Re: [Rails-devel] Players total value (was: Some questions regarding a new release)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

All:
sorry I submitted a version of the mail, which was an older one and was not 
fully edited to what it should have been:

I first considered the question of sure (or almost sure) closure of an item 
before game end to be the relevant. But as many already complained this 
is ambiguous (in theory nearly all games can end before seeing the first tile 
laid, even without thinking about bankruptcy).

For sure the on-going value can be configured to be an additional or optional 
replacement of the end-of-game value. It was already on my to-do-list to make 
the current end-of-game value.

Feel free to suggest something better suited.

Stefan


So my fully finished proposal is for an ongoing player value is stated below:

A) For items that have a value at game end unequal to zero use that.

B) For items that have a value at game end equal to zero use the purchasing 
cost defined below.

Purchasing price for type B items:

1) The actual price paid to the bank is relevant (e.g after a bidding 
process).

2) if a bundle is sold the value of all Items of type B purchased from bundles 
are evaluated by deducting first the current value of all type A items (at the 
time of purchase) from the purchase price and then the remaining amount
is distributed equally to all type B items of the bundle.
 
Some further remarks:
a) Potential conversions (even automatic) are irrelevant until they occur.

b) Items might change their type from B to A without conversion if their game 
end value changes from zero to a non-zero value. This has no retrograde effect 
of the value of other items sold in a bundle with the item.

Remark b) covers the case of the C&A:

The PRR share bundled with the C&A will be first assigned the difference 
between the purchase price of the C&A minus the value of the C&A. Later if a 
market price is available then the PRR share is valued by that.


On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 08:07:14 am Stefan Frey wrote:
> I thought about this, and used some ideas from accounting (however adopted
> to the 18xx environment).
> 
> What do you think about the following definition to evaluate items for the
> player value displayed in Rails:
> 
> B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase value.
> 
> 
> For this we should internally however differentiate between game end player
> value and ongoing current player value: This would allow us easily to
> choose by game configuration to display end value or current value.
> 
> However I suggest to defer implementation to the Rails 2.0 trunk.
> 
> Stefan
> 
> On Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:24:54 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:00 PM
> > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Some questions regarding a new release
> > > 
> > > On 2011-12-18 08:04, Erik Vos wrote:
> > > > [1835] Net worth calculation seems a little off, I think it's getting
> > > > confused particularly with the Prussian certs.  [Phil Davies
> > > > 17-6-2010]
> > > 
> > > I noticed this recently, too.  What seems to be happening is that in
> > > both 1835 and 18EU, the minor companies are counted as zero in net
> > > worth.
> > 
> > While
> > 
> > > this may be correct in the rules, it's a distortion for players who
> > > want
> > 
> > to use
> > 
> > > net worth as a way to predict final positions.
> > > 
> > > I suggest that in 1835, the privates and minors should be counted as
> > > the value of the PR shares they will eventually trade for (77M per 5%
> > > if PR
> > 
> > has
> > 
> > > not yet formed), while for 18EU, I would just count them all as $100
> > > each
> > 
> > (as
> > 
> > > a ballpark estimate).
> > 
> > Hmm, if we are going to count privates/minors to their expected future
> > value rather than their official current value, shouldn't we then also
> > count 1830 C&A for $320 rather than $160?
> > I would prefer to stick to the rules, and leave it to the players to take
> > note of (or forget about) any expected future gains.
> > 
> > Erik.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -- --- Learn Windows Azure Live!  Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
> > Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for
> > developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what
> > it provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE
> > online. Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Write once. Port to many.
> Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
> new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
> Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel