81–90 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any boardgame that involves eliminating players from it is a non-starter for me.
How do you win, then?
"Dominion", "Settlers of Catan", "Splendor" are great games of this nature.
------
Acquire has "When all companies are monopolies (11 tiles or larger) or when one company is of size 42, the game is over". So the game is on an implicit clock.
All players keep playing until the end condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends. If earth overpopulates and there is lack of resources it will be even less than zero sum.
You cannot mention this on HN. Mr Graham Himself has declared that the pie always grows.
Note that I am making no comment how that growth or shrinkage affects the quality of life in that economy but when looking at total growth population change is correlated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe it or not there is an element of strategy in Monopoly (or can be, if you take the time to learn it). Not all spaces are landed on equally, and not all properties have the same return on investment. Playing with common house rules tends to remove elements of strategy.
That is true, but the rolls of the dice still have vastly more influence on the outcome than the very limited decisions that players can make. In order to decide whether or not to buy Park Place you have to land on it first. Not unlike real life.
Not necessarily. The games rules include an auction that is frequently removed in house rules. What's supposed to happen is if the player who lands on the space (Player A) doesn't buy it from the bank, the property is auctioned to all players.
Maybe no one owns Boardwalk yet, and Player A doesn't want to try and get the Park Place/Boardwalk monopoly. Or maybe Boardwalk is owned by Player B but Player B doesn't have any cash, so Player A thinks they can block the monopoly while paying less to the bank. Or maybe Player B does have the cash but Player A knows that B is desperate for the monopoly, so they want to drive the price up and force them to pay more.
There's more to than just rolling dice and landing on spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the title implies, the game was designed to be a lot like real life, and it sounds like that from your POV it has succeeded.
Reminds me of the story of the lucky coin: > If 1024 fair coins are each tossed 10 times, chances are good (> 63%) that at least one will come up heads 10 times in a row; and that coin will be proud to explain how its skill, faith, guts & determination made its achievement possible, and how that combo can work for you too. https://twitter.com/bayesiangirl/status/1214753289528434688?...
[flagged]
Monopoly teaches people a view of economics being a zero-sum game and too many people learn the wrong lessons from it. Real life isn't a zero-sum game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not real wealth though. The houses and hotels are the actual capital improvements. The thing is, supply and demand seem not to matter in the housing market. If you land on Park Place you can't shop around for alternatives. This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. If the other houses are occupied then why isn't anyone…
> This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. Actually this just sounds like the California housing market where NIMBYs perpetually prevent housing stock from increasing, which is of course a result of central planning, not a free market mechanism, LOL!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as the article points out the game was in particular desgigned to show the economic effects of private land rent, hence the original title 'the landlord's game', and that is in fact a zero sum game as they aren't making any more of it. And in particular on tech websites like these people vastly overstate how non 'zero-sum' economic activity actually is mostly because tech has been in a bubble of highly anomalous grow…
And yet we are 30x richer per person in a 10x bigger population since the Industrial Revolution started. That is 300x more than a zero sum model would predict.
Of course people are better off with food and iPhones, but in many major European cities people with middle class incomes share apartments that were literally single family worker apartments around 1900.
In terms of living space, the quality of life for the middle class is worse than 100 years ago.
[flagged]
In the large, it's extremely unclear that everything you've named is a side-effect of capitalism or other effects (such as network effects; hard to predict whether a critical mass of invention in any one location would kick off the kind of technology revolution that has occurred regardless of the form of government atop it).
