|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Thu, 16 March 2006 18:59   |
|
 NingunOtro |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
There are some objective reasons why I have not considered joining this game or any other yet, even if my fingers are itching to have a go.
If you examine most of my contributions to this forum so far, you will see I am more concerned about making the game experience enjoyable for the fellow players, than caring for my own confort. I can cope with having a game ruined for myself, but I am very reluctant to embarking in a game and be a disruptive out-of-scope player that ruins it or disbalances it for everybody else.
As I said in the Variety of Experience thread, I need to make sure I qualify for the required experience level before I enter a game, and there is an existing problem with not everybody using the same scales for the rating. And there is of course a problem with not being rated at all under no trustworthy scale.
I have a thorough logical, but perhaps not detailed mathematical, understanding of the game mechanics, and I use to play with logical builds rather than mathematical optimisation of races and strategies. But this is all rather theorethical and by all means I am far from a noob on the matter.
But almost all my practical experience is against AI so far. I once played as an replacement player in a mixed skills game, where I took over an almost ruined and extremely bad designed noob race. I managed a nice comeback, but the game was over before I could go so far as to take over the universe (prowess which would have needed an awfull more rounds to go and perhaps could have stayed beyond reach). This would have been more a defeat of the rest rather than a victory for myself considering the poor starting condition and far from optimal race design it would have been achieved with. Hence my interest in separating multiplayer-noobs from plain stupid handbook-noobs. Both are noobs, but far from equal in skill level.
Here on Autohost I entered as a replacement player in Ashlyns beginners game Stars Newbie Challenge II, taking over an horribly designed race. Nevertheless I was able to exploit the diplomatic situation and deploy a short-term strategy that had everybody surrendered before the long-term unviability of the race design kicked in (extremely low mining settings that would have made long term competitivity impossible due to chronical mineral shortage). I concentrated on early fleet building to proyect a power scope I lacked proper backup for, and I was already prematurely burning all available mineral sources when the only worthy opponent (Storm) got an real or invented excuse (lack of considering alternatives as pausing the game until the problems got solved) to drop out. I do not know Storm enough to evaluate the impact, but he hasn't been aroud significantly since, and I still hope I have not been the cause for this. He was the number 1 player before I got in and swiftly took over. After he dropped the game ended because the remainig spoils were no adecuate learning scenario for anybody involved anymore and continuing blindly was pointless.
So, considering plain reality, with two very uncomplete games against human opponents so far, which technically qualify me as noob by circumstances and lack of sheer numbers in game experience, despite the relative better performance against very noob other players, I can in true honesty not apply for games in which real and not only relative skill levels are asked, because I still do not have any clue as to which real game experience level I can compare with.
The only real conditions under which I can establish an adecuate assessment of my current game skills are either multi-level games as the advertised Variety of Experience, where surprises about exact skill levels are not disruptive of the game concept, or duels where damage is limited because there is only one opponent and the game ends before any others are harmed in their expectatives if your gameplay level is too far away from what was expected.
With your game being advertised for High-Intermediate and Advanced players, I can not join and make it coin-toss dependent on whether I might ruin the game for everybody else.
P.S.: I am not currently playing in any game, because the only suitable one so far does not seem close to takeof any day soon. I'd rather not be wrecking havoc playing in the wrong one.
Just a few loose  that were lost in a stray pocket and found a way out throug your kind invitation, which I surely appreciate.
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Mon, 20 March 2006 00:39 |
|
|
|
| PricklyPea wrote on Sat, 18 March 2006 03:30 |
CA may not take TT and must leave at least 200 points to defenses.
JOAT may not take OBRM and may not take NAS.
IT must leave at least 50 points to defenses.
Instead of taking defences, can we have CA leaving 250 to anything and IT 100 to anything. This gives more flexibility and keeps the penalty (since I think anything 50+ gives no further benefit).
For JOAT, it might be nice to have point penalty instead of ban too?
|
If a CA or IT race is willing to take an additional 50 point penalty, then I will permit them to change the leftover points to a different setting, as you suggest.
I am going to leave the JOAT penalty as it is.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Mon, 20 March 2006 00:49 |
|
|
|
I need bids in from everybody so we can complete the first round. We are under a tight time pressure, in the hope of getting the bidding completed fast enough for PricklyPea to submit his race before his holiday. Please try to check your email at least twice daily if possible so we can race through.
Status of first round bidding:
1) Icebird -> email in, bid in
2) Dethdukk -> no email, bid OUT
3) PricklyPea -> no email, bid in
4) Joseph -> email in, bid in
5) Steve -> email in, bid in
6) Backblast -> email in, bid in
I need bids from Dethdukk ASAP.
edit: updated list
[Updated on: Mon, 20 March 2006 05:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Mon, 20 March 2006 18:44 |
|
|
|
1st round bids have been compiled...
The lowest possible winning bids in each field were seen to be:
Energy: 15
Weapons: 14
Propulsion: 17
Construction: 15
Electricity: 17
Biotech: 21
Note that the lowest bidder in each tech often has proposed a lower bid, these numbers are what each field would've been won for, if it had been the first field resolved.
Fields were resolved in a preference order dictated by the lowest proposed bid, in case of ties between fields the next lowest bid in the tied fields were considered.
The results came out in this order:
Weapons was resolved first, at level 14
Electricity was resolved second, at level 17
Construction was resolved third, at level 18
Propulsion was resolved fourth, at level 22
Energy was resolved fifth, bids were tied at level 22
Biotech went to the final remaining player at level 26
Note that the order differs to that shown by the minimum winning bids listed above. This is for two reasons: (1) Once a player has won a tech their bids are withdrawn from the other fields, affecting the result (2) Bids are selected in order of the minimum bid made, not the minimum winning bid (which is usually the 2nd lowest bid, less one.)
*******
The second round of bidding is now open, players please submit your bids via email (or forum pm if you have to.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Mon, 20 March 2006 21:28 |
|
|
|
Status of second round bidding:
edit:list moved to later post
Dethdukk got in first 
A quick "tip of the day" about the bidding system:
The lowest bid you set implicitly puts a preference on that tech - the only way you'll get a different tech would be if you first lost the bidding on the lower tech. Bear that in mind when setting any very low bids.
[Updated on: Tue, 21 March 2006 14:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Tue, 21 March 2006 04:55 |
|
| PricklyPea |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005 | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 18:44 |
1st round bids have been compiled...
The lowest possible winning bids in each field were seen to be:
Energy: 15
Weapons: 14
Propulsion: 17
Construction: 15
Electricity: 17
Biotech: 21
Note that the lowest bidder in each tech often has proposed a lower bid, these numbers are what each field would've been won for, if it had been the first field resolved.
Fields were resolved in a preference order dictated by the lowest proposed bid, in case of ties between fields the next lowest bid in the tied fields were considered.
The results came out in this order:
Weapons was resolved first, at level 14
Electricity was resolved second, at level 17
Construction was resolved third, at level 18
Propulsion was resolved fourth, at level 22
Energy was resolved fifth, bids were tied at level 22
Biotech went to the final remaining player at level 26
Note that the order differs to that shown by the minimum winning bids listed above. This is for two reasons: (1) Once a player has won a tech their bids are withdrawn from the other fields, affecting the result (2) Bids are selected in order of the minimum bid made, not the minimum winning bid (which is usually the 2nd lowest bid, less one.)
*******
The second round of bidding is now open, players please submit your bids via email (or forum pm if you have to.)
|
OMG. I am confused!
| Quote: |
2) Host will then determine the current best (lowest) bid in each field and advise the players of these numbers only.
|
I thought you would send out the lowest bid in each field (irrespective of whether people win in other bids and pull out)? Can't you just post the lowest bid in each field so that we know what we need to bid under to win? Or is that the first list?
[Updated on: Tue, 21 March 2006 04:56] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Tue, 21 March 2006 07:13 |
|
| NingunOtro |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
As I see it, the more rounds you have, the more the results converge mathematically to 0 in all fields. Considering that most people should have built an adecuate bidding strategy based on precisely 4 rounds, and not waiting without forethought for each new round, you can drop one round if you advertise long enough beforehand to let everybody adjust their strategy.
4 rounds might indeed be too many to guarantee tech levels worth playing the game concept with. I would have strictly limited it to two rounds.
Consider the facts right now Weapons level almost halved from top, Bio intact. If most bidded level halves each round, it will end at 7 next turn, and 3 or 4 after that, to end at 1 at the final round.
Even after the third round, it wont be a worthwhile advantage to have bidded for anymore.
At this moment, people should think if they prefer to bid 7 on weapons or 14 on bio, so maybe weapons plunges less if people think a bit, but will they think? With 3 rounds ahead we can await the answer without risking that much.
What I wonder is if there will be anything of the game concept left to enjoy after the bidding is over.
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Tue, 21 March 2006 14:58 |
|
|
|
If you aren't telling who got what, are you going to allow weapons and const guys to ally (as they won't know who other techs are)?
[Updated on: Tue, 21 March 2006 14:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bidding for techs |
Tue, 21 March 2006 16:07 |
|
|
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 22 March 2006 06:58 |
If you aren't telling who got what, are you going to allow weapons and const guys to ally (as they won't know who other techs are)?
|
Hmmm? What elephant?
...
...
Well, hmmm... Simple enough, before any trading / alliance begins the races taking part have to identify to each other if they obtained one of those two techs or not.
[Updated on: Tue, 21 March 2006 16:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
i wanna win
