About
Commentary and processes of J C Lawrence:
systems architect,
contrarian,
theorist,
sailor,
hacker,
virtual world designer,
linux-user,
aquarist,
disquisitor,
cat breeder,
raconteur,
game designer,
ludophile,
bibliophile,
numismatist,
speculator and
theologiser
License
To be or not to be a cutlery, that is the question!
A few weeks ago I reviewed Corner Lot with Tom Lehmann. Tom asked abot the $2 raises. One of the reasons, asides from accelerating the cashflow management challenge, is that $2 raises greatly increases the rate of subsequent $1-off events1, or if you wish, Power Grid moments2. Tom ever so gently suggested that the $2 raises were an unjustified complexity as such $1-off moments were in fact something of a false decision 3.
After some thought I’ve concluded that he’s quite right, and yet not. The core notion is of the $1-off decision is that at the time of (fund) allocation a player is able to reasonably predict that spending $1 more or less now will control whether or not they’ll be $1-off for a later item. Tom is right, that’s a tall order and in the case of Corner Lot or Power Grid, or any sufficiently dynamic system, this is bogus. In Corner Lot such an estimation requires predicting not only the cards in the future markers, but the exact results of player bids — certainly not a reasonable question at the $1 precision level. The players simply have no way to predict that accurately. Instead the $1-off moments are effectively random events which simply happen to the players, randomly specifying that a given player does or does not have enough money for something. At this level the $1-off events, and their creation, are clearly uninteresting and the decision at the point the $1-off event was incepted (when the money was allocated) doesn’t really exist.
But that is not the whole story. When a $1-off event occurs, the subject player must decide how to respond and, if necessary, to recover. There are frequently real decisions at this point: The player can’t afford what they need or want, so how to marshal their capital to still support their victory? There’s usually a real decision there and that’s where the decision is. The decision isn’t at the time the $1-off event is created, not at its inception, but rather the decision is post-facto in the recovery from the random event. Additionally, this clearly identifies the real design question: Is the additional rules complexity of requiring a minimum $2 raise justified by the additional interesting decisions created by recovering from the higher rate of $1-off events? I’m tempted to say it is, but I’m clearly also biased. Hey play-testers, what do you think?
One of the other results of the conversation with Tom is that I’m going to be forking Corner Lot. I’m pleased with the current game and enjoy playing it, but auctions are out of fashion with the German publishers and the required componentry (chips, markers etc) make the more attractive lower price points difficult to realise. As a result I’m going to fork the design and create a different game, one still based on the same reservation bidding concept, but with considerable less arithmetic and with no explicit auctions (ie no round-robin auctions to resolve multi-bid cards). I’ve no idea on the game yet, or much idea about the theme (Ariel Seoane has suggested musical group bookings for a concert), but I’m working on it. Currently the numbers are just not working out…
- Occasions when players are $1 short of being able to afford a desired item). ↩
- Power Grid seems to be famous for $1-off events. ↩
- Assuming I interpreted his comments correctly. ↩
Comments
If the future $1-off events are seemingly random, I fail to see why requiring a minimum raise of $2 would increase the rate of $1-off events.
Very simply, because 2 (and 3, for the $3 raise case) are not factors of 5, and the card prices are all multiples of 5.
But unless I misunderstand the rules, we’re only talking about the raises. The starting prices, either way, are multiples of 5.
In other words, I can see how with $1 increments, it would hit a multiple at 35, 40, 45, etc, whereas with 2 it would only hit half as often, at 40, 50, etc., but all that presumes you’re only bidding on one card at a time, which most of the time you aren’t.
I suspect that due to bidding on multiple cards at a time — possibly even multiple times in the same round, that it really doesn’t make as big a difference in the number of $1-offs as you might think… certainly, imho, not enough to offset the “additional rules complexity.”
In my opinion, the more important question might be to ask whether the finer granularity of $1 raises would be good or not.
JC, I really enjoyed player Corner Lot this evening, and can see why many enjoy it. Thank you for the information you shared on this game and my own game design concepts.
Have you yet calculated/polled the probability of $1-off events? This may give you the answer you need about whether to ditch 2′s and 3′s or not.
I’m most-likely in the camp that would like to see the increments standardized at the minimum possible value, but if you were to do this as part of the development of the game, I don’t think you should turn 5′s into 2′s…I think you should turn 5′s into 20′s, and don’t use singles.
20-10, 40-15, 60-20, 80-25, 100-30, 120-35, 140-40, and 160-50. Revenue is 1/4 the cost, plus $5. Major changes include the new valuation of the high-end cards, as well as increased revenue throughout (by 25%). A benefit would be in endgame tabulation – the highest combination values would all be factors of 50.
Such a minor change would undoubtedly force you to recalculate things, so maybe the easiest fix would be just to use a $2 chip.
Write a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in