Auction for lots of players

[Chris]

I was wondering how to make an auction for huge amount of players. Like the game (city) puts on sale a factory (some building/contract) and players (companies) compete to get it.

The key problem is that it can not be normal auction (since only 1 person would get it and it would be always the richest person to get it).

What I strive for is some non direct/non combat competition over limited asset, the term "auction" should be interpreted very broadly here.

[niche]

You could put a bit of chance into the system, have a raffle? Put a number of tickets up for sale, and put a limit on the number each player can buy. In this way, people with more money can effectively "bid more" but it still gives people with less money a chance of winning.

You could in fact make this just like an auction - a player enters how much (s)he wants to "bid" and the game purchases that amounts worth of tickets for them, then draws the raffle.

Or alternatively, how about a "silent auction", that is, when you have to make a bid without knowing how much others have bid? This wouldn't include the small players quite so much, but it would ensure the richest player would have to really pay out to ensure they won the auction.

Dunno, it's a tough one really.

[ST-Mike]

Admins have ignored my deletion request - if you're not going to delete my account then don't have the option there please.

[lolninja]

You could do it so that different players put in there bids, and the lowest bid win's, as the mayor of a city wants the best deal they can get, so say Awesomeington wants a new Cinema complex, and a two groups of players are trying to bid for the contract, one is a super all powerful empire of awesomeness, who have a lot of middle managers, so there bottom line is a bit more expensive than a smaller company, meaning there minimum bid is higher, so they have to charge more for the contract.

Where as a second player has a much leaner organization, meaning he has less over heads, and can bid lower than one of the big fish, but by bidding to low, they run the risk of not making any or much profit from the construction work, which limits there growth.

With this kind of self balancing mechanic you get larger companies trying to undercut there closet competition, but still remain profitable, and the small fish stand a chance, because they can do stuff for less. To further balance the game you could have a tiered system so a company has to be of a minimum worth to be able to bid on a contract, meaning you have to make and  horde profit to be able to build more prestigious projects.

You could even go as far as to say, ok, you want to build that Cinema, ok, you build it, but out of your own pocket, then once its complete we pay for it, then you can have random chances of stuff going wrong, which is mitigated by hiring middle management, which in turn push your costs up.

Sorry if that brain fart was completely off topic, I kinda got onto an idea and let my fingers go nuts.

[Chris]

I think I got it!

Auction is divided (invisible) into plenty of separate auctions. For each auction there are random 10-20 active players selected (you do not know who it is). You put blind bids. Then the winner is selected and all participants names are shown (so you can send insults to your friend who happen to outbid you while not knowing you were participating in the same auction as well).

Any problems that could arrise from this? Any improvements or better ideas?

[Topazan]

I like the "raffle" idea.  You can make it so that only the winner has to pay for their tickets.

I think I got it!

Auction is divided (invisible) into plenty of separate auctions. For each auction there are random 10-20 active players selected (you do not know who it is). You put blind bids. Then the winner is selected and all participants names are shown (so you can send insults to your friend who happen to outbid you while not knowing you were participating in the same auction as well).

Any problems that could arrise from this? Any improvements or better ideas?

I don't understand what you mean when you say the auction will be divided.  If there's only one building for sale, how can that work?

[Chris]

There can not be "only 1 building for sale" ever. If there are, let's say, 100,000 players and only 1 building, then there would be no point of implementing action feature since it would affect too few players. The idea is to make a massive auction that feels like like normal auction.
Minimum 10% of players should get the auctioned item to make it playable and worth it. But if it was one massive auction with all player then obviously top richest players would always get the item and that's it. The question is how to find a solution that would prevent it (and is scalable).

So far only 2 solutions seem to give the desired results:
- raffle (with 10% random players winning), but it does not have the feeling and intensity of an auction
- dividing auction into several tiny auctions each composed of 10-20 totally random players (such small auction could be ressolved as a traditional auction, even with "one person win only" rule)

[Topazan]

Ok, I guess I was confused because if you're holding 1000 auctions for one building each, I don't see how you're "dividing" anything.  You're holding 1000 auctions, not dividing one into 1000 parts.

The original sentence of your first post was

I was wondering how to make an auction for huge amount of players. Like the game (city) puts on sale a factory (some building/contract) and players (companies) compete to get it.

  To me, this implies one building (a factory) is being auctioned off.  Nowhere do I see anything about 10% of players needing to 'win' the auction.

So now what you're saying is you want 10% of the players to get the contract?  Well if your only concern is that the same person will buy them out, why not make a normal auction, and the top 10% bidders each get one?

I guess the real question is if you want it to be based on money or randomness.  What you have there seems to combine them somewhat, although more luck than money.

However,

Then the winner is selected and all participants names are shown (so you can send insults to your friend who happen to outbid you while not knowing you were participating in the same auction as well).

I know this is probably a joke, but I don't see the value in encouraging players to argue about things outside of their control.

[Chris]

This topic is about "auction system that would work with a huge number of players", you post everything you find related. The first post was just an example listing the key problems I find the most important.

To me an assumption that there must be more than one winner in an auction where 1000+ players participate was obvious. If you think otherwise you just post your version.

However,

Then the winner is selected and all participants names are shown (so you can send insults to your friend who happen to outbid you while not knowing you were participating in the same auction as well).

I know this is probably a joke, but I don't see the value in encouraging players to argue about things outside of their control.

Nope, it was not a joke I thought some might like it... but yes, I have doubts on this one as well.

[Topazan]

Sorry about the crabbiness of that reply, I had just woken up when I posted it. 

This topic is about "auction system that would work with a huge number of players", you post everything you find related. The first post was just an example listing the key problems I find the most important.

To me an assumption that there must be more than one winner in an auction where 1000+ players participate was obvious. If you think otherwise you just post your version.

It's not obvious if I don't know your system, or what you're trying to achieve.  I guess you did say you didn't want only one person to "get it", but I understood that to mean you didn't want the same person to get it each time there's an auction.

What about just giving it to all the top bidders? 

Or how about just holding separate auctions for each one?  Each time you bid on one lot, your money is held in escrow for the duration of the auction, so one person can't bid on all of them and expect to succeed.

The random auction idea works, but it might frustrate some players to feel like they have no control over their success  in the auction.

However,

Then the winner is selected and all participants names are shown (so you can send insults to your friend who happen to outbid you while not knowing you were participating in the same auction as well).

I know this is probably a joke, but I don't see the value in encouraging players to argue about things outside of their control.

Nope, it was not a joke I thought some might like it... but yes, I have doubts on this one as well.

Well, it would be nice to know what the other bids were, so you know how close you came and what different people are likely to bid on future auctions.  It may be a good idea to display them for that reason, but I would say in general it's not a good idea to encourage unresolvable conflict unless it's part of the game.

[Sagefire135]

Chris' idea has merit, it just needs a little tweeking.

If there is one building on auction, and 1000 players bidding for it, richest player is guaranteed to get it if they want it.
What if we split it into 2 parts 500 and 500. then each group holds an auction for a chance at the building. you could split it further, into 4 groups of 250, if you wanted.

since nobody knows who is in which group, it gets a little big fun. you can bid low and hope you win, then bid high on the auction between the winners. Or you can bid high, and hope all the winners did the same thing so you are left with enough to win the second time. theres the option to split equally and bid an average amount each time. Or you can bid just enough to guarantee beating the person with the next highest amount of gold, then hope you have enough to beat all the other winners....the list could go on probably.

point is...youre basically creating a tournament where the highest bidder moves on, but you have to plan and make sure that by the time your at the top you still have enough to actually win it. (doubles as a gold sink too which is neat)

[dsheroh]

What about just giving it to all the top bidders? 

That would not resolve "The key problem... that it can not be normal auction (since... it would be always the richest person to get it).  If you give it to the to top 50 overall bidders, then it will always be the 50 richest people who get it.

Randomly splitting it into 50 sub-auctions at least provides a chance that a poor player will end up grouped with other poor players and have some hope of winning.

Or how about just holding separate auctions for each one?  Each time you bid on one lot, your money is held in escrow for the duration of the auction, so one person can't bid on all of them and expect to succeed.

If per-level cash inflation is as bad in Chris's game as it is in most online games, this wouldn't help.  When the top-end players are routinely ignoring items as "worthless" that sell for 100 or more times the total cash available to a beginning player, then simply splitting up their bets won't give the lowbies a chance of winning - the rich guy could just as easily bid enough in each and every auction to win them all.

[Topazan]

If that's the case, then the question becomes who do you want to have the factories, if not the players paying the most money?  If you don't want players to compete for them, then why make a limited number in the first place?

Chris says he wants:

What I strive for is some non direct/non combat competition over limited asset, the term "auction" should be interpreted very broadly here.

But if you want "lowbies" to have a fair share, you don't really have competition, unless you mean a game of chance.  In an economic game, wealth is an indicator of skill. 

To me, it's like saying "I want players to be able to race each other, but I don't want the fastest ones to win."

Also, solving inflation problems is critical if you want any type of good economic gameplay.

[Chris]

If that's the case, then the question becomes who do you want to have the factories, if not the players paying the most money?  If you don't want players to compete for them, then why make a limited number in the first place?

Well, I want auction "feeling". I want the players to feel that they compete in an auction with other players. Gameplay effect is of low importance, I could redistribute factories in much more efficient (gameplay terms) way than an auction. I want the intense feelings and emotions of auction, nothing more (but of course if some nice gameplay effect comes from this as a bonus I would not mind at all).

To me, it's like saying "I want players to be able to race each other, but I don't want the fastest ones to win."

Yep That's very accurate. Althrough I would say that the fastest one should have more chances than the slow ones

Also, solving inflation problems is critical if you want any type of good economic gameplay.

Inflation does not exist in my games (I have rounds and geometrical price increases on some crucial goods, actually the richer you are the more starved for money you are).

[Topazan]

If that's the case, then the question becomes who do you want to have the factories, if not the players paying the most money?  If you don't want players to compete for them, then why make a limited number in the first place?

Well, I want auction "feeling". I want the players to feel that they compete in an auction with other players. Gameplay effect is of low importance, I could redistribute factories in much more efficient (gameplay terms) way than an auction. I want the intense feelings and emotions of auction, nothing more (but of course if some nice gameplay effect comes from this as a bonus I would not mind at all).

  AH, now I get it.    It sounds like your idea accomplishes just that.

If you want the lowbies to be true participants, maybe another way to do it would be to somehow let them bid on smaller 'shares' of the building.  This could either mean they get a portion of the building's output, or just something they can resell at a higher price to someone who wants to control the whole thing.  The latter has the effect of redistributing some of the wealth.

Actually, that could work as a continuous auction.  Say the person who has more shares than anyone else controls the factory.  If at first every player has one share, someone could buy a second share from another player to gain control, then someone else could buy two shares to take control and so on.  Lowbies may not have a chance at gaining control, but they can still make money by speculating.

But like I said, it sounds like your idea achieves what you want it to.

To me, it's like saying "I want players to be able to race each other, but I don't want the fastest ones to win."

Yep That's very accurate. Althrough I would say that the fastest one should have more chances than the slow ones

Also, solving inflation problems is critical if you want any type of good economic gameplay.

Inflation does not exist in my games (I have rounds and geometrical price increases on some crucial goods, actually the richer you are the more starved for money you are).

That was in response to dsheroh, but good to hear you're giving some thought to it.

[dsheroh]

If you want the lowbies to be true participants, maybe another way to do it would be to somehow let them bid on smaller 'shares' of the building.  This could either mean they get a portion of the building's output, or just something they can resell at a higher price to someone who wants to control the whole thing.  The latter has the effect of redistributing some of the wealth.

Actually, that could work as a continuous auction.  Say the person who has more shares than anyone else controls the factory.  If at first every player has one share, someone could buy a second share from another player to gain control, then someone else could buy two shares to take control and so on.  Lowbies may not have a chance at gaining control, but they can still make money by speculating.

In other words, an actual stock market (as opposed to typical in-game "stock markets" which are nothing more than longer-term gambling systems).

Also, solving inflation problems is critical if you want any type of good economic gameplay.

...

That was in response to dsheroh, but good to hear you're giving some thought to it.

What can I say?  Inflation and economy issues are at the front of my mind right now, since that's what I'm currently grappling with on my game. 

[Topazan]

If you want the lowbies to be true participants, maybe another way to do it would be to somehow let them bid on smaller 'shares' of the building.  This could either mean they get a portion of the building's output, or just something they can resell at a higher price to someone who wants to control the whole thing.  The latter has the effect of redistributing some of the wealth.

Actually, that could work as a continuous auction.  Say the person who has more shares than anyone else controls the factory.  If at first every player has one share, someone could buy a second share from another player to gain control, then someone else could buy two shares to take control and so on.  Lowbies may not have a chance at gaining control, but they can still make money by speculating.

In other words, an actual stock market (as opposed to typical in-game "stock markets" which are nothing more than longer-term gambling systems).

Yeah, essentially.  What I said there isn't exactly the same way the real one works, but the principles are similar.

Also, solving inflation problems is critical if you want any type of good economic gameplay.

...

That was in response to dsheroh, but good to hear you're giving some thought to it.

What can I say?  Inflation and economy issues are at the front of my mind right now, since that's what I'm currently grappling with on my game. 

Well, good luck.    Too many games have this problem, because they make sources of money infinite and mandatory (need to kill monsters to level up, which make you money automatically), while making opportunities to spend money finite and/or optional (There's only so much you would want to buy).

[Chris]

I wonder about a game with bigger focus on auctions.

Like, there is an auction every 8 hours. Top 10% bidders get the item. Each time your economy produce, you get also a special auction currency that can not be used on anything else (so you have an incentive to participate in auctions at least from time to time).

Would such interaction be fun? Would it work?

[chrisjenkinson]

The trading system I'm working on for Xiphos has continuous double auctions for resources - like how trading works in financial markets. I've written a more detailed post on my dev blog http://www.xiphosgame.com/post/9#marae-post-9

[Chris]

The trading system I'm working on for Xiphos has continuous double auctions for resources - like how trading works in financial markets. I've written a more detailed post on my dev blog http://www.xiphosgame.com/post/9#marae-post-9

That's not aution, but stock market.

Market's goal is it calculate a market price, which is a price that as many sellers and buyers as possible can make a transaction. The assumption is that for the given market price you can sell/buy infinite number of goods (it's not true of course, but from the point of view of the small buyer/seller it is true).

Auction/licitation's goal is to bump up the price as high as possible, it assumes much more buyers than available goods, majority of buyers won't be able to make a purchase.

Auction is much more unstable than market, more agressive and non static. On the other hand market will result in a static and fixed price all the time, assuming no external interferences and market size big enough (100 coal mines sell coal, 80 powerplants buy it, it repeats day after day, always the same price).

By limited auction (things sold by the game only, not by players) I want to avoid static model of the market, I want to introduce scarcity of goods and uncertanity of purchase. There are less goods than players who need them, you can not afford them all, you have to choose on which you bid and what you can sacrifice.

[chrisjenkinson]

The stock market uses auctions.

[Chris]

The stock market uses auctions.

No, it uses supply and demand comparison of all offers and then calculate one global price for all transactions at a given point of time. I know the difference is not easy to understand unless you are an economy freak... Maybe I will post the "mood" of each of these

Market - you observe the slowly changing price and when you are happy with it you press a "buy" button and the transaction is completed. After your transaction the price goes a tiny little up for everyone else but it does not concern you anymore.

Auction - there is this awesome Picasso picture on sale, the only one in the universe, you were bidding high and long, you almost got it... then this stupid fat rich sultan oubid you and snatched it before your nose. You start crying in dispair, you will never, ever get this picture again.

Contract bidding - the government wants to build a bridge, you are one of the three companies that are offering to build it. After a long weeks of consultations with your advisors you wrote the price for which you agree to build the bridge and put it inside an envelope. Then the government official open all 3 envelopes in public and... your offer was the cheapest! You got the contract!

[chrisjenkinson]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Third paragraph in the "trading" section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market

[Chris]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Third paragraph in the "trading" section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market

There are 2 auctions simultaneously, one for buyer and one for seller. The word "auction" they used there is just similar, it does not have much to do with normal auction (which is a seller's auction). OK, let's change the word "auction" to "licitation", now the difference is clear, right?

So, I'm thinking of making a licitation of some goods auctioned by "the game" every 8 hours. The amount of each good available would be equal to 10% of bidders.