Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Rails-devel] Players total value (was: Some questions regarding a new release)
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-12-20 16:23:14
|
Yes: (current) end-of-game player value is the sum of all type A items (current) on-going player value is the sum of all type A and B items I suggest to make both values optional for the UI. Default could be as it is now, thus by default only the end-of-game player value is shown. Some groups I know prefer not showing any total value during ftf-play. Stefan On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 05:18:45 pm Erik Vos wrote: > I am with those who judge that A) is sufficient. > If I understand Stefan correctly, it's B) that can be switched on and off, > and that would be fine with me. > > Erik. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:09 PM > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Players total value (was: Some questions > > regarding > > > a new release) > > > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- > > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- 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 |
