Menu
▾
▴
rails-devel
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-12-18 15:22:36
|
All: if nobody objects I will prepare a new release for tonight or sometime tomorrow (including the new background maps). I have been pretty busy recently (unfortunately not with Rails) so I am not sure if all remaining 1835 issues are fixed now. Erik could you please advise me on this: If all are done, the new release will be 1.6.0 with 1835 promoted to full playability, otherwise it will remain 1.5.5. What are the opinions to make the background maps the default option for Rails? A major advantage is that the look much nicer, however (at least currently) the seem take longer to be displayed on first appearance. Stefan |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-12-18 16:04:46
|
Stefan, Only the following alleged-bug reports remain for 1835 (copied from my personal to-do list): [1835] (Oddly enough, in a problem that resembles point 3 in reverse, the five PR tokens that are supposed to be reserved for exchanging minor company tokens *do* show up as available to be built. Next time I'll try to build them in arbitrary locations and see what happens -- both then and when the minor companies merge and there aren't any PR tokens for them.) [JDG 11-10-2011] [1835] Net worth calculation seems a little off, I think it's getting confused particularly with the Prussian certs. [Phil Davies 17-6-2010] And then we have the (very old) issue that in some cases PfB and OBB do not close where these (allegedly) should, necessitating a manual "Special" private close action. JDG also had some requests and good ideas, such as showing what PR share percentage is reserved. But that's not a bug. I may pick up some of these issues in the near future, but I don't consider any of these as urgent, because correct play is not inhibited (which is my main timing criterion). It's up to you to decide if these issues preclude stating that "all remaining 1835 issues are fixed". In any case, I have no objections. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:26 PM > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Subject: [Rails-devel] Some questions regarding a new release > > All: > if nobody objects I will prepare a new release for tonight or sometime > tomorrow (including the new background maps). > > I have been pretty busy recently (unfortunately not with Rails) so I am not > sure if all remaining 1835 issues are fixed now. Erik could you please advise > me on this: If all are done, the new release will be 1.6.0 with 1835 promoted > to full playability, otherwise it will remain 1.5.5. > > What are the opinions to make the background maps the default option for > Rails? A major advantage is that the look much nicer, however (at least > currently) the seem take longer to be displayed on first appearance. > > Stefan > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > 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 |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-12-18 16:43:51
Attachments:
1835_test_bug_A_fixed.rails
|
Erik: I just retested bug A of my previous mail with subject "Further 1835 testing". Seems that at least this bug is open: > A) Player T2 nationalizes BA from T3: There is no option to nationalize the > 20% certificate first. I assume that similar bug B is still open too: > B) Player T3 sells 30% of WT: There is no selection to chosse either one 20% > or two 10% certificates for exchange of the president certificate. > I had to fix the save file due to your removal of the special token lay step requirement by removing the superfluous skip orders. Attached that save file for bug A. Stefan On Sunday, December 18, 2011 05:04:33 pm Erik Vos wrote: > Stefan, > > Only the following alleged-bug reports remain for 1835 (copied from my > personal to-do list): > > [1835] (Oddly enough, in a problem that resembles point 3 in reverse, the > five PR tokens that are supposed > to be reserved for exchanging minor company tokens *do* show up as > available to be built. > Next time I'll try to build them in arbitrary locations and see what > happens -- both then and when > the minor companies merge and there aren't any PR tokens for them.) [JDG > 11-10-2011] > > [1835] Net worth calculation seems a little off, I think it's getting > confused particularly with > the Prussian certs. [Phil Davies 17-6-2010] > > And then we have the (very old) issue that in some cases PfB and OBB do not > close where these (allegedly) should, necessitating a manual "Special" > private close action. > > JDG also had some requests and good ideas, such as showing what PR share > percentage is reserved. But that's not a bug. > > I may pick up some of these issues in the near future, but I don't consider > any of these as urgent, because correct play is not inhibited (which is my > main timing criterion). > > It's up to you to decide if these issues preclude stating that "all > remaining 1835 issues are fixed". In any case, I have no objections. > > Erik. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:26 PM > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > > Subject: [Rails-devel] Some questions regarding a new release > > > > All: > > if nobody objects I will prepare a new release for tonight or sometime > > tomorrow (including the new background maps). > > > > I have been pretty busy recently (unfortunately not with Rails) so I am > > not > > > sure if all remaining 1835 issues are fixed now. Erik could you please > > advise > > > me on this: If all are done, the new release will be 1.6.0 with 1835 > > promoted > > > to full playability, otherwise it will remain 1.5.5. > > > > What are the opinions to make the background maps the default option for > > Rails? A major advantage is that the look much nicer, however (at least > > currently) the seem take longer to be displayed on first appearance. > > > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- > > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- 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 |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-12-19 13:16:48
|
> [1835] (Oddly enough, in a problem that resembles point 3 in reverse, the > five PR tokens that are supposed to be reserved for exchanging minor > company tokens *do* show up as available to be built. > Next time I'll try to build them in arbitrary locations and see what happens > -- both then and when > the minor companies merge and there aren't any PR tokens for them.) [JDG > 11-10-2011] Actually, I cannot find anywhere in the rules and FAQs that any PR tokens are "reserved" for exchange, however logical that would be. So I think that this is more a matter of taste (or house rules) than a bug, which makes me conclude that there is insufficient reason to have Rails enforce reserving PR tokens. Players can play the way they like. Erik. |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2011-12-20 04:31:23
|
On 2011-12-18 08:04, Erik Vos mentioned: > And then we have the (very old) issue that in some cases PfB and OBB do not > close where these (allegedly) should, necessitating a manual "Special" > private close action. I tried to test this, specifically the assertion that OBB doesn't close if its hexes are built without using the private company power. But I got a surprise: if you own OBB and build one of those hexes, the program doesn't ask whether you are using the private company power, it just assumes you are, even if you have a track connection to the hex. This assumption doesn't seem to do any harm in 1835, since OBB is supposed to close if both hexes are built on, no matter how or by whom. But it will matter in games that have a private company with a tile-laying power which closes the private, or which reduces the cost of the tile (as in 1870 and 18C2C). The program correctly *does* ask whether or not you're using a private company power when placing a token in the NF or PfB hex. There it does matter, since placing the token closes the private company only if it's done using the private company's power. |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-12-20 09:06:56
|
> From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...] > I tried to test this, specifically the assertion that OBB doesn't close if its hexes > are built without using the private company power. But I got a surprise: > if you own OBB and build one of those hexes, the program doesn't ask > whether you are using the private company power, it just assumes you are, > even if you have a track connection to the hex. Yes, that's a shortcut, of which I was aware. > This assumption doesn't seem to do any harm in 1835, since OBB is supposed > to close if both hexes are built on, no matter how or by whom. But it will > matter in games that have a private company with a tile-laying power which > closes the private, or which reduces the cost of the tile (as in 1870 and > 18C2C). This should indeed be fixed. Good point. > The program correctly *does* ask whether or not you're using a private > company power when placing a token in the NF or PfB hex. There it does > matter, since placing the token closes the private company only if it's done > using the private company's power. Erik. |
|
From: Edward S. R. <ed...@we...> - 2011-12-18 16:09:06
|
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 15:26, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote: > What are the opinions to make the background maps the default option for > Rails? A major advantage is that the look much nicer, however (at least > currently) the seem take longer to be displayed on first appearance. For what little it's worth, I'd rather the background maps stay as they are. Right now they're functional and I'm generally of the opinion that having a prettier map does not make up for what you lose in ability to read the map at a glance. Currently there a certain elegance to the maps in their clean lines and lack of distraction. |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2011-12-18 22:00:12
|
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). |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-12-18 22:25:02
|
> -----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. |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-12-20 07:03:18
|
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: A) Items that have an end game value use that. B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase value. There is the issue how to evaluate items sold as a bundle: Here I would suggest the heuristic that items with value A are deducted form the purchase price first, if a positive value remains it get equally assigned to all items of type B. 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 |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-12-20 09:04:02
|
A few comments below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:07 AM > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Players total value (was: Some questions regarding > a new release) > > 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: > > A) Items that have an end game value use that. All items have an end game value, possibly zero. I understand you mean: Items that have a non-zero end game value use that. > B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase value. Unless A) also applies? One problem arises with bankruptcies. A player might think (for instance, when engineering a bankruptcy) that he owns more end-game value than is actually the case. > There is the issue how to evaluate items sold as a bundle: > Here I would suggest the heuristic that items with value A are deducted form > the purchase price first, if a positive value remains it get equally assigned to > all items of type B. > > 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. Or both. That would in any case fix the bankruptcy issue mentioned above. Erik. |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2011-12-20 15:24:22
|
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote: > B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase value. What if the item was purchased for $120 but is guaranteed to be exchanged for an item worth $80? I personally prefer actual end-game value, and listing things that will have an end game value of zero as their actual value - zero. If there is a system to evaluate potential net worth, I hope you will have a game/engine option to disable it and display actual net worth instead. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. |
|
From: Phil D. <de...@gm...> - 2011-12-20 15:28:52
|
I'd second Chris, net worth should always state net worth if the game were to end right now. On 20 December 2011 15:24, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote: >> >> B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase value. > > > What if the item was purchased for $120 but is guaranteed to be exchanged > for an item worth $80? > > I personally prefer actual end-game value, and listing things that will have > an end game value of zero as their actual value - zero. If there is a > system to evaluate potential net worth, I hope you will have a game/engine > option to disable it and display actual net worth instead. > > -- > Chris > > Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-12-20 16:05:25
|
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 |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2011-12-20 16:19:01
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2011-12-20 17:05:36
|
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 > |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2011-12-20 17:28:25
|
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 |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2011-12-20 20:00:11
|
Private companies in 1826 and 18GL grant special powers, which the players may assign to companies. They also provide income to the players. Some of the companies close when the power is exercised, others are closed at the start of the brown phase. The private companies have no value whether open or closed. They can never be sold or traded. I would argue that their purchase price is not relevant to actual or projected net worth, and they should always be listed at zero. On the sale of a T5, two of the minor companies in 18MEX are exchanged for 5% shares of the NdM. The third is exchanged for a 10% share of the UdY. The UdY share is valued at between 60 and 90. The 5% NdM shares are worth 45 each, because the NdM is always parred at 90. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote: > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > |
|
From: John A. T. <ja...@ja...> - 2011-12-20 21:19:18
|
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>wrote: > The 5% NdM shares are worth 45 each, because the NdM is always parred at > 90. > Plus the value of not counting against your cert limit. -- John A. Tamplin |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2011-12-22 20:12:17
|
On 2011-12-19 23:07, 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: > > A) Items that have an end game value use that. I agree, but it's unclear whether this includes the face values of privates (in games where they close at a certain phase change), since they will only count if the game ends before that phase (and some games don't count them at all). > B) Items that will close before end for sure will use the purchase value. > > There is the issue how to evaluate items sold as a bundle: > Here I would suggest the heuristic that items with value A are deducted [from] > the purchase price first, if a positive value remains it get equally assigned > to all items of type B. This makes no sense to me. Only type A values should count (and then only for permanent certificates, or the trade-in shares in the case of privates/minors that will be forced to trade for something else). What you call the "present values" of privates/minors that will close without compensation are simply sunk costs, and in accounting terms they should simply be expensed immediately, because: (1) their salvage values are known to be zero; (2) forecasting depreciation without also forecasting the income that will be matched with it is futile; and (3) it's rare for most 18xx games to end before the next-to-last train type, with or without a bankruptcy. |
|
From: John A. T. <ja...@ja...> - 2011-12-22 20:32:11
|
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:12 PM, John David Galt < jd...@di...> wrote: > This makes no sense to me. Only type A values should count (and then only > for > permanent certificates, or the trade-in shares in the case of > privates/minors > that will be forced to trade for something else). > > What you call the "present values" of privates/minors that will close > without > compensation are simply sunk costs, and in accounting terms they should > simply > be expensed immediately, because: (1) their salvage values are known to be > zero; (2) forecasting depreciation without also forecasting the income that > will be matched with it is futile; and (3) it's rare for most 18xx games > to end > before the next-to-last train type, with or without a bankruptcy. > I assume the rationale here is so that early in the game you have some indication of the relative positions of players. A player that spent all their money on private companies would otherwise show near-zero net worth, while one who bought nothing would show their initial starting value. If you could accurately predict when they were going to close, you could pro-rate them or show the NPV of the future stream of revenue, but alas that isn't going to be feasible. You also say that the president's share of a stock is actually negative, because it has no money and the president is about to have to buy it a diesel out of pocket, but I don't think it is useful to try and predict what the values will be -- that is the players' job. Instead, just let rails show the values separately (cash, stock, other) and let the other category include the face value. This would also work for things like 1844's tunnel/mountain companies that only have value at the end of the game if they have been activated. -- John A. Tamplin |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2011-12-22 22:36:08
|
> John David Galt wrote: >> This makes no sense to me. Only type A values should count (and then only for >> permanent certificates, or the trade-in shares in the case of privates/minors >> that will be forced to trade for something else). >> >> What you call the "present values" of privates/minors that will close without >> compensation are simply sunk costs, and in accounting terms they should simply >> be expensed immediately, because: (1) their salvage values are known to be >> zero; (2) forecasting depreciation without also forecasting the income that >> will be matched with it is futile; and (3) it's rare for most 18xx games to >> end before the next-to-last train type, with or without a bankruptcy. John A. Tamplin wrote: > I assume the rationale here is so that early in the game you have some > indication of the relative positions of players. Right. > A player that spent all their money on private companies would otherwise show > near-zero net worth, while one who bought nothing would show their initial > starting value. That's the way it is now. > If you could accurately predict when they were going to close, you could > pro-rate them or show the NPV of the future stream of revenue, but alas that > isn't going to be feasible. Even if I could predict that, I wouldn't do it, because all 18xx games have a built-in "inflation factor": money you have early is worth a LOT more (in expected final standing, if invested well) than the same amount received later. There is also the "growth factor" (real ROI = income + increased share value), which means that, as in real life, fixed-income investments are usually much worse than they seem on paper in comparison to other investments. (And I agree with you on the rest, too: predicting player actions is too big a can of worms to open, unless we were writing the "Deep Blue" of 18xx games.) |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2011-12-22 22:02:23
|
Stefan Frey wrote: > 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 To illustrate the principle, let's look at the common classes of private companies, beginning with the six in 1830. * SVN&RR, C&StL, and D&H, each comes by itself. (Each produces income, each blocks a space on the board, and two of them have build powers once purchased by a company, but I don't think any of us wants to assign a value to any of those facts in computing a player's net worth.) So: - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face value. - If the game plays out to the end, a company will probably buy in the private for (2xface) in mid-game, and until then the private will produce income. (If no company ever buys in the private, it will eventually close for $0.) - Both Stefan and I would count these as their face value (type A). * M&H comes by itself, but can be traded in for a share of NYC. - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face value. - If the game plays out to the end, then as above, a company will probably buy it in for (2xface). The NYC trade-in is an option, but not often used (and like the buy-in, it makes sense not to consider it until it happens). - Again, both Stefan and I would count this as face value (type A). * C&A comes with a 10% share of PRR. - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face value, but the share is worth zero because no one has bought the presidency yet. - If the game plays out to the end, then like the first three, a company will probably buy in the private for (2xface), while PRR will probably float, giving the share a market value. Again, I prefer not to consider these events until they happen since both are optional. - Stefan would count the C&A as $160 (type A) and the share as the actual price paid minus $160 until someone buys the presidency of PRR. Then the share becomes worth market value. - I would count the C&A as $160, but the share as zero until someone buys the presidency of PRR. * B&O comes with the presidency of B&O, but the private cannot be bought by a company and closes when B&O buys a train. - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face value, and the two shares are also worth market value! - If the game plays out to the end, B&O will almost certainly float and buy a train, causing the private to close for $0, while the two shares will certainly have a market value. - Stefan would count the two shares as market value and the private as the price paid minus the par value of the two shares. - I would count the two shares as market value and the private as zero. ** 1835 has two major rules differences that affect all privates: none of them can be bought in by a company, and none of them count if the game ends early in a bankruptcy. * NF, OBB, and PfB come with 10% shares of BY. - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero. - If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income but will eventually close for 0M. - Stefan would count the share at market value and the private at the price paid minus the par value of the share (so NF = 8, OBB = 28, PfB = 58). - I would count the share at market value and the private at zero. * LD comes with the presidency of SX. It closes when SX buys a train. - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero. - If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income for a few rounds but then will close for 0M. - Stefan would count the two shares at market value and the private at the price paid minus the par value of the two shares (14). - I would count the two shares at market value and the private at zero. * BB and HB come by themselves but will eventually have to trade for 10% shares of PR. - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero. - If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income for a few rounds but then will merge and become a PR share which will certainly have a market value. - Stefan would count the private at face value. - I would count the private as the market value of the trade-in share (and at its par value if it has not yet floated). * 1835's minor companies come by themselves but eventually will have to trade for 5% or 10% shares of PR. - Same analysis and results as BB and HB. * 18EU's minor companies come by themselves but eventually will trade in for major company shares or close. - If the game ends immediately, the minor company is worth zero. - If the game plays out to the end, it will probably merge (but could end up closing for $0 if not connected), and until then the minor will produce income. - Stefan would count the minor at the actual purchase price. - My principle says it is worth zero, but here I would depart from principles and arbitrarily count the minor as worth $100, regardless of which minor it is or the actual purchase price. I use $100 because it is the value of the train that comes with the minor, and because it is a reasonable estimate of the value of an eventual trade-in share. * Two of 1837's private (mountain) companies come by themselves; the others each come with one of the minor companies S1-S5. - If the game ends immediately, both the private and the minor (if any) are worth zero. - If the game plays out to the end, the minor will certainly merge (and as in 1835, the national companies have predetermined par values, so the share will certainly have a market value). - Stefan would count the two privates that come by themselves at the actual purchase price. For the ones that come with a minor, he would divide the actual purchase price equally between the private and the minor. - I would count the privates as zero and the minors as the market value of the trade-in share (and at its par value if it has not yet floated). * 1837's coal companies come by themselves. Each will eventually trade for a 10% share of a known major company (but the par values are not yet set, and the trade is not forced unless the major company sells out the rest of its shares). - If the game ends immediately, the coal company is worth zero. - If the game plays out to the end, the coal company will probably merge, but even the par value of the trade-in share is not yet known, and the trade-in does not have to occur (and if it doesn't, the coal company is worth zero). - Stefan would count the coal company as the actual purchase price. - I would arbitrarily count each coal company as 100K, the amount of treasury cash it starts with, until someone purchases the presidency of the trade-in company. Once that happens I would count the coal company as the market value of the trade-in share. * 1837's minor companies come by themselves (except that U1 and U3 each come as two 50% shares) but all eventually will have to trade for 10% shares of the three national companies, which have predetermined par values. - Same analysis and results as 1835's minors. |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2011-12-23 16:18:21
|
Great analysis, and I believe I agree with all of John Galt's decisions regarding how to count prospective net worth. -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, John David Galt < jd...@di...> wrote: > Stefan Frey wrote: > > 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 > > To illustrate the principle, let's look at the common classes of private > companies, beginning with the six in 1830. > > * SVN&RR, C&StL, and D&H, each comes by itself. (Each produces income, > each > blocks a space on the board, and two of them have build powers once > purchased > by a company, but I don't think any of us wants to assign a value to any of > those facts in computing a player's net worth.) So: > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face > value. > - If the game plays out to the end, a company will probably buy in the > private > for (2xface) in mid-game, and until then the private will produce income. > (If > no company ever buys in the private, it will eventually close for $0.) > - Both Stefan and I would count these as their face value (type A). > > * M&H comes by itself, but can be traded in for a share of NYC. > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face > value. > - If the game plays out to the end, then as above, a company will > probably buy > it in for (2xface). The NYC trade-in is an option, but not often used (and > like the buy-in, it makes sense not to consider it until it happens). > - Again, both Stefan and I would count this as face value (type A). > > * C&A comes with a 10% share of PRR. > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face > value, > but the share is worth zero because no one has bought the presidency yet. > - If the game plays out to the end, then like the first three, a company > will > probably buy in the private for (2xface), while PRR will probably float, > giving > the share a market value. Again, I prefer not to consider these events > until > they happen since both are optional. > - Stefan would count the C&A as $160 (type A) and the share as the actual > price paid minus $160 until someone buys the presidency of PRR. Then the > share > becomes worth market value. > - I would count the C&A as $160, but the share as zero until someone buys > the > presidency of PRR. > > * B&O comes with the presidency of B&O, but the private cannot be bought > by a > company and closes when B&O buys a train. > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth face > value, > and the two shares are also worth market value! > - If the game plays out to the end, B&O will almost certainly float and > buy a > train, causing the private to close for $0, while the two shares will > certainly > have a market value. > - Stefan would count the two shares as market value and the private as the > price paid minus the par value of the two shares. > - I would count the two shares as market value and the private as zero. > > ** 1835 has two major rules differences that affect all privates: none of > them > can be bought in by a company, and none of them count if the game ends > early in > a bankruptcy. > * NF, OBB, and PfB come with 10% shares of BY. > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero. > - If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income but > will > eventually close for 0M. > - Stefan would count the share at market value and the private at the > price > paid minus the par value of the share (so NF = 8, OBB = 28, PfB = 58). > - I would count the share at market value and the private at zero. > > * LD comes with the presidency of SX. It closes when SX buys a train. > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero. > - If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income for a > few > rounds but then will close for 0M. > - Stefan would count the two shares at market value and the private at the > price paid minus the par value of the two shares (14). > - I would count the two shares at market value and the private at zero. > > * BB and HB come by themselves but will eventually have to trade for 10% > shares of PR. > - If the game ends immediately in bankruptcy, the private is worth zero. > - If the game plays out to the end, the private will produce income for a > few > rounds but then will merge and become a PR share which will certainly have > a > market value. > - Stefan would count the private at face value. > - I would count the private as the market value of the trade-in share > (and at > its par value if it has not yet floated). > > * 1835's minor companies come by themselves but eventually will have to > trade > for 5% or 10% shares of PR. > - Same analysis and results as BB and HB. > > * 18EU's minor companies come by themselves but eventually will trade in > for > major company shares or close. > - If the game ends immediately, the minor company is worth zero. > - If the game plays out to the end, it will probably merge (but could end > up > closing for $0 if not connected), and until then the minor will produce > income. > - Stefan would count the minor at the actual purchase price. > - My principle says it is worth zero, but here I would depart from > principles > and arbitrarily count the minor as worth $100, regardless of which minor > it is > or the actual purchase price. > I use $100 because it is the value of the train that comes with the minor, > and > because it is a reasonable estimate of the value of an eventual trade-in > share. > > * Two of 1837's private (mountain) companies come by themselves; the > others > each come with one of the minor companies S1-S5. > - If the game ends immediately, both the private and the minor (if any) > are > worth zero. > - If the game plays out to the end, the minor will certainly merge (and > as in > 1835, the national companies have predetermined par values, so the share > will > certainly have a market value). > - Stefan would count the two privates that come by themselves at the > actual > purchase price. For the ones that come with a minor, he would divide the > actual purchase price equally between the private and the minor. > - I would count the privates as zero and the minors as the market value > of the > trade-in share (and at its par value if it has not yet floated). > > * 1837's coal companies come by themselves. Each will eventually trade > for a > 10% share of a known major company (but the par values are not yet set, > and the > trade is not forced unless the major company sells out the rest of its > shares). > - If the game ends immediately, the coal company is worth zero. > - If the game plays out to the end, the coal company will probably merge, > but > even the par value of the trade-in share is not yet known, and the trade-in > does not have to occur (and if it doesn't, the coal company is worth zero). > - Stefan would count the coal company as the actual purchase price. > - I would arbitrarily count each coal company as 100K, the amount of > treasury > cash it starts with, until someone purchases the presidency of the trade-in > company. Once that happens I would count the coal company as the market > value > of the trade-in share. > > * 1837's minor companies come by themselves (except that U1 and U3 each > come > as two 50% shares) but all eventually will have to trade for 10% shares of > the > three national companies, which have predetermined par values. > - Same analysis and results as 1835's minors. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X