BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

Do bids currently have to be positive?

This might be a good place to fix distracting (“Distracting (-1 Power to a minimum of zero)” - but Power can be negative) as well.

Does this mean that must Undesirable items will be won by semi-active players? I’m not sure how I feel about that - it incentivises being involved but disincentivises getting involved if you haven’t already.

Yes, to Bids being positive. They’re described as a “spend”, and “Unless otherwise specified, only positive amounts can be spent, lost, gained, or transferred”.

Distraction cap fixed.

And yes, as written these will go to the less active players, and most likely be easily dodged with a bid of 1. We can always think about ways to avoid that later on, it’s not going to be an issue for at least four days.

so wait, doesnt it specify that only the debt of thw winner increases? so only the person with the lowest bid will lose money in an undesirable auction, and also get the terrible item, so wont everyone just bid arbitrarily large amounts of money?

“Increasing the Debt of these Winners by the Money (if any) they spent on their winning bids”
is the text used, so there is literally no reason not to bid infinity each time for undesirable items.

@Ninja - That’s the current text - this proposal changes it to “* For each Undesirable Item, increasing the every Debt of every Nobleman who bid on it by the Money (if any) they spent on their bids” - so bidding infinity means spending infinity, even if you don’t win the bid.

“in the event of a tie, lowest Power wins;” means lowest power bid, not lowest current power of bidding Nobles, right? My mind was going off in the direction of intentionally reducing power in order to win more elephant items. :P

@TyGuy6 that’s how I’m interpreting it, yes!