moves up and down too fast compared to the original game, making the price go too high too fast.  IMO that should be addressed.  But the original mechanics should remain the same.

Regarding the Land Auctions, this is clearly broken if you consider the intent behind the mechanism of not being able to get back to the original price. As you mentioned, since the speeds are a lot slower with the original game, this broken design was a non-issue. Here's why it's broken: as explained by others, the intent behind not being able to get back to the original price is that the seller, by not coming down, is sacrificing the possibility to sell to the store. This is a very good gameplay mechanism, but it DOES NOT apply to the land auctions, because there is no store! Now couple the high speed bidding, and the broken mechanism and you clearly have a problem.

You claim this is not abuse and it's rewarding player who has lots of cash. How does it possibly fit with a game design that (correctly) tries to prevent the player who is ahead from getting too far ahead and the player that's behind from falling too far behind? The only reason it wasn't fixed in the original game is because it wasn't easy to abuse with the original speeds and who knows, they probably didn't have enough memory left to implement an exception.

[Intergalactic Mole]

Regarding the Land Auctions, this is clearly broken if you consider the intent behind the mechanism of not being able to get back to the original price.

It is not clear to me that the design is broken, and the intent behind the mechanism of not being able to get back to the original price is not documented anywhere.  It is only speculated.  Therefore, it is only your  personal opinion, not a fact, that this is not working as intended.

[Intergalactic Mole]

And I don't believe that a player should be able to block the sale of land simply by having lots of money, and not having to sacrifice anything to have that advantage.

The "not having to sacrifice anything" part is which makes me doubt this mechanism - even IF it was exactly this way in the original versions.

You've both failed to understand the fact that the plot will then be given for free in the next land grant, which in and of itself is a sacrifice.  The person who griefed the auction could have purchased the plot but instead is giving everyone the opportunity to obtain it for $0.00 in the next land grant..

And Mr. Brown, you can confirm the existence of this mechanism in the original game, which can be downloaded from www.atarimule.com.

[hudson]

It is not clear to me that the design is broken, and the intent behind the mechanism of not being able to get back to the original price is not documented anywhere.  It is only speculated.  Therefore, it is only your  personal opinion, not a fact, that this is not working as intended.

Fair enough, so let me state it in another way. Just because something isn't documented isn't an excuse to ignore logic and reason, so we should give it a whirl:

1-Clearly one restriction with the way auctions are presented is there is limited screen estate where the range of the maximum and minimum bid price is presented. Since you can shift the maximum price by moving up, then the minimum has to shift also. At the most basic level this is why the store price disappears.

2-This is is no problem with store auctions because of what I explained above: it fits within the gameplay dynamic. The seller can go down ANYTIME to stop the price increase. So it's the seller's choice/greed to let the buyer max out the price.

3-It is a problem with land auctions, because there is no seller so nobody can stop the price increase

4-The opportunity cost for letting the land go doesn't exist: the land is clearly not worth purchasing as no other player, even with almost as much cash, is interested in buying at the inflated price. You can't talk of an opportunity cost where there is no choice - for the exploiter, buying was never an option to begin with. All you have here is a mechanism for the richest player to remove the land auction from the play, as if it was never offered in the first place.

5-Again this problem did not exist in the original game to any appreciable extent, because the movement speeds are much slower.

[Intergalactic Mole]

I understand perfectly what you have been saying all along.  I simply disagree.  Do you really want to go tit for tat on every point you are trying to make?  In summary, think of the richest player of having somewhat of a corrupted political influence on the auctioneer.  Nothing unrealistic about it.  If I was Bill Gates and I told someone I dont want them auctioning off a piece of land, chances are they will listen, because I'm Bill Gates and they know I'd be good for returning the favor some time.  Think of it like corrupt politics.   Perhaps the developers had this in mind when they created the game.  The game has many cutthroat aspects to it, who is to say that this isn't one of them?

[Big Head Zach]

If I was Bill Gates and I told someone I dont want them auctioning off a piece of land, chances are they will listen, because I'm Bill Gates and they know I'd be good for returning the favor some time.

The Store is wanting to know if you'll be bailing them out financially after the last time they took a bath on Smithore.

Sorry IM, but the idea that you possess "influence" over the Store and somehow owe them a favor is way beyond the functional idea of the land auction, in my opinion. If we went along with what you just implied, I expect the game to take a chunk of your money for the ability to auc-block (the "favor" that you owe). I tend to side with the people who are stating the speed of price changes is what is primarily to blame for the current notion that one can auc-block. If that were to change, we'd see that less often. Also, 1.3 needs to enforce the rule that once land auction goes unclaimed, there are no more auctions that turn, no matter what.

However, to satisfy morbid curiosity, I'd love a feature which tracks how much money flows into and out of the Store as the game progresses. Do certain events in the game put the Store woefully in debt, and is that (from a Federation perspective) in the best interests of the colony?

[MrBrown]

You've both failed to understand the fact that the plot will then be given for free in the next land grant, which in and of itself is a sacrifice.  The person who griefed the auction could have purchased the plot but instead is giving everyone the opportunity to obtain it for $0.00 in the next land grant..

I do understand, but it depends on the situation in the game. If the griefer knows that the plot will most likely be taken by the last ranked player, he can stop the second/third ranked player from getting that plot *without* any sacrifice, assuming he doesn't want that plot himself. Of course there might be other situations where not getting the plot actually *is* a real sacrifice.

Concerning land auctions, I am really torn apart between sticking with the original version 100% (which I'd usually prefer) or interpreting this behaviour as a bug or as a design oversight.

[Intergalactic Mole]

I tend to side with the people who are stating the speed of price changes is what is primarily to blame for the current notion that one can auc-block. If that were to change, we'd see that less often.

Scroll back up Zach and you'll see that I am the one that suggested that the speed is the problem. And I agree, if that were to change back to the original speed, we would see it less often because the price wouldn't be so inflated and the richest person would usually just buy the plot.  My ONLY argument here is that the game mechanic itself is not broken, just the speed at which it works in Planet MULE. 

Take a step back and think about this a little harder; in the original game, players with less money and who didn't even have any intentions of buying the plot would jack up the price for the rich player who wants it.  Do you consider that unfair?  Technically this is what is still happening, except its going beyond a reasonable price for the richest player and so he decides just to back out.  If the poor players want a chance at the plot, they shouldnt be jacking up the price so high.  So this screwing each other over is not just limited to the richest player here.  It takes 2 to tango.

I understand the complaints and arguments everyone has made.  I just simply disagree and think the original game works fine.

[Lomgren]

I tend to side with the people who are stating the speed of price changes is what is primarily to blame for the current notion that one can auc-block. If that were to change, we'd see that less often.

Scroll back up Zach and you'll see that I am the one that suggested that the speed is the problem. And I agree, if that were to change back to the original speed, we would see it less often because the price wouldn't be so inflated and the richest person would usually just buy the plot.  My ONLY argument here is that the game mechanic itself is not broken, just the speed at which it works in Planet MULE. 

Take a step back and think about this a little harder; in the original game, players with less money and who didn't even have any intentions of buying the plot would jack up the price for the rich player who wants it.  Do you consider that unfair?  Technically this is what is still happening, except its going beyond a reasonable price for the richest player and so he decides just to back out.  If the poor players want a chance at the plot, they shouldnt be jacking up the price so high.  So this screwing each other over is not just limited to the richest player here.  It takes 2 to tango.

I understand the complaints and arguments everyone has made.  I just simply disagree and think the original game works fine.

I have to say that the speed is most of the issue.  Just from the few training games I played while testing, it seems to move something like 3-4 times faster than the original in auctions.  If the auction march speed (but not the timer itself) were slowed down to 1/4 its current speed, I think at least a few of the problems we are seeing today would disappear.  And that goes for all auctions, not just land auctions.

[data2008]

so maybe start a topic which only focusses on "Slow Down Auction Movement?"

[poobslag]

I think the biggest issue is sometimes, one player will have several unused plots (starved for food) but I'll have lots of money. I had that situation yesterday. So it was in my best interest to ruin land auctions for everyone else, since I wouldn't be able to use the land, even if I purchased it at a competitive price. There were three land auctions in a row, so I scrolled them all the way to the top (which takes a long time... it feels like about 1 or 2 minutes) Even if the other players agree that the mechanic is fair, this is very boring to watch.

I mean yesterday at the third land auction I finally got bored and only raised the third land auction to $2000 because I felt bad taking up everyone's time. But then someone bought it at $2000 and I was like - well damn, yeah that's not a bad price, I should have wasted more time scrolling all the way to the top.

Maybe we can have a poll, either amongst the general public or just a handful of seasoned veterans as to what they think would make the game better, sounds like there's a few reasonable options

1. leave it as is, "griefers" can spike land auctions to $12000 or whatever (see the next few options)
1a. increase movement speed for land auctions, "griefers" continue to spike them as high as they want (but it takes less time to do so)
2. change it, "griefers" cannot spike land auctions; or cannot spike them as high (see the next few options)
2a. reduce movement speed for land auctions, "griefers" can spike them to $4000 or $2000 or something more "reasonable"
2b. "griefer" can't get back behind the buy line until he's lowered the price back down to where it started at

i mean it sounds like it's option 2a to me, anything else deviates from the original game fundamentally. although i'd like to see 2b as an option, that way we can still see realistic land prices early on (~$1,500) but prevent players from feeling strategically obligated to ruin auctions late game.

1a would at least address the time issue, so that players can continue to ruin land auctions - but can at least reach the top faster i mean, if you're going to recognize "ruin the land auction" as an option, it should at least be easier to do