I was just wondering if that was a thing and there you go asking the question for me. My opinion on this is that you should either acquire all of their debt (causing your stock to plummet) or (and I would like to mention that this is my preference) make it so that you have to "buy them out" of their debt in order to buy them out.

Also can you provide link for the game you mentioned?

I've played a number of games where the winning player is defined by whomever hits the [+] button faster, and I'm pretty sure that ping plays a large part in how this shakes down.  Spamming the [+] button to try and register your click with the host before any of the other clients do (don't even try to out-click the host) doesn't feel like a slick mechanic.

I agree, this is awkward, in these situations it feels like the debt should definitly come with it. Then however if that player had cash, it would also make sense that it came with it aswell, then comes the question of but cash is not calculated into the stock price. So it is kind of bad either way.

One suggestion is that debt only impacts if you have less cash on hand. Basically if you have 50 k debt and 35 k cash then currently the company price is affected only by 15k debt. However the interest is always on the 50k. When you buy out a company then all his cash pays for the debt as much as possible, however you inherit the rest of the debt. You can't inherit cash. That would be the most fair solution while not throwing current game systems out of balance, at least I feel like it.

the problem with intentionally taking debt is that it can be easily countered by just buying him out last for 0 $. 

I do believe a "bankrupt" lose condition should indeed exist.  Not sure how, but i think it should exist.

The "race to the buyout button" could be eliminated by making it an auction. But in order to not disrupt the flow of the game, use a different interface than the standard auction and don't pause the game while the auction is going on.

I think buying debt could be an interesting mechanic.

People could try to "tank" their value with debt to make them less desirable targets, but they'd be much more open to resource sabotage and it'd be much easier to buy their shares cheaply, making their position even more difficult. People without debts would gain an advantage due to having profit from power and Pleasure Domes and having some reasonable amount of debt wouldn't be penalized as much if your investments pay off (so you'll grow and earn more money to get out of debt).

Yes, you should definitely have to absorb a player's debt when you buy them out.  I don't think you should have to raise enough capital to pay out their debt though, as players can self-induce debt through auctions, and effectively never leave the game with billions in debt.  Players could do this to themselves anyway; sort of like a 'poison pill' to keep themselves in the game.  Therefore, introduce a mechanic/threshold in the game that if your stock value is 65% of the entire market, you automatically win.  1 v 1 = 65/35 (you win anyway).  5 players = 65/9/9/9/8 (you win anyway).  This will also discourage players from racking up enormous amounts of debt and take more ownership over their stock price values.

To solve the 'first player who clicks the + button wins' issue:  Whenever that final '+' is clicked, immediately pause the game and launch an auction of that final share.  This auction would be cash-only, no debt.  Let the auction decide who wants to pony up the most for the colony and who really deserves to have a majority share.

I think both of these suggestions solves the problem and also creates an entertaining game experience.

Thanks!
Neizzle

I think this idea is really good, alternative winning conditions is something that should be explored at least. I'd really like to see the game moving towards making it more about being successful throughout the game in the market and building decisions and slightly less about end-game shinanigans.