Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Millennium Blades» Forums » Rules

Subject: Why does the last player of a tournament win VP ? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Anthony Guérin
msg tools
I havn't played the game yet but after reading the rules, I wonder why should we give VP to every player, even the last one, after a tournament ?

Since everyone is winning VP, wouldn't it be the same to give a bit less VP to every player since only the delta between players matters ?

For exemple, during Round 1, instead of giving 21/15/12/9/6 VP, we can give 15/9/6/3/0 (6VP less), I don't think it would change anything but maybe I'm missing a point here ?

Also, I will play my first game with 3 players and if we were to follow my above reasoning, the delta between players will be only 6/3/0 VP for first round, 8/4/0 for round 2 and 12/6/0 for last round. It doesn't look very much and I'm afraid it would be better for players to win VP with their collections or by keeping money for 1VP / 4 bucks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrik Severinsson
Sweden
Sundbyberg
Sundbyberg
flag msg tools
...microbrewed beer.
badge
...more hops, better die rolls.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, the VPs from tournaments has to be balanced with VPs from other sources. From your own reasoning, if you reduce VPs earned for tournaments then that part of the game won't be as important.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Helikoputtrik wrote:
Well, the VPs from tournaments has to be balanced with VPs from other sources. From your own reasoning, if you reduce VPs earned for tournaments then that part of the game won't be as important.


No, Anthony is totally right. The score inflation is unnecessary, and it has nothing to do with balance.

If every player in the game gets points for something (in the case mentioned, 6 points just for being in a tournament no matter how badly they do) then it can't affect the final outcome of the game.

Adding one million points to the value of every place in every tournament wouldn't change the game at all. Sure, instead of total game scores ranging from 40 to 100, scores would range from 3,000,040 to 3,000,100. But the differences between players would be the same, and that's all that matters.

[Edited to add: And Anthony's also right that playing with fewer players DOES change the balance of factors in the game; if completely ignoring tournaments only loses you 12 VP relative to the leader, instead of 24, that *is* an incentive to just work on your collection.]
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wilbert Kiemeneij
Netherlands
Eindhoven
flag msg tools
I know the rules, but how do you win this game?
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe it makes sense that collections are worth more relatively speaking with low player counts, because trading to get large collections is harder in that case?

Maybe this way of scoring the tournament is a super easy way to scale the difficulty of the tournaments vs building collections?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WilbertK wrote:
Maybe it makes sense that collections are worth more relatively speaking with low player counts, because trading to get large collections is harder in that case?

Maybe this way of scoring the tournament is a super easy way to scale the difficulty of the tournaments vs building collections?


Could be. That still has nothing to do with the inane "everybody gets 6 points for entering" tournament rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Harrow
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
You appear to have forgotten about the Pre-Release tournament, which awards between 7 points for first place and and 2 points for fifth.

That is why the point values are "inflated" for later tournaments: To ensure that they are more valuable than the Pre-Release tournament.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XeyneGaming wrote:
You appear to have forgotten about the Pre-Release tournament, which awards between 7 points for first place and and 2 points for fifth.

That is why the point values are "inflated" for later tournaments: To ensure that they are more valuable than the Pre-Release tournament.


That explains the 'multiplier' for later tournaments, which nobody is objecting to. It does not explain what the OP was asking about, which is why all the rewards for a tournament are not decreased in order to make last place worth 0.

Look, here are the tournament scoring values as printed:

(Pre-release: 7/5/4/3/2)
1st tournament: 21/15/12/9/6
2nd tournament: 28/20/16/12/8
Final: 42/30/24/18/12

If the scoring had been properly zero-based, that would instead be:

(Pre-release: 5/3/2/1/0)
1st tournament: 15/9/6/3/0
2nd tournament: 20/12/8/4/0
Final: 30/18/12/6/0

As you can see, the later tournaments are still worth more. Taking first place in the final still improves your situation by 30 VP relative to the person who takes last place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sandbagging
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Agreed; it makes no difference in terms of balance. I guess the only value it might bring is thematic: thematically you're professional players in a high-stakes tournament, so even the lowest-placing player gains a bit of prestige from the event (we might say that several "qualifying rounds" have been abstracted out of the game; giving some points for last place makes more sense if we imagine it's the last-placing finalist among the best players in the world).

Another possibility is that there are some cards which modify VP directly, maybe allowing you to spend them? I haven't seen all the cards, so can't confirm, but it's also possible they wanted to leave that option open even if no cards yet exist which do this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Harrow
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Yes, you could zero-base it for the 5th player... But what about in a four player game? Or a three player game? It's still the same "problem". Would you prefer to zero-base for each individual number of players? Because that's the only way it would actually matter.

If anything, It's probably just to be consistent with the real-life analog that everyone gets something for participating (in Magic, you get Planeswalker/Pro Tour Points just for participating in tournaments). So, everyone gets some amount of points from the tournament in MB too.

Maybe it doesn't "make sense" to you, but it's silly to exclude just one person in maximum player games from getting points just because you'd prefer the numbers to be smaller. It really doesn't matter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wilbert Kiemeneij
Netherlands
Eindhoven
flag msg tools
I know the rules, but how do you win this game?
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grasa_total wrote:
WilbertK wrote:
Maybe it makes sense that collections are worth more relatively speaking with low player counts, because trading to get large collections is harder in that case?

Maybe this way of scoring the tournament is a super easy way to scale the difficulty of the tournaments vs building collections?


Could be. That still has nothing to do with the inane "everybody gets 6 points for entering" tournament rule.

Actually it has. If you don't do that you need a different table for every player count. This is much easier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XeyneGaming wrote:
Would you prefer to zero-base for each individual number of players?


Yes. Or have dummy players to fill it out to 5, which I think would be ideal-- that way you still have to do *something* to get your tournament VP. (This wouldn't have to be a big deal, just 5 cards that list different RP results on them and you draw 1 or 2 to replace absent players.)

Quote:
Maybe it doesn't "make sense" to you, but it's silly to exclude just one person in maximum player games from getting points just because you'd prefer the numbers to be smaller. It really doesn't matter.


You say that like the person who got zero points would feel left out. Is that really a problem people would have?

Other games that face similar questions mostly solve it by having MORE people at zero-- 1st place is worth 10 points, 2nd is worth 5, 3rd is worth 2 and that's it. In a 5-player game two people are left out. *shrug*
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Guérin
msg tools
Wow, I wasn't expecting so much answers in one day !

Thanks Alison for making my post a bit more clear to everyone.

I can understand the idea that it is more simple to have a single table regardless of the number of player, but like I said in my first post, it's very disappointing for a 3 player game.

I was thinking of a house rule with either another table or a sort of dummy-player that score an automatic RP depending on the tournament (but that woud be difficult to design without having played the game ).

It's very surprising consideering the huge number of threads in this forum, that the subject wasn't raise a single time, I thought I was missing something
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathaniel Chambers
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I suspect another reason for the scores being closer in a 3 player game is that in a 3 player game the tournament is just plain easier. Less interference from other players.

And in practice, I've never had an issue with the scoring from a 3 player game.

Score things how you want to I guess, but I'll stick to the way it is printed. As others have mentioned, this seems like just a simple fix so you don't have to have a ton of different sheets per player count. But, hey, if you want to make those sheets because you need someone to score '0', go right ahead and make those tables (which as has been pointed out, is relative, so on the flip side, I'd ask why you need someone to score '0' to feel good about numbers)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathaniel Chambers
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ynohtna000 wrote:
I havn't played the game yet but after reading the rules, I wonder why should we give VP to every player, even the last one, after a tournament ?

Since everyone is winning VP, wouldn't it be the same to give a bit less VP to every player since only the delta between players matters ?

For exemple, during Round 1, instead of giving 21/15/12/9/6 VP, we can give 15/9/6/3/0 (6VP less), I don't think it would change anything but maybe I'm missing a point here ?

Also, I will play my first game with 3 players and if we were to follow my above reasoning, the delta between players will be only 6/3/0 VP for first round, 8/4/0 for round 2 and 12/6/0 for last round. It doesn't look very much and I'm afraid it would be better for players to win VP with their collections or by keeping money for 1VP / 4 bucks.


I could be wrong here, but I think you score the highest score? Think scoring from left to right, not right to left. So you wouldn't have a delta of 6/3/0 for round 1, but 9/3/0 . Also, just typing this is already telling me exactly why they didn't try to make it so last player scores 0. So many conversions to be made based on player count. Good grief.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shaun Cooley
United States
Evansville
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Giving everyone points also potentially leaves the design space open for cards or characters to use those points for powerful effects.

Cash in some of your prestige for a better shot at winning a tournament?

It's a gamble, but could pay off big time.
 
 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.