Auction Standings and General Commentary

[Isei]

I actually really like the idea for this, LV.  But a slight note about stuff:

Silent auction is a variant of an English auction where bids are written on a sheet of paper. At the predetermined end of the auction the highest listed bidder wins the item. This auction is often used in charity events, with many items auctioned simultaneously with a common finish time. The auction is "silent" in that there is no auctioneer, the bidders writing their bids on a bidding sheet often left on a table near the item.

So in reality, we're already doing a silent auction-- you're talking about doing one with bids sealed until the end of each of the rounds. 

If you do end up making a suggestion thread at some point though, can I get a mention?

EDIT: found what type you're suggesting, a "Sealed First Price Auction:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_first-price_auction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_first-price_auction)

[Daxx]

If ScaredGirl had not intervened at the last minute in this auction, there would have been a number of elite players sold to teams for very cheap thanks to dealmaking.

I'd like to see some evidence for and reasoning behind this statement, as (quite ignoring the fact that the auction isn't even over yet) it seems to me that the following still applies:

Dealmaking would be almost impossible for any good player because convincing 11 other people not to bid on someone is very, very hard unless you can give something in return. It is not worth the risk of not bidding on a strong player in a "deal" when you have to rely on 10 other people to do the same.

So which one is the case? Is it impossible to convince 11 to adhere to a deal, or would there have definitely been some back room deals this auction without anyone defecting? This is pretty simple game theory here.

[QuantumT]

*snip*

Right now you have the palace, so it doesn't take convincing 11 other generals. It only takes convincing 2.

[Acsabi44]

Correction:
Shantu. It was who bid 6 on him not 
(actually,  is among the elements he banned as a merc)

[Sir Valimont]

If ScaredGirl had not intervened at the last minute in this auction, there would have been a number of elite players sold to teams for very cheap thanks to dealmaking.

I'd like to see some evidence for and reasoning behind this statement, as (quite ignoring the fact that the auction isn't even over yet) it seems to me that the following still applies:

Dealmaking would be almost impossible for any good player because convincing 11 other people not to bid on someone is very, very hard unless you can give something in return. It is not worth the risk of not bidding on a strong player in a "deal" when you have to rely on 10 other people to do the same.

So which one is the case? Is it impossible to convince 11 to adhere to a deal, or would there have definitely been some back room deals this auction without anyone defecting? This is pretty simple game theory here.

Good question -- the confusion lies in that I didn't explain too well. The dealmaking was largely centered around loyalists in this auction, such that the dealmaking only had to occur between 3 generals in most cases. As I mentioned previously, there are other ways besides a silent auction to solve this problem; the simplest being to have every player be a slave.

I see two possible outcomes for War #4:

1) An auction just as it is now, except everyone is a slave, there is no max bid, and players can be bought wholesale pre-auction for a fixed high price (like 25 cards).

2) The silent auction we've been describing.

[Glitch]

Well, there's a somewhat obvious solution here.

Everyone in the auction "levels up"

We all start as slave.

When a player reaches 3 cards bid, they may ban 3 elements from bidding on them.  They may not ban anyone who has bid on them already.
When a player reaches 6 cards bin, they may ban an additional 3 elements.  They may not ban the element that is currently buying them, or the element that bids on them most frequently (most number of bids, not necessarily most cards bid)
At 12 cards bid, the player may ban a third set of three.  They may not ban the current bid winner.
At 24, the player picks his team.

No backroom deals, no accidentally putting themselves in a room too high, and no all out bidding sprees of 24 on one player.

[Higurashi]

Gl1tch wins. I love your RPG-y ideas. x)

[gavsword]

The problem with Gl1tch's idea is what if someone bans the person who voted on them once they reach Merc? Do they lose their votes, cannot ban them at all or just sorta have null votes sitting around and a random higher starting bid.

[DSSCRA]

Well, there's a somewhat obvious solution here.

Everyone in the auction "levels up"

We all start as slave.

When a player reaches 3 cards bid, they may ban 3 elements from bidding on them.  They may not ban anyone who has bid on them already.

The problem with Gl1tch's idea is what if someone bans the person who voted on them once they reach Merc? Do they lose their votes, cannot ban them at all or just sorta have null votes sitting around and a random higher starting bid.

Problem solved.

[Sir Valimont]

Well, there's a somewhat obvious solution here.

Everyone in the auction "levels up"

We all start as slave.

When a player reaches 3 cards bid, they may ban 3 elements from bidding on them.  They may not ban anyone who has bid on them already.
When a player reaches 6 cards bin, they may ban an additional 3 elements.  They may not ban the element that is currently buying them, or the element that bids on them most frequently (most number of bids, not necessarily most cards bid)
At 12 cards bid, the player may ban a third set of three.  They may not ban the current bid winner.
At 24, the player picks his team.

No backroom deals, no accidentally putting themselves in a room too high, and no all out bidding sprees of 24 on one player.

Banning elements is always bad, and this is absolutely no solution ... it just makes things more complicated. It's still easy to make deals with your method; the general who wants the player would just bid early and quickly, and the player would insta-ban other elements.

The concept of banning elements really only works where the generals don't make deals ... but that's not going to happen. We should just solve the problem by doing away with banning elements, and make the process a true auction.

Incidentally, there's no reason there can't be an added "trading" round after the auction, where generals trade players to each other. This would be a good way to get people on the teams they want to play for, which is really the only reason banning of elements happens.

Let's not get confused about the term "dealmaking" by the way. Making deals that allow expensive players to sell for cheaper than is normal or appropriate is not a good thing. Having a round where deals like player trades can happen IS a good thing -- it's the type of deal between two people that is by definition balanced unless someone makes an unintended error.

[Daxx]

Just a note to say that I'm currently having some personal issues, which means that it's unlikely I'll be updating this standings thread whilst the auction is still running.

There is already another auction tracker, so people may want to use that. Alternatively, people are welcome to simply copy and paste the current BBCode into a new thread.

Apologies all.

[918273645]

I call one of the last 2 spots for !

(Hoping GG will stumble across my thread r sumfin)