I've got a new card game (3-7 players, 30-45 minutes, auction/bidding) similar in style, but not in play or strategy with Coloretto. The game cards are professionally printed, and could be mailed to the test group, and returned in a prepaid mailer. Otherwise, let me know if I can email you a Print and Play version. Thanks for your interest!
Have game - need playtesters
Sun, 02/20/2011 - 17:10
Tue, 02/22/2011 - 18:58
#1
EricInWisconsin wrote:I've
I've got a new card game (3-7 players, 30-45 minutes, auction/bidding) similar in style, but not in play or strategy with Coloretto. The game cards are professionally printed, and could be mailed to the test group, and returned in a prepaid mailer. Otherwise, let me know if I can email you a Print and Play version.
Thanks for your interest!
Thanks for your interest!
Why don't you post a description or the rules, so people can decide if it sounds like a game they'd like to play?
Wed, 02/23/2011 - 00:36
#3
Twist
Is the grand prize better or worse than the consolation prize? I assume by the title and the fact that there ia a twist to the game that the consolation prize somehow has some meaning other than second best prize. If not then, the value of all the prizes in the auction could be summed up to determine the best bid. You would just have to take into account a sort of non-linear relationship between bids and prizes.
Now, if the consolation prize were either better than first place or worse than not bidding at all, you might run into some rather strange auction dynamics.
If a bidder needs to be overbid in order to get the best prize, then you run into a situation where you have to access the relative desire of everyone else in the auction to claim something as opposed to nothing and push your bid just low enough to force the one overbid to be the one person who would rather get something than nothing. This dynamic may in fact be further complicated by implementing the "all pay auction" mechanic.
Likewise, you would run into some strange dynamics if the consolation prize was worse than not bidding at all. It would encourage the second place bidder to overbid and likely create an overvalued grand prize price and, like the all pay auction have a chilling effect on opening unless you were willing to go all the way. The war of attrition in a multiplayer environment is actually an example of this worst to come in second scenario.
Wed, 02/23/2011 - 00:46
#4
I think the idea is utterly
I think the idea is utterly brilliant if you've built in mechanisms to deter the what-ifs brought up by previous commentators. Would each of these auction prizes simply have a flat point value and a category or two that the contestants have on their "like" lists?
Wed, 02/23/2011 - 14:32
#5
Because each player is
Because each player is looking for different types of prizes, the Consolation Prize may be more or less valuable than the Grand Prize. The terms "Grand" and "Consolation" are mere place-keepers for setting up the auction.
The type of prizes each player is collecting is gradually revealed, so part of the game is watching what people are bidding on. There is (typically) overlap of what people need to collect, and the payout for the auction is redistributed between the "losing" players. This payout is the currency used in the action (as in "Trump Fabrique"). This sets up a dynamic where everyone is involved in the auction (whether to drive up the bidding, or win the Grand Prize, or win the Consolation Prize).
Each prize has a different value, but this is almost secondary as you need prizes to win the game.
Wed, 02/23/2011 - 14:49
#6
I'm in. Send the prototype
I'm in. Send the prototype files in a PM. I'll video the playtest session and post it here.
(I'm trying really hard to be the change I want to see in these boards! hence my deluge of posts. If I'm getting on people's nerves just PM me.)
Wed, 02/23/2011 - 22:14
#7
Emergent Dynamics
There is (typically) overlap of what people need to collect, and the payout for the auction is redistributed between the "losing" players. This payout is the currency used in the action (as in "Trump Fabrique").
I believe a similar mechanism is also deployed in Ra to great effect. Since you do not have any obvious means of generating money for the players, a mechanism that recycles it by redistribution will ultimately end up being very self-balancing. There emerges in this context as desire to not only inflate the price for things you don't want but to all so be very efficient with the price of things you do want for fear of overpaying and losing bargaining ground proportionally to everyone else. But, it is also quite forgiving too. So... nice mechanic.
But, why would you want to bid on what someone else wants if it doesn't actually do you any good at all? I mean... yes, it might drive the price up, but you might end up winning the bid for something that is completely useless to you. Under those situations, you end up with what I have been calling a 'degenerate multiplayer Hawk-Dove' game. If you expend resources to thwart someone else, then both you and the other player end up losing to the person who stands on the side lines. This will result in a Nash Equilibrium of Neutrality... it doesn't make sense for you to get involved. It is degenerate because it makes sense for you to convince someone else to get involved instead. So, it becomes a hypocrite's game.
It seems to me that you might end up with a less troublesome dynamic if you collected sets from the prizes. As long as the VP value of the objects could be determined dynamically with an initial 'nudge' in one direction or the other (perhaps because you all start off with one or two of the prizes) and there was overlapping ways to use the prizes, there would be strict competition for the resources and you would end up with a lot more possible permutations of play.
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 16:21
#8
Set Collection
I like, and considered your idea of set collection of any prizes, but was concerned the game would look too much like Coloretto (a game I really like, but don't want to copy). Both games have a similar game ending- all players know what the others want. Coloretto allows a player to change his mind about what to go after early on in the game as he sizes up the competition. Consolation Prize allows a player to guard as long as possible what his intentions are. As his secret comes out, others can better predict where he stands and what he'll do. Because the auction has two winners, and the players prize goals start out secret, it became possible to allow this.
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 13:20
#9
sounds interesting, you can
sounds interesting, you can send us the PnP files in a
PM.
Alright, here's the general description of the game:
In Consolation Prize, players are competing to win cash and prizes for the contestants they represent. While they may all like cash, not just any prize will do. There’s furniture, electronics, jewelry, and other types of prizes. You start the game knowing the type of prizes your contestants want, and can only guess what the other players are looking for. Prizes will be won by auction, thirteen of them to be exact, after which time scores are determined. Keeping in mind that each player scores only the Prizes that match the types sought after by his contestants, only the two top scorers will compete for a final Showcase Prize. After that, the game winner is the one who ends up with the most cash and prizes.
Sounds straight-forward? Here’s the twist.
Each auction will have a Grand Prize (taken by the highest bidder) and a Consolation Prize (taken by the second-highest bidder). If you want the Consolation Prize, and could care less about the Grand Prize, you need to bid just high enough that someone else will outbid you, putting you in second place...