Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game» Forums » General

Subject: Arghh! Five Locations in the Staging Area! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Am still tackling Passage Through Mirkwood with each of the core decks. My latest attempt with the Lore deck found me facing five locations in the staging area plus 'Forest Gate' as the active location (4 quest points). Arghhh!!!!!!

Obviously, there's very little hope for overcoming this situation, but I held on anyway and survived for 16 rounds. I'm thinking about devising a scoring system for when you LOSE a game. It'd be nice to measure your defeats against one another, to assess any improvement even among your losses!

For instance, there's gotta be extra credit given for holding out for 16 rounds before succumbing to defeat, instead of biting the dust after only 9 or 10 rounds!



3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ben card
United States
ORLANDO
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
i was soloing with the red deck and the same thing happened.

my next attempt i used two decks, red and blue, and ran though the quest only losing one hero on the last turn. blue is the key for too many lands.

sometimes its just bad luck tho..
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Heuer
United States
Apple Valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can use the existing scoring system: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/lotr-lcg/suppo.... It works well and penalizes for taking too long. This prevents the decks that keep threat really low to build up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

dachsy wrote:
You can use the existing scoring system: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/lotr-lcg/suppo.... It works well and penalizes for taking too long. This prevents the decks that keep threat really low to build up.

Yes, that's the scoring system I always use (and as far as I know, is the only official scoring system available). But it's only relevant for comparing wins, and of course, when you win, doing so in less rounds is a measure of success.

However I'm interested in tweaking the scoring system so that it compares losses as well. And when you compare losses, the measure of the number of rounds it took to lose should be exactly the opposite of winning. It seems natural that when comparing losses, a game where the player held out for a long time should be credited more favorably than a game where the player was defeated after a short time.

Now please don't misunderstand my intent! I'm not trying to establish any credibility whatsoever, for losing a game! A loss is a loss, is a failure, is a loss, no matter which way you look at it. And if a lost-game scoring system was ever to be established, a losing score should never be compared to a winning score.

But still, as it seems that losing this game is par for the course, I don't think a scoring system by which to compare losses, in order to compare methods and tactics, is too far-fetched.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Heuer
United States
Apple Valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, I see what you meant now. My wife and I use the same scoring system to compare losses. It is a little strange because you end up with better scores for losing faster. It almost seems like you should take the stage of the quest you got to and how far you got through the stage into account. It could be something like percentage through the scenario. Based on that and the number of rounds it took you could compare how effective you were from one loss to the next.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Krogmeier
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:
It seems natural that when comparing losses, a game where the player held out for a long time should be credited more favorably than a game where the player was defeated after a short time.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with this statement. Just because you're losing slowly doesn't necessarily mean you're losing better. A deck that doesn't have enough will power to overcome locations piling up in the staging area and so it slowly loses due to too much threat during the first quest stage might not be a better deck than one that makes a lot of quest progress but doesn't have enough allies to keep it's heroes from quickly being killed by enemies in later quest stages.

A better metric might be to multiply the number of rounds you lasted by the percentage of total quest points you completed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roel van der Hoorn
Netherlands
Enschede
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thoran1982 wrote:
Just because you're losing slowly doesn't necessarily mean you're losing better. A deck that doesn't have enough will power to overcome locations piling up in the staging area and so it slowly loses due to too much threat during the first quest stage might not be a better deck than one that makes a lot of quest progress but doesn't have enough allies to keep it's heroes from quickly being killed by enemies in later quest stages


I agree.

Thoran1982 wrote:
A better metric might be to multiply the number of rounds you lasted by the percentage of total quest points you completed.


This could be a solution. If you want to keep the original scoring system somewhat intact, you could add a penalty for missed quest points. Otherwise a lower number of quest points results in a lower (better) score.

So maybe something like:

+ threat level
+ threat cost of died heroes
+ number of damage tokens on heroes
- victory points
+ 10 * number of rounds
+ 10 * total quest points missed
----------
= score
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thoran1982 wrote:
Just because you're losing slowly doesn't necessarily mean you're losing better. A deck that doesn't have enough will power to overcome locations piling up in the staging area and so it slowly loses due to too much threat during the first quest stage might not be a better deck than...

I gotta admit that you have a really good point. I didn't consider it from that angle. And I think not, because until I read your reply, I was more interested in comparing losses using the same deck. And I mistakenly adopted the notion that the longer I'm able to hold out before losing, the smarter I'm playing (compared to other losses, that is)! For instance, I was pleased with my last game despite being a loss, in that that at least I felt like I was making some smart plays, otherwise I would've been defeated a lot sooner.

But your point is more valid, and worth taking into account!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RvdH83 wrote:
So maybe something like:

+ threat level
+ threat cost of died heroes
+ number of damage tokens on heroes
- victory points
+ 10 * number of rounds
+ 10 * total quest points missed
----------
= score

I really like this! Or at least its headed in a good direction.

I'd propose that when using the official scoring system for also scoring losses, that a standard "loss" penalty be included in the calculation. This would ensure that every "loss" score is normally higher than any "win" score. Perhaps a standard penalty of 50 threat points, added to the final threat level? Doing so would then allow wins and losses to be recorded using the same scoring system, and it would be obvious to the viewer looking at a score by itself, whether it indicates a win or a loss.

But I really like factoring-in the Quest Points missed! My only question would be how to calculate the quest points from a stage that doesn't require quest points to pass it? (i.e., 'Don't Leave The Path', from the 'Passage Through Mirkwood' scenario... it requires 0 quest points).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.