Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Lost Cities» Forums » Rules

Subject: Our scoring shortcut is wrong? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Guy Riessen
United States
Sebastopol
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
For over a year now it looks like we've been scoring incorrectly by taking a shortcut. We've just been multiplying the number of started expeditions by -20, and subtracting that from the score to start with and then scoring everything else positive.

This means that if you had a single expedition, with a single handshake on it, and the 5 and the 10, using our shortcut you'd have a positive score... -20 + ((5+10) x 2) or -20+(30)= +10

reading some posts here is indicating that in acutality the score would have been (-20+15) x 2 or -5 x 2 = -10

I'm wondering though if this will make a real difference in play/strategy or if it will simply mean lower scores distributed about the same? Any ideas if it will play differently? I must say it's always been a tense and great game with out scoring method, so it seems a little odd to want to change it even if wrong!

--guy
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You have definately been playing it incorrectly. It is much easier to score positive under your system by playing handshakes.

Under your system it is always good to play handshakes, as they will at least decrease the loss you will get if you fail to get 20+.

Under the correct rules, a handshake increases the stakes. Higher reward if you make 20+. Bigger penalty if you don't.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Amelia Tharme
United Kingdom
Eastbourne
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
If you multiply the number of started expeditions AND the number of handshakes by -20 at the start and then score all the rest positive it should work out correctly I think. (Though I've just woken up so I may possibly be confused).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fraser
Australia
Melbourne
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Back in the days when there were less maps we played every map back to back
badge
Ooh a little higher, now a bit to the left, a little more, a little more, just a bit more. Oooh yes, that's the spot!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quite wrong. The correct score for your example is -10, you have scored 20 more points that the correct method. You must have high scoring games compared to the rest of us meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ward
United States
Laurel Springs
NJ
flag msg tools
Last Great Read
badge
Last Great Read
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sprydle wrote:
I'm wondering though if this will make a real difference in play/strategy or if it will simply mean lower scores distributed about the same? Any ideas if it will play differently? I must say it's always been a tense and great game with out scoring method, so it seems a little odd to want to change it even if wrong!


I would think that this would upset the entire play of the game. Imagine a sucessful expedition without investment cards: playing thirty points to it will yield a +10 score (30-20=10). In your scoring method, this successful expedion will score LESS than the unsuccessful expedition from your example.

Mike
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lexingtonian
United States
Unspecified
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Amelia's right.

Using your shortcut, you do

handshakes times cards, minus 20
or hc -20

If you do the correct scoring method, you subtract first and then multiply by handshakes, so you get

handshakes times (cards minus 20)
or h(c -20)

If you use the distributive property with that, you get

handshakes times cards minus handshakes times 20
or hc -20h

The shortcut disconnects the handshakes from the -20 penalty, so the more handshakes there are, the more distorted the shortcut makes the score, compared to the correct scoring method. Four handshakes should result in 80 being subtracted from your score, which means the shortcut removes a penalty of -60 points in that case, for that particular player.

Of course, if everyone is playing by the same rule, the game can still be competitive and can be legitimate the way any game with house rules is.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guy Riessen
United States
Sebastopol
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Curtis Anderson wrote:

Of course, if everyone is playing by the same rule, the game can still be competitive


Yep,as I said, it's actually been quite a lot of fun playing by the incorrect rules But we'll start using the correct rules now! And yes, we do have much higher scoring games, as mentioned above--a decent hand was playing to around 130 points or so, and while the max score you could get from a single expedtion (playing incorrectly!) is 210, it happens just as infrequently as with the real rules heh.

It hasn't "upset the play balance" but it did turn it into a slightly different game. It lowered the handshake "risk" and it shifted the number of expeditions you might want to run up by one (interesting that). So reading more here, it sounds like playing 3 expeditions is typical using the correct rules, using the incorrect rules, we were typically playing 4 to maximize score and card useage. 5 was still quite risky, as your opponent would significantly outscore you usually, and 3 was usually not using your resources optimally. This made the game similar, but not identical in strategy, but I don't think radically changed the ideas or balance.

 
 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.