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

[Intergalactic Mole]

I like option 2b for a future version of the game. However, for the existing one, in which the goal is to make the game as close to the original as possible, the speed just needs to be slowed down.

[kiteless]

I'd like to propose, or support if already mentioned, a fix.  

If someone is raising land auction price to an absurd level to prevent other buyers, that player should be required to buy it at its lowest available inflated price if no others are interested.  In all other auctions, winner is the highest bidder and does not allow backing out.  This should be the way the highest bidder is decided in these situations where one is attempting blocking.

[poobslag]

I'd like to propose, or support if already mentioned, a fix.  

If someone is raising land auction price to an absurd level to prevent other buyers, that player should be required to buy it at its lowest available inflated price if no others are interested.  In all other auctions, winner is the highest bidder and does not allow backing out.  This should be the way the highest bidder is decided in these situations where one is attempting blocking.

Stormdancer responded to that idea on page 2, there are some complications resulting from that approach. But, it's another option.

[Paladinian]

I also disagree with forcing the bidder to buy.

I will however second (third? fourth?) the belief that, much as the price will increase when a player scrolls to the top of the auction, the price should decrease when no players are within the trading space, reducing the price towards the original price for that round.  This addresses the "bad-faith" auction price exploit (yes, I know it is a core rule, but that doesn't diminish its silliness in my mind) as well as allowing players to continue selling commodities to the colony when a player has increased the price beyond colony-sellable range and then withdrawn.

The rate of this decrease is certainly debatable (Should it decrease at the same speed as the increase rate?  Reset back to the original price immediately?) but the mechanic itself would make for a much more robust game, I believe.

[cyounghusband]

OK, here's an interesting problem with that.

Let's say 3 of our players get involved in the 'run the price up' game.  Or worse, three people bid... but then two run it way up to North Craziland.

Then they all run back down to the 'buy' line, including the poor sucker who stayed down there, as prices went way, way past their ability to buy.

... who buys it? At what price?

The person lowest in the rankings? What if they don't WANT it at this crazy price they couldn't control... and can't even afford it?

The person highest in the rankings? Sure would be easy for a lower-ranked person to force a sale at an insane price, that would screw everyone.

The person who was the last to come down?  What if one of the others got the 'jump' on them, on the way down?

The one with the highest bid, ever during the process?  I suppose that's the least prone to awful.

I think we can design around that.  If the price is overdriven, throughout the auction we keep track of the $HIGHERBID that a player bid compared everyone else.  If everyone attempts to withdraw, that player remains committed to that (minimal) price. If players initially push it up, then withdraw, a player will be stuck at the bid line.  It's a real bid.  Like ebay's autobid feature where you set the max you will pay, but actually it's just one step more than everyone else.  Nothing stops a player from paying more then the $HIGHERBID if they move it up to prevent a last minute drive from someone else. It still allows players to jockey about like they do in early auctions.  I think the AI tends to underbid, but I like the jockeying that they do and we must retain that (and the emotional part of bidding).  If the price is not overdriven, $HIGHERBID is not necessary.

I also really think this should be fixed.

[Intergalactic Mole]

In a REAL LIFE auction, it is not so easy to back out.  The auction deisgn of mule is not realistic in the first place.  Therefore, by forcing someone to buy something, it completely changes the dynamics of the game.

[hudson]

If you are constantly driving the price up, it is not easy to back out in a market auction either. It's only easy in a land auction.

[Sgt York]

In a REAL LIFE auction, it is not so easy to back out.  The auction deisgn of mule is not realistic in the first place.  Therefore, by forcing someone to buy something, it completely changes the dynamics of the game.

Your not "FORCING" someone to buy it, they raised it themselves.  If you don't want to buy something for that high of a price - don't escellate it that way.  To me, it's not about just being "realisitic" it's about balanced gameplay.  Right now the RICHEST person can stop anyone with less money from buying land - even tho they likely need it most, by using this tactic.  The entire game is made to help the person in last, and hinder the person in first - while maintaining as much of a level playing field as possible.   If someone has the money to run the score up - they should be forced to have a consequence of it.

In the land auctions, I am very much in favor that once the minimum bid is raised, at least 1 person should be forced to remain on the bid section.  Thus if you are the one RAISING the bid, you risk everyone else backing out and forcing you to buy it.  Heck, your the one raising it.  And your not even forced to buy it at the HIGHEST level, but at the MINIMUM bid if you are on the screen alone.   It is very much in the spirit of the game and fair play.

[trouba]

By the way, in your last games, how much land have you seen sold in auction? If you want my rough estimate, then zero. Cost raising and abandoning is highly abused. Hell, I'm doing that, too

[Dragonmaw]

Personally, since the goal is to replicate MULE, you should keep it as is. But a more realistic "auction" may be nice as a side-option.

[Yarr]

I support the current system where you can raise the bid as much as you want without having to buy the plot.
If players would be forced to do that in plot auctions, would it apply to goods auctions? You dont want player A to get any food, and he's short on cash. Player B has 3 surplus. Player C has sufficent units and is low on cash. You (player D) run the starting bid to 150$, so that A has no funds to buy any food. Why should you be "punished" (150/unit) because player A hasn't invested in food and you on the other hand have funds to buy him out?

all of above makes no sense, but I'm trying to say: If you dont have enough resources, improve your game or just blaim bad luck.
The current system allowing some players to raise the starting bid to thousands, means that no one will get the plot (in most cases). So whats the problem? You dont get the plot, but neither does the raiser.
I hate ragequitters and cheaters as much as the next guy, but you cant compare this to cheating or anything like it. It's just a part of the game.

you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. maybe i should get my head out of my ass.

[mulefan]

The current system allowing some players to raise the starting bid to thousands, means that no one will get the plot (in most cases). So whats the problem?

I strongly disagree with your position.

You are preventing other players from participating in a free market *without any cost to yourself*. That is not playing; that is sabotage. Obviously exploiting a bug in the original game.

If you want to prevent other players from acting, it should come at a cost, e.g. buying+outfitting a mule and releasing it.

I think the only logical solution is: If you run up a bid, you better run (all the way) down to un-bid before the timer runs out. This still allows you to use your financial muscles to prevent other players from gaining a plot (or goods in a regular action), but it comes at a cost.

[piete]

Obviously exploiting a bug in the original game.

Heretic!

I have cursed this "feature" many times, but on the other hand I have exploited it too. As long as we know it is there we can prepare for it. And I don't care if somebody raises the price to 2500 at early rounds, if I have the cash I buy it (and very often win the game). And I know many other people that also buy the land.

I still would be interested to test the suggested "solution"...

[-Lee-]

just had an idea, instead of being able to move off the board they move their bid down to the starting baseline before they come off the board and into the "buy" section, so if they go to a thousand when the baseline is 250, they have to walk all the way back down to 250 to come of the board. however other players retain where their maximum bid is on the board, but if their bid is less than what's on the eh board axis then they stay at the very bottom of the board just above the "buy" area, they can still move down (on the spot basically with only their bid value changing) as above but wont come off the board and into the buy area until their bid is below the baseline.

this would pretty much solve the problem I think, no speed changes and if you come down other people are able to compete again at the bid value that they went off the board.

[Intergalactic Mole]

If someone has the money to run the score up - they should be forced to have a consequence of it.

You are preventing other players from participating in a free market *without any cost to yourself*.

If you want to prevent other players from acting, it should come at a cost, e.g. buying+outfitting a mule and releasing it.

There is indeed both cost and consequence.  Someone will have the ability to obtain the plot for free in the next land grant.  It probably won't be the person who drove the price up.  As a result, you are actually helping your fellow players more than you are hurting them.

That is not playing; that is sabotage.

There are many elements of sabotage in this game.  If you don't like sabotage, you don't have to play.

Obviously exploiting a bug in the original game.

In your opinion, it's a bug.   In my opinion, it's not.  I think the balance is in favor of it not being a bug, however, since it cannot be proven that it is (i.e. confirmation from the game author or game release notes, manual revision, etc). 

just had an idea, instead of being able to move off the board they move their bid down to the starting baseline before they come off the board and into the "buy" section, so if they go to a thousand when the baseline is 250, they have to walk all the way back down to 250 to come of the board. however other players retain where their maximum bid is on the board, but if their bid is less than what's on the eh board axis then they stay at the very bottom of the board just above the "buy" area, they can still move down (on the spot basically with only their bid value changing) as above but wont come off the board and into the buy area until their bid is below the baseline.

this would pretty much solve the problem I think, no speed changes and if you come down other people are able to compete again at the bid value that they went off the board.

That is an interesting idea to add to the list.  I would support trying this in a future version of MULE, but not the classic one.