|
Should I implement "economic collapse", and how |
Yes, do the proposed changes |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
No, leave it as it is |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
I agree with the proposed changes, but with different parameters |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Just make the salary decrease faster |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
I'm for some other solution |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
|
Total Votes : 2 |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:10 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Kreso Game Developer
![](images/avatars/7240232454529363f21ec1.png)
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 755
|
Post subject: Shortening the game - economic collapse |
|
|
The problem with the gameplay is that there is a period in the game, which starts about when salary reaches 0, when there is no fresh money, the winner is already known, and everyone is just circling. That period is really boring and wastes 10-15 minutes.
The fix that I am proposing is to put a new rule in, called "economic collapse". What would happen is that when salary reaches some value, say 0, then it immediately falls down to -300.
Also, the salary would decrease such that it reaches 0 at about 40 minutes in the game on average, for 2 player games (that's little slower than now).
This would have the effect of eliminating the circling period, and will make the game shorter.
Also I will need some plausible explanation to present to the players for such important moment in the game. What I propose is:
<
As a result of your enterprises, the planet's ecosystem has been completely destroyed. Economic collapse is inevitable. But you are thinking "The anti-ultraviolet handheld umbrella business is going really good, maybe I should get into it."
When passing over Start, all players must pay 300 for expenses.
>
Also any ideas on accompanying picture? Like a strange looking purple umbrella?
If anyone has a better idea, let me know.
Also, for the pool above, you can vote for "I agree with the proposed changes, but with different parameters", which means you don't like that economy collapse starts at salary 0, makes it -300 and starts about 40 minutes in game. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:32 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Titanx3 Planetoid
![](images/avatars/6097029854325f55c0644d.gif)
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 24 Location: look out your window
|
Post subject: |
|
|
im not sure about this, i would have to give it a try through. i agree something needs to be done, when i was playing you, i was clearly going to win IN THE END but it was taking ages. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:12 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Duda Planetoid
![](images/avatars/1318657144432cfa3fd44b9.jpg)
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 57 Location: NSW, Australia
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I voted for 'some other solution'. In my opinion the problem is that the player(who is going to lose) simply can't do anything, rather than just make thier death happen faster there should be something that the player can try to do to prevent it.
I brought this up before, but re-auctioning properties, is what I would do. I mean theres two parts to it, the stronger play if in a clear advantage can just win faster, or the weaker player can attempt to get a monopoly.
The 'parameters' of my idea would be something like:
- When you land on something the game stops you as normal, however your next turn has a button enabled which has 'Bring to Auction', clicking the button would make the property, which isn't yours and is already sold to another player, to auction again. At this point it could either take the Price paid for the property at the orginal auction OR start it all over again(I suggest this idea).
- The disadvantage could be that you have to pay a 20% extra penalty when purchasing the property(?), and as well as the fact that you forfeit your roll(ie. It is spent on the auction) and returns you to the start.
- Another condition might be that you own at least 1 other property in the set. To stop you breaking apart monopolies and making the game take longer. - Therefore you also can't re-acution a property with a house on it(although this could be made an independant condition).
- The Owning Player gets 80% of the money paid for the property back, before it goes on re-auction.
- This can't be done to extractors (And Utilities?).
The Reasoning behind the ability to re-auction would be that 'Governement Officals have decided that the property needs to be re-developed.' Ie. Becuase the player bringing it to re-auction has bribed them into this action(thus the 20% penalty), and the reason why you can't do it to established/monopoly properties.
Ok How does this solve the problem, well it makes it possible for the losing player to take a chance and try and get a monopoly and possibly come-back, alternatively It could force the other player(s) to stpend up big crippling them. _________________ Duda |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Gimp Asteroid
![](images/avatars/11104565614325e9528e728.jpg)
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 5 Location: Lamar University
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I can't picture this actually happening, but I would like to try it. I think an idea for speeding up the game is when you land on natural disaster, it goes down either 15, 25, 50, or 100. Sort of like the bonus. _________________ Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:12 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Kreso Game Developer
![](images/avatars/7240232454529363f21ec1.png)
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 755
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Duda:
Yor idea is intresting, especially for "epic" version of the game, which would last 3 hours, where it would be better to rent the properties (for limited time) instead of buying them, so that the situation on board doesn't become static.
However, for current version im suspicious that this would actually make the game longer ant it would be a huge change, so i'm gonna skip it for now.
Gimp:
One of the reasons the bonus place was added is to add fluctuating economy to the game. In my opinion, it's fluctuating enough, there is no reason to boost the effect by randomly changing the salary. It's random enough as it is.
Besides from that, making salary decrease faster will shorten the game, but the problem with boring circling phase will stay. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:40 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Duda Planetoid
![](images/avatars/1318657144432cfa3fd44b9.jpg)
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 57 Location: NSW, Australia
|
Post subject: |
|
|
I have another Idea:
From what I have seen, It is bonuses at the end game that seem to be the biggest factor to slow down gameplay near the end, especially in 2 player games. And the advantaged player just get stacks of money, whilst the other stays around the same value due to bonuses, sure eventually salary/resign will end the game, but that is so slow. So:
How about 'Bonus' becomes 'Recession', where the players all get -700(or -500 for 3 player etc.). Essentially this is similar to the Econoic Collapse Idea, and of coarse requires a restraint, perhaps:
1. Once the salary become Negative. OR
2. When all properties(not including Utilities/Extractors) are bought (this gives buying properties(that can't be in a monopol) at end game some meaning).
Also I think there would need to be some re-wording:
Bonus(+) = Boom - Blue
Bonus(-) = Recession - Red
Boom(salary) = Decrease Taxes?
Recession(salary) = Increase Taxes?
Also another Problem I think is slowing the game down is definitely Extractors, I think they are too good, I suggest they be changed to:
1:160
2:130(maybe 140?)
3:240
4:290 _________________ Duda |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:28 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Kreso Game Developer
![](images/avatars/7240232454529363f21ec1.png)
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 755
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Well, looking on probabilities, reducing bonus is the same thing as reducing salary. It will have the same effect. It's just that I prefer to reduce salary, since it's decreasing anyway.
(Note: at game start, salary and bonus have different effect because of acquireing properties)
As for the idea about "economic collapse" kicking in at the moment when all properties are bought, thats a great idea but unfortunately imposible to do right. The problem is that properties are bought much faster in 5 player games, and then ecomonic collapse will allways come too soon compared to 2 player games.
As for extractors, they do prolong a game, but not by much. Their effect is greatest in 2 player games, and even there its 5 minute difference, tops.
In 2 player games extractors are 50% better then in 5 player games. In 2 player games they are little better than utilities, in 5 player games the opposite. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:08 am |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Duda Planetoid
![](images/avatars/1318657144432cfa3fd44b9.jpg)
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 57 Location: NSW, Australia
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm I explained badly, what I meant to say was Bonus stays the same except it become negative bonus when something happens(in order to speed the game up).
Perhaps it could come negative bonus when a player gets a monopoly? _________________ Duda |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:39 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Kreso Game Developer
![](images/avatars/7240232454529363f21ec1.png)
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 755
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Duda, I understood what you are saying, but what I am saying is that reversing bonus to negative is absolutely the same thing as recuding the salary by 400, by my calculations. |
|
|
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thLeft_quote.gif) |
Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:37 pm |
![](templates/Avalanche/images/thRight.gif) |
Author |
Message |
Starlady01 Asteroid
Joined: 26 Nov 2005 Posts: 1
|
Post subject: |
|
|
Suggestion maybe instead of total collapse make it to where there is when landing on a space collapse can be reversed. _________________ Mae West |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|