Player Auction

[the dictator]

Well, that is why I don't my rare upgrade cards, unless I have 6 of them

But for the discussion, I agree with both parties, because:

Scaredgirl is afraid of one element becoming boycotted, and other over favoured

While Malduk is afraid of taking players choice, to make it fair.


There comes the Loyalist idea in play:
People who really want to fight for only some teams can tell that, but the masters have to decide if the will pick them, for a higher price.

People that don't mind, can be Mercenaries, but in that case, they will be able to be hired by ALL elements.


Because next war a lot of people will fight for the top-3 elements, hoping to be in a winning team, but the masters can only chose some of them, leaving the other loyalist UNHIRED.

That would add a new rule, you are either a Loyalist, or a Mercenary, you can't switch.

Otherwise all people will start as Loyalists, and become Mercenaries if their elements are filled, meaning favoured elements will have a first choice.

So:
Loyalist pickes 3 elements, but costs more to hire
Mercenary picks 12 elements, costs less
And when a (aspirant)player has chosen, he can't switch between them.

This way, people can either chose to fight the elements they want, with the risk of not being taken, of they can be free for all.
(the only thing you will have to do to make Loyalists more expensive, is to raise the starting limit, from 1 to 4).

[midg3333]

I think it would be really cool if the bidding was done entirely in private with no veto/preference mechanism, but maybe the 'loyalist' idea, with a few minor tweaks:

In my opinion, the bidding should be done in private, so that when a master bids for someone, nobody else can see that bid --> not even other masters! this would make it much harder for a master to plan out their team completely. They wouldn't be sure whether or not they were going to get the certain good deckbuilder they wanted or not, so they would have to bet on more people to make sure they got a decent team. For example: earth bids 10 cards on a good deck builder, 10 cards on another good deck builder and small bids on a bunch of 'worse' players because they were sure they would get the 2 deckbuilders with their bids of 10. Turns out death bid 12 on the first deck builder and aether bid 17 on the other one, leaving earth at a bit of a disadvantage due to a mistake early on. Thing is, so long as the players in earth were reasonable deckbuilders, or the master or somebody else was pretty good, they could still do just fine in the war. On the other hand, if you bid too high on too many good players, and win the bids, you are left at a disadvantage, but with enough good players, maybe the disadvantage wouldn't be so bad. This would mean that strategy is even important before the war itself starts. Maybe it wouldn't work, maybe it would, but i thought it was an interesting concept.

about the preference system: Sure, i understand that you may really want to fight for a certain element, but remember this: The majority of players would have a preference for an element with cards and combinations that they like, usually a relatively 'powerful' element. If the most powerful elements get an extra advantage, that makes things a bit unfair. Anyway, MERCENARIES fight for whoever pays them most, being a soldier is more of an occupation than a hobby. In a similar way, the veto system would disadvantage 'weaker' elements more.
Also, just remember that even if you are selected for an element you don't like, half of your deck can be from a different element/elements...

About the loyalist idea: I kinda like the idea, but i think it would be good if there was a limit to the number of loyalists a team could choose (probably 1, IMO). That way it wouldn't be too imbalanced.

[Malduk]

Silent auction is:
1) Boring as no one knows whats going on
2) Could end with one Master on spending spree winning 15 bids. What then? He just picks his favorites? Bad.
3) Could end with one Master winning bids only on "noobs" thus making unbalanced team, or even worse, not winning bids at all

[midg3333]

Silent auction is:
1) Boring as no one knows whats going on
2) Could end with one Master on spending spree winning 15 bids. What then? He just picks his favorites? Bad.
3) Could end with one Master winning bids only on "noobs" thus making unbalanced team, or even worse, not winning bids at all

I suppose so... well i guess my idea wouldn't work too well, but maybe it will spark some creativity  .

[smuglapse]

Did not read the whole thread.

If a player does not want to play for a team (regardless of how many vetoes they had) and they get picked by said team, they are not going to be as enthused about playing as they would for a team of their choosing.
Example: (http://imageplay.net/)

How about allowing each mercenary to veto as many elements as they want.  For each element vetoed the General has to pay an additional N cards.  So, if a top player (or any player actually) only wants to play for team  , they will have a minimum bidding price of 11 x N.  If a player feels they are worth it they can risk it.  If they know they aren't as good of a player or they don't care who they play for then they won't veto any element.

The mercenary's application would have to be locked in so they can't change it at the time of selection giving their team an unfair advantage.

[kev]

If a player does not want to play for a team (regardless of how many vetoes they had) and they get picked by said team, they are not going to be as enthused about playing as they would for a team of their choosing.

Yep, that's the biggest problem as I see it.

How about allowing each mercenary to veto as many elements as they want.  For each element vetoed the General has to pay an additional N cards.  So, if a top player (or any player actually) only wants to play for team  , they will have a minimum bidding price of 11 x N.  If a player feels they are worth it they can risk it.  If they know they aren't as good of a player or they don't care who they play for then they won't veto any element.

THAT is a GREAT solution.  That (or something like it) seems to solve a variety of problems.  Maybe a minimum of 11 isn't enough, because top tier players can effectively choose their element and sell for less than they otherwise would have.  Maybe 2*elements boycotted, or 3*?

Continuing to brainstorm: Maybe we could give each prospective player 50 penalty points to distribute among the elements.  If at the start of the next war Terroking just loathes  , he could allocate the points to earth, and if  bids 2 cards on Terro and wins, they have to pay 52 cards.  If Terro really only wants to play for either  or  , he allocates a five-card penalty each to the other ten elements.

This is a little more complex (and these numbers are highly flexible) but it allows players a greater voice in which elements they wish to back without majorly disrupting the bidding system.

[smuglapse]

Maybe a minimum of 11 isn't enough, because top tier players can effectively choose their element and sell for less than they otherwise would have.  Maybe 2*elements boycotted, or 3*?

Yeah thats what the N is for.     N would be decided by ScaredGirl and could be any number (2, 2.5, 3, pi) as long as the final result was rounded up or down.

[Wisemage]

I agree with what has been said agaisnt the Slave Market (mercenaries) idea.

With this idea you need to go into war wanting to fight for any element. That isnt a problem if there were less teams, but there are 12 different elements, and everyone has atleast one they really dont want to play with.

But then again, they could say in their Slave Market post, i would rather not play for Team X and that might deter the master from bidding, because you dont want a person who is unwilling on your team.

[Scaredgirl]

How about allowing each mercenary to veto as many elements as they want.  For each element vetoed the General has to pay an additional N cards.  So, if a top player (or any player actually) only wants to play for team  , they will have a minimum bidding price of 11 x N.  If a player feels they are worth it they can risk it.  If they know they aren't as good of a player or they don't care who they play for then they won't veto any element.

I talk about something similar in the second part of this post: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8230.msg103247#msg103247

The idea was the separate applicants to Mercenaries (anything goes) and Loyalists (only accept 3 elements of their choice but Masters have to pay more for them).

[the dictator]

If a player does not want to play for a team (regardless of how many vetoes they had) and they get picked by said team, they are not going to be as enthused about playing as they would for a team of their choosing.

Yep, that's the biggest problem as I see it.

How about allowing each mercenary to veto as many elements as they want.  For each element vetoed the General has to pay an additional N cards.  So, if a top player (or any player actually) only wants to play for team  , they will have a minimum bidding price of 11 x N.  If a player feels they are worth it they can risk it.  If they know they aren't as good of a player or they don't care who they play for then they won't veto any element.

THAT is a GREAT solution.  That (or something like it) seems to solve a variety of problems.  Maybe a minimum of 11 isn't enough, because top tier players can effectively choose their element and sell for less than they otherwise would have.  Maybe 2*elements boycotted, or 3*?

Continuing to brainstorm: Maybe we could give each prospective player 50 penalty points to distribute among the elements.  If at the start of the next war Terroking just loathes  , he could allocate the points to earth, and if  bids 2 cards on Terro and wins, they have to pay 52 cards.  If Terro really only wants to play for either  or  , he allocates a five-card penalty each to the other ten elements.

This is a little more complex (and these numbers are highly flexible) but it allows players a greater voice in which elements they wish to back without majorly disrupting the bidding system.

I think it shouldn't be linear, so what about a square(root). n is number of elements vetoed.

Elements Vetoed	Minimal Bidding
	n*n+1	n*n*0,5+1	sqrt(n)+1	4*sqrt(n)+1	8*sqrt(n+1)-8
0	1	1	1	1	0
1	2	1	2	5	3
2	5	3	2	6	5
3	10	5	2	7	8
4	17	9	3	9	9
5	26	13	3	9	11
6	37	19	3	10	13
7	50	25	3	11	14
8	65	33	3	12	16
9	82	41	4	13	17
10	101	51	4	13	18

All versions have their pro's and con's, but I prefer the last one, as it is growing fast for low numbers, but not to fast later, as it is already expensive.

[Scaredgirl]

Ok, that's way too complex.

[the dictator]

Yes, maybe you are right, but I like them 

I'll think of one a simple one, that makes sense.

I am thinking of the following requirements:
For 1, 2 or 3 vetos there shouldn't be a high punishment
4,5,6,7 and 8 Should be very costly.
But I think 9, 10 and 11 should cost almost the same,

So I came up with this, just by random pick:

0	1
1	2
2	4
3	6
4	10
5	15
6	19
7	21
8	23
9	24
10	25