Flea Market?

[Kylie]

I don't get it, but if we just don't spend money, we win, right?

[Oracle]

So to be clear, yes that is one way to potentially "win" this. The items in question could be anything though in terms of advantages, which is where the risk/reward aspect of this challenge is. So it's more of, do we care more about being safe for a round, or having items for potentially a majority of the game?

[Herman Blume]

My instinct is that 3 will be useful and 3 will be worthless. Or 4 and 2. I may be wrong, but I doubt more than 4 or fewer than 2 will be of use. Anyone want to speculate on what might do what?

 flu serum - Asking price $7
Binoculars - Asking price $10
Schematics - Asking price $13
Swiss army knife - Asking price $15
Heist planning notebook - Asking price $20
Team Zissou rings (set of two) - Asking price $21 -- I would suggest this might be a co-immunity idol where both halves need to be united to make one person immune?

[Oracle]

My instinct is that 3 will be useful and 3 will be worthless. Or 4 and 2. I may be wrong, but I doubt more than 4 or fewer than 2 will be of use. Anyone want to speculate on what might do what?

 flu serum - Asking price $7
Binoculars - Asking price $10
Schematics - Asking price $13
Swiss army knife - Asking price $15
Heist planning notebook - Asking price $20
Team Zissou rings (set of two) - Asking price $21 -- I would suggest this might be a co-immunity idol where both halves need to be united to make one person immune?

If I'm thinking about things, I don't know flavor very well, so someone who does know flavor might be able to give us more context as to what these could be about? But off the top of my head, it's possible that it's two halves of an idol, or it could also be a communication device of sorts that allows two people to chat, though that would be quite a waste of money for the highest starting bid.

Binoculars are genuinely for seeing things in a distance, so that might have something to do with having some sort of challenge advantage of some sort?

It's odd that flu serum is priced so low since there's no cure for the flu so I would personally think that it's something more valuable, but the board game LIFE may have just set my hopes high on that particular topic. Bark bark.

[M. Gustave]

so uh, i don't see the challenge stuff anywhere. probably a permissions mistake or smth? i'll bug the mods about it.

[Anthony Adams]

Maybe Dog Flu Serum is an idol that can only be used on dogs! :0

Wait, now that I've said it, never mind

I would predict Flu Serum and Knife are duds, perhaps?

[Oracle]

Another thing probably worth discussing, is whether or not, as a tribe, we are willing to not bid a set amount of money. We don't have to agree to that, just figure it's worth bringing up I suppose.

EG, perhaps we all agree to not spend half our money? or like not spend 200 each or something. Just a thought.

[Herman Blume]

Heist planning notebook -- Steal a vote maybe?

Maybe first we need to vote on if we want to try for these items or go for just the guaranteed immunity this first round. I'm inclined to bid on things but it should be a group decision.

[Anthony Adams]

Another thing probably worth discussing, is whether or not, as a tribe, we are willing to not bid a set amount of money. We don't have to agree to that, just figure it's worth bringing up I suppose.

EG, perhaps we all agree to not spend half our money? or like not spend 200 each or something. Just a thought.

I was thinking don't go over 100

[Oracle]

Another thing probably worth discussing, is whether or not, as a tribe, we are willing to not bid a set amount of money. We don't have to agree to that, just figure it's worth bringing up I suppose.

EG, perhaps we all agree to not spend half our money? or like not spend 200 each or something. Just a thought.

I was thinking don't go over 100

So like, all agree not to spend 400 each? That would be 4000/5000 not spent on our side which would likely be a good bet that we'd win unless they do the impossible and not bet anything.

[Anthony Adams]

At least 4000, since I believe some of us won't bet :)

[M. Gustave]

ignore my earlier post in this thread, the mods fixed it and i can see the challenge now.

hmm... i agree that the rings are probably two halves of an idol or something like that. i feel like they could have some communication power too, but maybe i've been playing too many complex games lol. maybe flu serum protects you from a small number of votes? schematics could be an extra vote? this is a standard game though, so i doubt they'd be giving us a ton of items right off the bat; like herman said, probably only a few work, or most of the items are weak.

i think we should try to decide whether we're going to go for power or immunity. i don't have a strong opinion, and will go wherever consensus points

pedit: not going over 100 spent works for me.

[Oracle]

Another ridiculous plan if we are going to do that, is if we are really a "kum-bi-yah" tribe, we could just have 8 people not bid any money and two people bid all their money on two things. It likely guarantees the other tribe does not get 2 items (except in tie situations), and still retains $4000 for the tribe immunity.

That's kind of a potentially silly thing to do as it means two people probably have stuff and eight people don't, but it's something worth mentioning I feel. Having a bunch of people betting small amounts on stuff could lead to ties and not winning those things, but again this could be a stupid plan. Figure I might as well mention it and can have it shot down.

Edit: or two people bid different increments on things or one person goes all in on one thing, and the other evenly distributes elsewhere. There are many variations on the above scenario.

[Anthony Adams]

I believe there are 2 sets of items, one for each tribe, though?

[Oracle]

Ah yes, that was an important line to miss.

Ignore my thought. i thought it was just one set between both tribes.

[Herman Blume]

This is maybe crazy, but if we bid nothing at all and drop 6 potential items of power on the other tribe who then immediately have to go to council, it might break them from being a cohesive team right off the bat.

[Anthony Adams]

Well 4, if 2 are duds, prolly even more of a good idea then

[Young Writer]

Salutations, tribemates!

I will get to responding to messages post haste, but my little grey cells started going and this challenge seems to be incredibly negotiable. Since there is a set for each tribe, if we simply agree on a person to have each item then we need not bid more than the asking price. Of course this entirely depends on someone not deciding to be a rotten scoundrel and steal all the items out from under our noses (in which cases assigning each item to a player and having them bid an indeterminate amount on it would be the way, but way more likely to lead to defeat). Of course, with only 6 items, we'd need 4 people to be willing to just not bid and I'm unsure how negotiations would actually pan out. Still more brainstorming is more valuable than less.

[Kylie]

Ohhhhh, there's a set for each tribe... I didn't realize that either.


Um. I think we could maybe just each agree to bid on only one item, and to keep bids below a certain amount? And if we did that, then we'd be able to have a high total and also still each be able to compete for whatever item we wanted...

[Oracle]

So to be real with you, I'm open to the "only spend up to 100" or "spend nothing and get immunity" plans. Both of them would be something I would be willing to agree to if we get consensus.

[Young Writer]

I am a bit skeptical of the "keep bids below a certain amount" approach, the moment a limit is given, the incentive to go ever so slightly above the limit to claim and item would be quite pernicious (though the higher the limit the less ideal such a move becomes), whereas with no ceiling but a definitive bidder for each item gives someone no idea of how they could "steal" an item, and thus they would be less likely to even try, ensuring at least $2000+whatever the assigned bidders don't give to go to the aquariam, and if less than 2000 went in, or someone didn't get the item assigned, well, the culprit would be easier to find than in the assigned limit case, as a group of 4 is a lot smaller than a group of 10.

Though of course, 4000 in the pot is twice 2000.

[Anthony Adams]

I am a bit skeptical of the "keep bids below a certain amount" approach, the moment a limit is given, the incentive to go ever so slightly above the limit to claim and item would be quite pernicious (though the higher the limit the less ideal such a move becomes), whereas with no ceiling but a definitive bidder for each item gives someone no idea of how they could "steal" an item, and thus they would be less likely to even try, ensuring at least $2000+whatever the assigned bidders don't give to go to the aquariam, and if less than 2000 went in, or someone didn't get the item assigned, well, the culprit would be easier to find than in the assigned limit case, as a group of 4 is a lot smaller than a group of 10.

Though of course, 4000 in the pot is twice 2000.

Yes, that is why I would like it so low, so even if they did go over, it would still be around 105, right?

[Young Writer]

I am a bit skeptical of the "keep bids below a certain amount" approach, the moment a limit is given, the incentive to go ever so slightly above the limit to claim and item would be quite pernicious (though the higher the limit the less ideal such a move becomes), whereas with no ceiling but a definitive bidder for each item gives someone no idea of how they could "steal" an item, and thus they would be less likely to even try, ensuring at least $2000+whatever the assigned bidders don't give to go to the aquariam, and if less than 2000 went in, or someone didn't get the item assigned, well, the culprit would be easier to find than in the assigned limit case, as a group of 4 is a lot smaller than a group of 10.

Though of course, 4000 in the pot is twice 2000.

Yes, that is why I would like it so low, so even if they did go over, it would still be around 105, right?

True, and even if someone were to go all out that would still be far better than my proposal in the immunity game. It still seems open to someone snatching multiple items by going just ever so slightly over multiple times is possible, but is that harm greater than a twice as likely tribal? I doubt it. Not to mention the ire that would come once the thief was confirmed, all the items in the world are not worth a continual target on your back.

[Anthony Adams]

Hm, can you go through how they would be confirmed?

[M. Gustave]

i am up to date on this but have little to add atm. i'll be back online in a few hours, and i'm still open to whatever plan we decide on - all have pros and cons.