Preponderance - Big Team Game! [1-2 subs needed!]

[DrPraetorious]

I'll team up with anyone who wants a partner - just send me a PM.

I'll also do whatever nation my ally wishes.

[atul]

Just to clarify:

Originally Posted by Zeldor

I want 3! sets of nations from every team, sorted by preference]:

Do you want these 3 sets contain all different nations, or can I (should I adamantly wish so) ask for one from the set of (MA Agartha, Nation X), (MA Agartha, Nation Y) and (MA Agartha, Nation Z)?

And no, I'm not asking for MA Agartha. Just a placeholder.

Seriously.

[Omnirizon]

atul brings up a good point and another reason why the bid system is superior.

the bid system not only helps alleviate the burden on an adjudicator, it rewards innovation. as is, no one has any incentive to try and think of a nation no one else will pick using a strategy no one else will try and then low-ball it, because we can all just do three picks all involving EA/LA Mict or Lanka with a cheap other choice and feeling assured we will get one of our picks. In fact, only three teams can possibly get something like this. Other combos that might be able to compete with this are kind of too expensive with the point system the way it is. A bid system would allow non-Mict/Lanka teams to hook up something a little better than what they could right now and actually be able to compete.

EDIT: nvm. then ppl could just low-ball Mict/Lanka and no one else may bid on them, and they go real cheap.

but atul is right...

[Phalent]

Hello all

I'll form a team with Apsophos

[atul]

I assume Zeldor here is operating on a basis of good faith, which is reasonable considering we're all mature adults here...

...I think.

Anyway, the reason of diplomacy and an arbiter is to beat the living pulp out of anyone abusing the system. I wouldn't want to play with mechanics based on thesis that my fellow players are underhanded cheaters, so lets not try to game the system too badly.

Bidding system has its good sides, but is work intensive. And looking at current situation at stock markets, has its bad sides too.

[Zeldor]

I really think we have responsible players here. As I said, I'm not -playing it and I can make sure everyone has fun.

atul:
I think you can do both. But if you want 3 combinations with one nation then add 1-2 other possibilities, just in case.

[Gregstrom]

I just had an idea...

If a team wants two nations worth less than ten points between them, perhaps they should be get preference for the chosen nations?

PS: I've teamed up with DrP, by the way.

[Zeldor]

Actually yes, if there will be conflict about who takes a nation, the one with less points total gets it.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by atul

I assume Zeldor here is operating on a basis of good faith, which is reasonable considering we're all mature adults here...

...I think.

Anyway, the reason of diplomacy and an arbiter is to beat the living pulp out of anyone abusing the system. I wouldn't want to play with mechanics based on thesis that my fellow players are underhanded cheaters, so lets not try to game the system too badly.

Bidding system has its good sides, but is work intensive. And looking at current situation at stock markets, has its bad sides too.

i think comparing stock exchange to a closed bidding system is a gross oversimplification.

do you like miss kitten?
stock exchange

[MadFrancis]

I'll play.