Looks like it benefits people who already own property a bit too much for my liking.

@Josh It’s a complex change. What in particular most benefits the Homeowner crowd? How high do you think a tax on Homeowners should be to offset it?

It doesn’t strike me as a very complex change at all - it’s taking out the provision that establishes random buyers, with the change that they may not make an offer, and instead allows Realtors to target a single specific buyer who has a 50% chance of being scared off.

The way that this alters the odds will vary but it massively increases the Realtor’s odds of getting the single best possible bid over the current text, which can result in the Realtor getting a number of bids that they have to weigh in a cost-benefit decision against their purchase price and the likelihood of a better bid emerging in future.

In other words, it makes the game much more flat and much less interesting, as well as continuing the trend of trying to consolidate power in the hands of those Realtors who have already elbowed their competition out of every auction so far with artificially high bids.

The ‘tax’ on Homeowners should be what it has always been: that they accept the loses that come with their inflationary tactics.

I think its complex. I couldn’t read it at first!

@Josh I think the “decision” isn’t much of an interesting one. As it stands, you just decide whether you’re going to take the top bid or try again and again every hour until you roll the right Buyer. It isn’t even that hard to do: less than 30 buyers, and you roll 10, means better than 1/3 chance to get a specific one. It’s just a lot of paperwork hassle.

Your accusation that I’m trying to consolidate power is unfounded. My aim is merely to simplify a cumbersome process. If you feel it’s unbalanced, by how many bucks? It really can’t be by more than 5 per house. Just go buy your own house.

(I idle myself, which I’m required to announce in a comment. Quorum remains 8.)

I honestly don’t think it’s terrible as it stands right now.