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 > get. > > 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).
