Matthew Mesina
United States
Bethel Park
Pennsylvania
-
I think Luna should have come with some sort of solo performance grading scale, like Gates of Loyang did, so solo players can guage how they did. For example, this range __-__= Average, this higher range, __-__= Good, etc.
What's a good score for solo or even multiplayer play?
-
Andreas Odendahl
Germany
Horstmar-Leer
-
soberman wrote: I think Luna should have come with some sort of solo performance grading scale, like Gates of Loyang did, so solo players can guage how they did. For example, this range __-__= Average, this higher range, __-__= Good, etc.
What's a good score for solo or even multiplayer play?
Hi,
there is no scale because you play against an opponent. It is quite hard to win against the opponent! I suggest you try this first! ;-)
For a multiplayer score I can give you a hint. 90 points almost always means a win for you. If you manage to gain 100 points, you are really good. I just got 100 one time. But I most of the time score between 88 and 95 points...
Now, that the game is out for over a year: Has anyone a different experience?
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
Some people find it easier to acquire bordgames than friends.
I personally don't remember or even try to pay attention to scores. The only factor for me is place.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
The game has an official solo version in the rules. It absolutely should give you some sort of measuring stick to judge your play if you choose to play it that way.
-
Matthew Mesina
United States
Bethel Park
Pennsylvania
-
I played it last night for the first time ever,solo game, and scored 60 points vs. 76 for the Apostate. BUT, I forgot that the Apostate order gets a free shrines at the end of the turn, unless you take actions to prevent it, so I added all the shrines at the end to give him that score. I probably could have lowered his score otherwise, at least blocking one or two shrines.
So, if the difference between our scores is my score, then I scored 16pts, correct? And this is good, poor, or terrible? The rules really should have included a barometer of sorts. I'm getting the impression that beating the Apostate order is not the goal, since it is so difficult, but the score is. Beating the order is just icing on the cake. Am I wrong?
EDIT: Just realized that the barometer I'm requesting would have to be quantified by level. Still doable. I, of course, played at level 1.
-
-
soberman wrote: So, if the difference between our scores is my score, then I scored 16pts, correct? And this is good, poor, or terrible? The rules really should have included a barometer of sorts. I'm getting the impression that beating the Apostate order is not the goal, since it is so difficult, but the score is. Beating the order is just icing on the cake. Am I wrong?
Actually it should be the aim to beat the order. And if you beat him on one level, try the next. So these 3 levels ARE the barometer...
And if you need it more precisely, then you can check the difference.
When I made this solo-rule, I had played many "normal" rounds before. With this experience it was no problem to beat level one. To beat the second level was tougher, but by no means impossible. The third level is really difficult: My best result was losing by one point.
But of course: For each level you can take the difference between you and the Apostate as your personal highscore. The absolute points are not relevant.
-
Matthew Mesina
United States
Bethel Park
Pennsylvania
-
barandur wrote:
But of course: For each level you can take the difference between you and the Apostate as your personal highscore. The absolute points are not relevant.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm not completely able to agre with you. For myself, I'd find a range of points to shoot for as an even more percise way to determine how well I've done.
I understand your view, but my perspective is that a score is just a number when taken without a proper context or frame of reference. It doesn't serve to make anything more percise unless I've played frequently enough that I am able to see how I've improved vs. myself, but I'd like to know how I've improved in relation to the community at large.
Right now, with one play under my belt (or sash) I suspect strongly that 16 pts is a weak result, because I forgot to journey away from or expel the Apostate in the early rounds. In truth, I never expelled him, because I was thinking of that action as a way to screw other players, and failed to recognize the usefulness of it as a way to help myself also.
What have your best scores been at each level?
-
-
soberman wrote: barandur wrote:
But of course: For each level you can take the difference between you and the Apostate as your personal highscore. The absolute points are not relevant.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm not completely able to agre with you. For myself, I'd find a range of points to shoot for as an even more percise way to determine how well I've done. I understand your view, but my perspective is that a score is just a number when taken without a proper context or frame of reference. It doesn't serve to make anything more percise unless I've played frequently enough that I am able to see how I've improved vs. myself, but I'd like to know how I've improved in relation to the community at large. What have your best scores been at each level?
I don't think that our opinions are so different... 
Maybe I have to ask you one question: What is better: Winning against the opponent by 70:60 or losing by 80:90 points?
For me it's obvious that the first result is better in spite of making less points. So MY highscore in this case is a 10 - the difference to my opponent.
And I chose the three levels this way, that a "0" is a good mark, depending from your experience. So if you're a beginner, than a "0" on level 1 is a good result. If you lost against this opponent by 16 points ... then there's room for improvement ... 
So even when you compare to MY results or to the results of other players - it's always the difference to the opponent that should be compared.
I don't really remember my scores on level 1 or 2 - I think more than 20 points on level 1 and maybe 10 on level 2. Against level 3 it is a "-1" - maybe I should give it another try to finally beat this opponent guy ... 
-
|
|
