Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
3 Posts

Pandemic Legacy: Season 1» Forums » Variants

Subject: Funding modification variant rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Yitzhak Kornbluth
msg tools
The following variant is designed to deal with an issue arising from certain details related to the end of the season (you can play with the variant even without reading the spoiler, that just explains the reason):
Spoiler (click to reveal)
In the final score, your score for winning games depends only on how many games you lost; winning one month in the first half and losing both games of another month is the same scoring-wise as winning in the second half both months.

In terms of funding, however, winning one month in the first half and losing both games in another will increase your funding by 2, while winning in the second half will have a net change of 0. The benefits of end-game bonuses (which happen more if you lose the first half more often) and win bonuses are unlikely to fully offset this, as funding is much more powerful than most end-game bonuses, and win bonuses are usually temporary. Therefore, it would be more strategic to lose the second game, so that you have more funding to win the first half of more than one month. So to balance things out and make win+loss/loss have the same effect on funding as win/lossX2 (while keeping total funding levels the same, assuming you win around half your games):


If you win a game in the first half of the month, you are clearly extremely competent, and lose 3 funding instead of just 2. Conversely, if you win in the second half of the month, you are just barely getting by and lose only 1 funding, and if you lose in the second half of the month you get 3 funding instead of 2.

In terms of difficulty, this variant will correct for player skill somewhat more quickly than the normal version; strong players will find it a bit harder, while weak players will find it a bit easier.

(Note: I haven't actually played with this variant, but if I play again for score I plan to suggest it, to avoid the problem mentioned in the spoiler.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clive Jones

Cambridgeshire, UK
msg tools
mb
Please note that...
Spoiler (click to reveal)
even the existence of a scoring mechanism

...is a spoiler for the entire of Season One. Please edit your posting to put all mention of it inside the spoiler tag.

I'm not sure I quite understand your proposal. Are you suggesting:
• Lose the first game in a month: +2 funding
• Win the first game in a month: -3 funding
• Lose the second game in a month: +3 funding
• Win the second game in a month: -1 funding
...?

You say you want to make things a bit harder for strong players and a bit easier for weak ones, but I suspect it would make things a lot easier for weak players, a bit easier for strong ones, and make no difference for very strong ones.

Very strong players will win almost every game. They'll have a funding of 1 instead of 2 in February under your proposal, but after that their funding is 0 for almost all of the rest of the season anyway.

Strong players are unlikely ever to lose both games in a month. If they lose the first game and win the second, that gives them +1 funding the following month, which is a help. But their funding will never get above 2 so the -3 instead of -2 will never make any difference.

Meanwhile, weak players who seldom win the first game of a month are going to head pretty rapidly towards a funding of 10.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yitzhak Kornbluth
msg tools
clivej wrote:
Please note that...
Spoiler (click to reveal)
even the existence of a scoring mechanism

...is a spoiler for the entire of Season One. Please edit your posting to put all mention of it inside the spoiler tag.[/quote]

Fixed, sorry about that (I thought that thing was fairly well known, as in my group it was mentioned well before we finished).

[quote]I'm not sure I quite understand your proposal. Are you suggesting:
• Lose the first game in a month: +2 funding
• Win the first game in a month: -3 funding
• Lose the second game in a month: +3 funding
• Win the second game in a month: -1 funding
...?[/quote]

That's it exactly.

[quote]You say you want to make things a bit harder for strong players and a bit easier for weak ones, but I suspect it would make things a lot easier for weak players, a bit easier for strong ones, and make no difference for very strong ones.

Very strong players will win almost every game. They'll have a funding of 1 instead of 2 in February under your proposal, but after that their funding is 0 for almost all of the rest of the season anyway.[/quote]

True; for players that almost always win with 0 funding, this makes little difference.

[quote]Strong players are unlikely ever to lose both games in a month. If they lose the first game and win the second, that gives them +1 funding the following month, which is a help. But their funding will never get above 2 so the -3 instead of -2 will never make any difference.[/quote]

If they can avoid ever losing both games in a month, that also strongly suggests they can win fairly regularly with 0 funding, so it won't have much effect on them. It will bring them down to 0 funding somewhat faster, which is what I meant by "somewhat harder".

[quote]Meanwhile, weak players who seldom win the first game of a month are going to head pretty rapidly towards a funding of 10.


As their funding goes up, I would presume their chances of winning the first game of the month would increase, balancing out at the point where they are winning half the games (or hit funding 10, at which point it becomes largely irrelevant).
 
 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.