Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Onward to Venus» Forums » Rules

Subject: Scoring Question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4 Player game.

1 Player wins Earth handily.

2 players tie for second.

Does this mean the fourth player scores for the 3rd position (i.e. 5 points).

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
page 19 of the rulebook wrote:
In the case of a tie the tied players score the same victory points. Thus, if two players were tied for the most income on a planet they would both score the first position victory points. The second highest income would then score the second position victory points
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
page 19 of the rulebook wrote:
In the case of a tie the tied players score the same victory points. Thus, if two players were tied for the most income on a planet they would both score the first position victory points. The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


Doesn't really answer my question. This is the portion of the rules that caused the issue. It's quite ambiguous in that it does not cover, whether, in the case of a tie, does that mean the 3rd place player now qualifies for the 2nd place slot in points due to the first two coming together in a tie.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Etherton
Scotland
Edinburgh
Midlothian
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
etherton wrote:
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


I think the rule stinks, to be frank. Due to the way it's worded, I was the 4th position player on Earth, but since 2 players tied for 2nd position, I got 5 points for my starting factory. The delta from first to last was 5 points in a 4 players game, so those 5 points won me the game and I never did a single thing all game to earn those points.

I would change final scoring of the areas to make tied players share the points for the category for which they are tied as well as the next position.

So, in my example from the OP, First place would get 10, and the 2 that tied for second would get (7+5)/2 = 6 and no points for the 4th place player.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
etherton wrote:
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


And to continue my question:

1st place = 9 income
2nd place, two players tie with 5
3rd place one player with 2

Is the third place player actually 3rd? It's the 3rd highest income so taken in that context yes. But if you count player, the 3rd place income of 2 was actually 4th place, so no points.

Two ways to look at it and I would still say the rules don't make it clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Etherton
Scotland
Edinburgh
Midlothian
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casualgod wrote:
I think the rule stinks, to be frank.


Agreed. I think the usual method of adding up points for all places below and dividing it as evenly as possible is much more fair, but it's kind of a pain in the ass to explain succinctly. Or, in the case of Progress: Evolution of Technology, they don't really explain it at all and expect you to "just know it" from having played other Euro's.

-Dave
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Etherton
Scotland
Edinburgh
Midlothian
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casualgod wrote:
etherton wrote:
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


And to continue my question:

1st place = 9 income
2nd place, two players tie with 5
3rd place one player with 2

Is the third place player actually 3rd? It's the 3rd highest income so taken in that context yes. But if you count player, the 3rd place income of 2 was actually 4th place, so no points.

Two ways to look at it and I would still say the rules don't make it clear.


I think you're over-reading the rules. A player has the third-highest income, so they score the points associated with 3rd place. Doesn't matter if two players were ahead of them or four players (a two-way tie for both first and second, for example, assuming the game supports five players).

-Dave
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casualgod wrote:
etherton wrote:
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


And to continue my question:

1st place = 9 income
2nd place, two players tie with 5
3rd place one player with 2

Is the third place player actually 3rd? It's the 3rd highest income so taken in that context yes. But if you count player, the 3rd place income of 2 was actually 4th place, so no points.

Two ways to look at it and I would still say the rules don't make it clear.
I'm sorry that you don't think that the rules are clear. I thought that you had missed that rule and so I quoted it to you without commentary because I thought it was completely unambiguous. My apologies.

The rules are not talking about players, they are talking about incomes. So highest income takes highest VP, second highest income takes second highest VP and third highest income takes third highest VP. It doesn't matter how many players have hit any particular level of income, they each and all get the VP for that level. Because it is based on incomes and not on players, ties do not affect "placings".

In the example you give, the rules say that the highest income (not 1st place, highest income) earns highest VP, then the two players with second highest income both earn the second level of VP and the player with the third highest income earns the third level of VP.

I know you are concerned about "counting players" and the common way of resolving ties in placings in competitive sports (and some/many games), but this rule specifically talks about ordinal position of incomes and therefore eliminates the tie resolution you refer to.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
casualgod wrote:
etherton wrote:
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


And to continue my question:

1st place = 9 income
2nd place, two players tie with 5
3rd place one player with 2

Is the third place player actually 3rd? It's the 3rd highest income so taken in that context yes. But if you count player, the 3rd place income of 2 was actually 4th place, so no points.

Two ways to look at it and I would still say the rules don't make it clear.
I'm sorry that you don't think that the rules are clear. I thought that you had missed that rule and so I quoted it to you without commentary because I thought it was completely unambiguous. My apologies.

The rules are not talking about players, they are talking about incomes. So highest income takes highest VP, second highest income takes second highest VP and third highest income takes third highest VP. It doesn't matter how many players have hit any particular level of income, they each and all get the VP for that level. Because it is based on incomes and not on players, ties do not affect "placings".

In the example you give, the rules say that the highest income (not 1st place, highest income) earns highest VP, then the two players with second highest income both earn the second level of VP and the player with the third highest income earns the third level of VP.

I know you are concerned about "counting players" and the common way of resolving ties in placings in competitive sports (and some/many games), but this rule specifically talks about ordinal position of incomes and therefore eliminates the tie resolution you refer to.


Yeah, I get that and that is how we scored it. But again, I got 5 points for doing nothing, in a game where 5 points was the delta between first and last. Pretty much made the final score meaningless in my opinion and I didn't feel like I had deserved the win.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
etherton wrote:
casualgod wrote:
etherton wrote:
Yes, it does.

Quote:
The second highest income would then score the second position victory points


And to continue my question:

1st place = 9 income
2nd place, two players tie with 5
3rd place one player with 2

Is the third place player actually 3rd? It's the 3rd highest income so taken in that context yes. But if you count player, the 3rd place income of 2 was actually 4th place, so no points.

Two ways to look at it and I would still say the rules don't make it clear.


I think you're over-reading the rules. A player has the third-highest income, so they score the points associated with 3rd place. Doesn't matter if two players were ahead of them or four players (a two-way tie for both first and second, for example, assuming the game supports five players).

-Dave


Hey Dave, not over reading it so much as wishing they said something else. I got what the rules were saying and we scored it correctly. The wrongness of it just made me wish it was otherwise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casualgod wrote:
Yeah, I get that and that is how we scored it. But again, I got 5 points for doing nothing, in a game where 5 points was the delta between first and last. Pretty much made the final score meaningless in my opinion and I didn't feel like I had deserved the win.
No, you didn't get 5 points for doing nothing - the others players gave you 5 points, they could have seen there was a tie and negotiated a way to ensure that you had to have some skin in the game to earn your 5 points, especially if they could see that you would win the game with those points.

Or you could look at it another way: because you essentially "banked" those 5 points, it allowed you to take an action elsewhere that gave you more points and it was those additional points that you earned that won the game. Had you not been smart enough to recognize and capitalize upon the "kind ties" rule, you would have had to find some other method of gaining the winning points - perhaps a means that wasn't available. Winning a game is about using the rules and mechanisms provided by the game in a manner that is better than your opponent(s). That's what you did.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Geller
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casualgod wrote:


Two ways to look at it and I would still say the rules don't make it clear.



Seems like everyone here is in agreement, but I figure it's worth pointing out to others who might disagree that that the example in the rulebook clears up any ambiguity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Montoya
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
PLAY MORE BOARDGAMES!
badge
“I am too old to die young, and too young to grow up.” ― Marty Feldman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was one of the "2nd place incomes" in that game and I have to agree with

David Debien
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


The egalitarian tie scoring at end game kind of deflated the area control part of the game, which seems to be the foundation underneath all the crazy card play.

It was our first game and some of the minutiae wasn't clear, like the endgame area scoring with ties.

We didn't give him 5 points, we just didn't realize the swing that would be created in scoring.

Knowing how ties are resolved now, I'd play differently in the future.

However, I'm not sure the tie rules as written make the game better or worse than other, more common tied point sharing rules.

YMMV
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yldarr wrote:
Knowing how ties are resolved now, I'd play differently in the future.
Exactly.

Quote:
However, I'm not sure the tie rules as written make the game better or worse than other, more common tied point sharing rules.
Again, exactly. They are, however, part of the charm of playing a Martin Wallace game, where there's always something "odd" going on.
2 
 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.