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

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Chris:
could you please help me with some details about the companies in the games 
you mention below? I have not played those so I have no extensive knowledge 
and I admit I am too lazy to look up rules now. Why are the better examples
for worthless companies than those minors and privates we have in other games 
already?

A more general reply:

If you think all of the type B assets are worthless use the still existing 
current value. If you think only some are worthless or you assign a different 
value make your own back-of-the envelope calculation.

I have never claimed that my valuation for type B company gives you the true 
(fundamental) value of the company. 

However I led myself guide from real-world accounting principle.

You could value assets on the balance sheet in several ways, some are put down 
below:

1) Value at termination (liquidation value)

2) Market price

3) Purchase price which is actually a historical (market) price if available

4) Model based value

So you prefer the end-of-game value guided by the first principle. 
I prefer using the purchase price for those items which do not have an end-of-
game value, but which are usually not worthless in 18xx (think about the 
minors in 18EU).

Consequently I believe that the on-going player values give a better picture 
of the current ranking of players than the end-of-game player value in the 
opening phase of 18EU.

Stefan

On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 06:05:24 pm Chris Shaffer wrote:
> I think that using purchase price is fraught with complications.
> 
> How will you account for the value of private companies in 1826 and 18GL?
>  They cannot be sold or redeemed, and always end up with value zero,
> whether the game ends immediately or at some later date.  By your algorithm
> below, they will be included in the net worth calculation, which I would
> argue is incorrect.  They have no current value, and will never have actual
> value.
> 
> I also disagree with this statement.  An example where this is obviously
> untrue is the minor companies in 18MEX.
> 
> a) Potential conversions (even automatic) are irrelevant until they occur.
> 
> 
> --
> Chris
> 
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:
> > 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