On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate
> auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots in
> the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't
> strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could
> *try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what you
> Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, for
> instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the
> differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data
> surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to
> strategize in auctions for them.
I was very specifically aiming to get o (second in order), who had notably
more currency that anyone one - I didn't notice that when I initiated the
auction. There is quite usable strategy, although it's quite a different
sort of set of moves, as you're trading off position in a ranking versus
price - try it a few times it's quite interesting to game.
(While I prefer multi-lot auctions personally, I don't mind a diversity of
gameplay either so don't have a strong opinion for land auctions. I
particularly like multi-lot auctions where the final price is the lowest
winning price - quite an interesting game to get the lowest price while
staying in the top N bidders. Though that requires lots to be 100%
identical to be fair).