Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Charterstone» Forums » General

Subject: Reputation track scoring rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dan
United States
WI
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As of last night, four of us have completed 6 plays of the Charterstone campaign. There has been a lot of things in the game that have been frustrating me so far, but so far, nothing has been more annoying than the reputation track.

if two people are tied for 1st place on the reputation track, they're both awarded 1st place points. A player in a distant third place on this track will then be awarded 2nd place points for his minimal efforts.

This is a questionable game design decision. In your attempt to make the game friendly with these scoring ties, all you've done is devalue the efforts of the player or players that've worked hard on that track.

Best case scenario for those players in first place is a net of 3 points.
1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Ward
United States
Newport News
VA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So... don't work so hard on the track? Get enough tokens there that you get some points, but not so much that literally half of your influence tokens are tied up there. There's plenty of other ways to make points in the game.

*This advice is mine alone, and does not reflect the views or considerations of Stonemaier games.*
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
/|\ Roland /|\
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The converse of that is similar to the Obelisk board in Imhotep. Whoever is leading in 1st place on the track, can end up over spending to win those points, or can be psychologically forced to by other players.

Also, how is it "friendly" if I can erase my opponent's lead by matching the number of markers? What may be friendly to me, is certainly not friendly to my opponent, because now she has to once again commit a turn and resources to regain the lead, even if by only 3 points.

All games do these types of tracks their own way, and I happen to like this one. I don't have to calculate adding up points for adjacent positions and dividing them back up between players like some games. Ok, maybe that's how it's friendly.

In summary, maybe tactically you shouldn't, in your words, work quite so hard on that track since the value of it can be mitigated so easily.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan Yanyo
United States
Evansville
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kredal wrote:
So... don't work so hard on the track? Get enough tokens there that you get some points, but not so much that literally half of your influence tokens are tied up there. There's plenty of other ways to make points in the game.

*This advice is mine alone, and does not reflect the views or considerations of Stonemaier games.*


This is how I feel after two games. I put a lot of work into the reputation track in games 1 and 2, even having two assistants that helped add reputation for going to the Market and Grandstand, but in both games my wife beat me on the reputation track by 1. I realized that having a bunch of markers tied up in reputation and objectives doesn't really leave you with much to build buildings or open crates, so in the next game I'm going to try ignoring the reputation track (maybe only putting one marker on it to at least get some points), and focus on other stuff and see how things go.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Brown
United States
Carmel
IN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The first two games of our campaign there was a lot of attention to the reputation track, and little attention on the Cloud Port. As we played more games, it shifted. As long as you can share some of the points from reputation it is easy to make up the difference with the quota track.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jed Peachey-Pace
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My wife has beaten me on the reputation track for every game except the last (game 8), which I won by grabbing joint first which she was not expecting. I have also won every game except the first 2, with it onlt being a 2 player game its easy enough to outscore her by 3 points and only put 1 influence token on the track.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Wehner

Minnesota
msg tools
mbmb
I didn't love *everything* about Reputation. All the same, it's a situational element: sometimes it's worth pursuing, sometimes it's not. (But it's probably always a bad idea to ignore it altogether.)

The way my wife and I played, we described it as "make the effort to ensure you're not completely missing out (get *at least one* Influence on Reputation) but don't go out of your way to get first place".

Some games, Reputation didn't factor in at all (as in: we both got the ten points). Although, sometimes the Reputation bonus put us into the next tens of points, meaning a Glory star we wouldn't have otherwise. Some games, you'd tie Reputation and largely ignore it, then move Progress forward on Reputation, opt to take the Reputation bonus, and those three points would mean winning the game.

And some games, the Reputation Objective would be out, making Reputation potentially even more valuable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James C
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
shadowjump wrote:
The first two games of our campaign there was a lot of attention to the reputation track, and little attention on the Cloud Port. As we played more games, it shifted. As long as you can share some of the points from reputation it is easy to make up the difference with the quota track.


We found the same to be true.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Blackburn
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you’re fighting over first place, each Reputation is a net three points when you spend it. The total gain is lower since half the time you get three points and half the time the other person loses them, but each time you place one you either gain them or your opponent loses them.
It generally costs no action, and your opponent is spending about as much influence as you are.

If you’re not fighting over it, then either your opponent is wasting influence or... you only need to spend just one more to get those extra points. And now you are fighting over it.


I can kind of see the issue of two players tying while the third gets easy points from a single influence, but that’s really specific. And the two players can just not tie if they want to avoid it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dylan Black
United States
Waynesboro
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I'll echo the general sentiment of the thread. I was somewhat annoyed by the rep scoring, but I've come to appreciate it. It's another mechanism that is both streamlined, but can be manipulated by careful play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Teodor-Gabriel Tanase
Romania
Bucharest
Romania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know what you mean. After first game 2 players had put 5 influence tokens and the other 2 placed just one. The difference was just 3 points in an efortless manner by the last 2. A bit dissapointed by the reputation track.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm OK with the Reputation Track as is - in two-of-three 2P games so far, a single VP was the difference between victory and defeat, and in both cases the winner prevailed in reputation.

Also, there are times when a player may actually want to accelerate the game end and the Reputation Track offers an opportunity to do so. This happened to me in the last game where my opponent reached his goals before I did, so he then proceeded to empty out the remainder of his Influence Token pool (so the Progress Track auto advanced at the start of each of his last few turns). I finished up one turn short meeting an Objective (5 VP) I was aiming for, and lost the game by a single VP.

The Reputation Track is just another tool, it's up to the players to decide how they want to use it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Riley
United States
Lake Zurich
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
teddz wrote:
I know what you mean. After first game 2 players had put 5 influence tokens and the other 2 placed just one. The difference was just 3 points in an efortless manner by the last 2. A bit dissapointed by the reputation track.


In our six-player campaign it's been very competitive, and usually 2-3 players get nothing in exchange for the 1-2 reputation that get tied up there. Maybe in a 3-4 player game only the first two awards should be claimable if you want it to remain competitive?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Cokayne
United Kingdom
Preston
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You CHOOSE how much you decide to invest in the track. If you have spent all your influence there (influence you cannot retrieve) competing over a measly 10 points. More fool you. I would much rather spend my influence in other ways to score more points. After the realisation of how much more you can score elsewhere I have only ever gone for the track if there are very few pieces there. I am normally quite happy to let opponents fight over the reputation track while I scoop up points on the board or in the cloud port.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Chandra
msg tools
Reputation is mostly interesting to us when there's an Objective to it, or we got some useful support from <spoiler-method> cards. I grabbed 2 VP and 2 reputation in my last 2 turns last game that way, which ended up getting me 6 points which became 1 Glory. Of course we also compete with annoying Automas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AnythingForMarcello
msg tools
I feel like people aren't understanding OP's main qualm - that is, why does a tie for first that the third place player is not involved in switch her from 3rd to 2nd place? She's still 3rd on the track and the squabble between the two other players is irrelevant to her, so I think it makes sense for her to get third place points, regardless as to whether there's a tie for first.

Not a big deal and I get it's trying to be friendly, it's just odd.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Chandra
msg tools
Meh, plenty of games that do friendly ties so I don't see the problem. If you care that much, then just prevent ties.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
One motivation for doing reputation scoring the way it was done is that it *incentivizes* breaking ties. I'll explain:

If the rules were "normal friendly", then a 2-way tie for first would score 10 VP and the third player would score third-place points (4). Now if either of the first two players break the tie, they gain nothing, the second player loses 3 VP, and the third player remains unchanged, for a net benefit of 3 VP relative to the previously tied player *only*.

With the rules as they are written, the two tied players get 10 VP and the third player 7 VP. But if one of the tied players breaks the tie, then *all* of his opponents go down 3 VP, which is a net gain of 3 VP relative to all opponents for the player breaking the tie.

The same is true in reverse for players who fail to defend their lead against a tie. If the second place player moves into a tie with the first place player, then the first place player is effectively losing 3 VP relative to all other player (because all other players go up a place in the ratings.

Ok, the above is mostly true -- players that are not on the rep track (and are getting no VP) are unaffected, and players not in the top 3 (and are getting no VP) are only affected in the ranked players become more tied (those increasing the incentive for the lead players to break ties).

At least, that's one way of looking at it.
1 
 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.