This is a thread that the players of the no sudden victory playtest can discuss how the alternate VP system is working in the game.

As my initial thought, my biggest concern is to see if Mecatol Rex is worth too many vp.

Right now its worth 3 VP to hold. Also, since its 6 influence, that's another 2 VP for the spend objective at the end.

Also, the person that holds Mecatol often has the most influence, and therefore the most votes, which is another 2 VP. So Mecatol can be worth 7 VP per round. But of course on the other hand your putting up the big bullseye so that might be enough.

Yes, it can be much VP's for MR only. Will see. :)

 
Stalker0 wrote on 11/18/10 at 10:26:06:

Right now its worth 3 VP to hold. Also, since its 6 influence, that's another 2 VP for the spend objective at the end. Also, the person that holds Mecatol often has the most influence, and therefore the most votes, which is another 2 VP. So Mecatol can be worth 7 VP per round. But of course on the other hand your putting up the big bullseye so that might be enough.

The 3VP may be automatic.  But the other 4 are not, since you have to give up your normal crop of 3CC to grab those 2VP from the spend objective and you have to make sure it's not exhausted when time comes around to vote to get the other 2.

And, yes, it is a huge bullseye.

So I already consider Bureaucracy a much stronger choice in the early game.

Normally I would never take Beaur 1st turn compared to other cards, but when it came up this time I seriously flip flopped between it and Assembly.

Beaur offers a lot of benefits that also can be converted to VP when needed. Ultimately I went with assembly in case Ter Ter picked it and I would go last, but it made for a much more interesting choice starting out.

One personal preference I have right now (which we will see if it changes as the game goes on) is to remove the VPs for things that I consider already good for the player.

For example, having 3 space docks on the board. More space docks = more production = more good. Players already have incentive to build their spacedocks...so I don't think you need VP.

Compare to to a spend objective. I am burning AC, CC, or resources to gain VP...which means I have less defense overall. That is worth a VP imo.

I think tech could fall in this category as well. I'm of the camp that says tech should be good to acquire on its own, it shouldn't need outside incentives. I think having VP for tech is not a good idea, as people should want to buy tech anyway to help them in the game.

Now one thing you could do is add techs to the tree that give a person VP. That means someone had to buy a tech that gives them no other benefit other than the VP, and to me would be a fair tradeoff.

Indeed. The upcoming SA version of Mike's system requires to remove tech objectives. Space Docks on board should also be removed. What's interesting is the spend objectives, war objectives, and the general position-on-board objectives (including "supply line", pioneer ships far from HS, and their kind). The hold leader captive objective will also be neat.

I just wanted to play devil's advocate here (not that I necessarily have entrenched opinions).


Stalker0 wrote on 11/30/10 at 14:34:05:

For example, having 3 space docks on the board. More space docks = more production = more good. Players already have incentive to build their spacedocks...so I don't think you need VP.

Despite incentive to build 3SD being present, my experience has been that most players don't build all of them.  A quick perusal of concluded PBFs indicates that half or fewer of players have them built.

It is a relatively-easy VP to acquire.  And as long as you have those 3 docks, you're scoring it, so it could be worth as much as 5-6VP by game end (about 10%, the equivalent of 1VP in the normal game).   Here are two other reasons it's good:

- Having 3SD on the board makes it more likely to build ships in farther-flung locations, which in turn increases conflict.

- Losing 1 of your 3SD will cost you that VP, so it's quite a fragile recurring point.  Taking that VP away from somebody is thus relatively easy (along the same lines as the Artifact VP, anyway), which in turn encourages conflict.


Quote:

I think tech could fall in this category as well. I'm of the camp that says tech should be good to acquire on its own, it shouldn't need outside incentives. I think having VP for tech is not a good idea, as people should want to buy tech anyway to help them in the game.

I agree that people should want to buy tech to help them.  But do they?  Again, in my experience as a GM, it is definitely not a given that everybody will buy tech every round.  It seems fairly common for people to bypass tech, as much as half the time. 

I remember ancient discussions on the FFG boards where it was agreed that it was generally better to buy ships rather than buy tech, as ships discouraged attacks and tech was less successful in doing so.  (In fact, I think this is so much of a problem that I would like tech to be cheaper.  Mike's idea of gaining VP is another way to encourage more tech purchasing.)

In addition, it's a non-conflict way to score points, as is voting.  In emails to me, Mike claimed that it was still possible to have a peaceful victory, and I think the tech objective is an important part of that.  If you can score it every turn for a 6-round game, you have 12VP, a healthy amount.  (Or if you're Jol Nar, some other ludicrously-high amount.)


Quote:

Compare to to a spend objective. I am burning AC, CC, or resources to gain VP...which means I have less defense overall. That is worth a VP imo.

I would argue that the same is true in these other cases you mention.  You will also have less defense if you're dropping resources on techs and SD.


Not trying to pick a fight; just hoping to have a spirited discussion. ;) (After all, it took me a couple of days of background mental processing to come up with these rejoinders.)

 
GMO wrote on 12/02/10 at 06:03:57:

t hoping to have a spirited discussion. ;) (After all, it took me a couple of days of background mental processing to come up with these rejoinders.)

That's the whole point of this, discussion of the playtest!

I will still disagree with tech, in that I think there are better avenues I think to improving tech's use then static VP.

However, I think your argument about the SD objective allowing a person to deny VP by conflict is a compelling one.

In fact, I think it would actually be even better if the objective was:

I have all 3 spacedocks on the board, and they are not blockaded.

That encourages conflict even more, and makes this objective a little tougher.

Another point, right now I feel its a little off that 1 CC gets you a VP, but it takes 2 AC to do the same. I've always considered an AC and CC roughly equivalent in power.

 
Stalker0 wrote on 12/02/10 at 12:48:36:

I have all 3 spacedocks on the board, and they are not blockaded.

Interesting closure. Good job.

 
Stalker0 wrote on 12/02/10 at 12:48:36:

I have all 3 spacedocks on the board, and they are not blockaded.

That would work, too.  But it does make the objective even more tenuous than it already is.


Stalker0 wrote on 12/02/10 at 12:48:36:

Another point, right now I feel its a little off that 1 CC gets you a VP, but it takes 2 AC to do the same. I've always considered an AC and CC roughly equivalent in power.

I see your logic.

However, a CC is always useful, whereas there are loads of AC that are situational at best and therefore easy to toss.  It's more painful to lose a CC, I think.

You draw 2AC in Status and with Assembly (and with Bureaucracy as I have it written), so in those situations you're always picking up a possible 1VP, rather than 2.

I have an issue that just occurred to me, having looked at the order of the SOs in the deck during NSV.  There are a lot of Mecatol SOs.  (That's not the revelation; that's just obvious.)  But if somebody builds a killer presence on MR, could they conceivably run the table on SOs?  At 10VP a pop, they add up super quick.

Of course, in that situation, it's up to the other players to gang up on the leader, I suppose, even if it's just as simple as grabbing Bureaucracy to make sure the guy on MR doesn't.

I mention it because Bureaucracy is the primary thing in this game that is truly being playtested.  Mike has played multiple games with this set of objectives and is comfortable with them, whereas Bureaucracy is mostly untested; the version I played with previously didn't have SOs included.  (I imagine Mike was playing with his 4-player set of cards.)

I think it will be curious to see the MR thing in action, I agree it could be very powerful.

Let me also mention I really really don't like the secret VP part of this (which I just realized when you mentioned it in the game). It makes the game much harder to keep track of, and I don't see a lot of benefit.

The core game is about seeing how far your opponent is and trying to stop him or win yourself, its not about suddenly going "Oh I have 60 VP I win!".

Especially since there is nothing secret about the objectives, I have to declare spend objectives anyway and the others objective scores are obvious if you are paying attention...all it does is require me to watch everyone's VP.

I have addressed this issue with the secret VPs in the game thread, but let me throw in the same copy of Mike's email to me on the subject here, too:

"Btw, I would suggest keeping player's current points tally a secret from round to round.  You can make this information public if you want, but I prefer keeping it secret.  This game can suffer from slowdown if people are always gunning for the leader.  It's kind of fun if you can't be 100% sure who the leader is!"

---

Here's another issue with the SOs that occurred to me.  What if two players qualify for it at the same time?  It's entirely possible that two different players could, for example, both score Merciless.  Who gets the 10VP?  Both?  Whoever did it first?  Or should the VP just be split in half?

I can see the benefits of all three options there.   :-/

 
GMO wrote on 12/06/10 at 20:12:09:

Here's another issue with the SOs that occurred to me.  What if two players qualify for it at the same time?  It's entirely possible that two different players could, for example, both score Merciless.  Who gets the 10VP?  Both?  Whoever did it first?  Or should the VP just be split in half?

Hehe I thought the same thing earlier today!

You could use the current rules for tiebreakers to determine it if you wanted to, but I agree some kind of official ruling should occur.

Arguments for each option:

1) Both score. You've put the effort into reaching a painfully-difficult Secret Objective, and you deserve to be rewarded for that.  This, then, becomes the exception: "Each objective may only be claimed ONCE and by only ONE PLAYER, unless multiple players qualify for the objective in the same Status Phase, in which case all such players may claim the objective."

2) First to achieve. Many times TI rewards the person who accomplishes something first.  In the actual rules about winning the game, it's whoever hits the magic number first that gets the win.  (You picked Logistics instead of Initiative?  Too bad for you!)  Some people dislike the harshness of this - myself included - and have house-ruled it out of existence.

But in this situation, we're not talking about winning the game and the fluke (?) of who got to pick SC first for the last round.  We're talking about a specific objective achieved by a player who raced to put things in place in order to accomplish it first; some premium ought to be placed on that. 

"Each objective may only be claimed ONCE and by only ONE PLAYER.  In the event that multiple players qualify for a Secret Objective in the same Status Phase, whichever player first and continuously met the objective during the Action Phase scores the points."

(The part about "continuously" is to address possible issues with SOs like Expansionist, where one might qualify, then not, then qualify again.)

3) Points split. 10VP in this game is a ton, more than most players will typically score in one round.  By splitting the points between all who manage to qualify, you ratchet up some tension and give more control back to the players.  Did you notice that Sol just qualified for Technocrat in his first action?  Well, now it's incumbent on you to grab your sixth tech specialty planet, too, if you don't want him to jump out to a commanding lead.

"Each objective may only be claimed ONCE and by only ONE PLAYER.  In the event that multiple players qualify for a Secret Objective in the same Status Phase, the points for the objective will be divided evenly between all qualifying players (rounded up)."

(So if it's 2 that qualify, each gets 5.  The rounding is only important in the very unlikely event that more than 2 manage to qualify; 3 players would get 4 each, 4 would get 3 each, 5 and 6 would get 2 each.  Without computing it I can't be sure, but it seems fantastically unlikely that 4+ could all possibly qualify for the same SO in the same round.)

---

My opinion?  As you can probably infer from my lack of defense, I'm not a fan of option 1.  But the other two really hold a strong appeal.  Option 2 gives a big incentive to be the first player to manage things and doesn't penalize that player just because somebody on the other side of the galaxy managed to do the same thing later in the round.  Option 3 seems like it would, as I said, ratchet up the tension by encouraging others to try to duplicate the feat.

Would say option 2. Else you spend all effort and may get just half or less points of it. Option 2 increases tension. :) You could get attacked to block you from qualifying and other player try to qualify for same.
Or option 1. I dislike splitting it up, it may hurt me when i trying, but better that 3 people qualify for same and you get 3-4VP for hard trying. Like 6tech specs or so.
And mostly this will not happen of course :)

I like option 1.

Since this is a variant, I would say that the general trend of the boards has been to move away from areas where simultaneous gains go to the player based on initiative in most of the variants I have seen.

Further, while option 2 can at times generate more conflict, so can option 1. If with option2, my initiative is lower...then there is little point in me proceeding with my SO plan if someone with a higher initiative is going to get it. But if both of us can get it, then I still push forward.

I think I'd go with splitting the points. I'm also not a fan of 'initiative order' or option 1 - not for 10 VPs at least - and I think tension would be most suitably increased by splitting them. If 2 players both claim a SO for 10 VPs each, that goes a huge way towards knocking 4 players out of the game. Give them 5 each, and it raises the stakes. :-)

Thanks for your comments, possumman.  (And thanks for resurrecting the thread: I'd forgotten I need to decide this thing.)

 
GMO wrote on 12/13/10 at 16:47:55:

Thanks for your comments, possumman.  (And thanks for resurrecting the thread: I'd forgotten I need to decide this thing.)

Yep, it may be extrememly important on this turn:)

Actually, thanks a lot, you guys.  I got 1 vote for each option.  Very helpful.   ::)

---

Some more logic about each choice:

Option 1 (full points awarded to all who qualify): I guess I'm not as against this as I originally thought.  There is still a premium on getting your act together if you want to claim the SO at the same time as somebody else.  After all, if you can't get it done within the round, too bad.  The negative here is that it sort of "devalues" the SO if multiple people can get it.

Option 2 (whoever gets it first): This is the one that I prefer in my gut.  At the same time, I've totally discarded the tying endgame conditions in favor of the "moral victory" initially proposed by (I think) Mike Evans.  It would seem hypocritical to include it here.

Option 3 (split the points): I also like this one.  (Curse my inability to decide!)  The big strike against it, though, oddly enough, is that it ALSO devalues the SO -- literally.  And I feel like you could get some metagaming going on with this option, paying somebody off to let you, for example, claim that 6th tech specialty planet.  They might agree since you'll only gain 5VP off the deal; if the points weren't split, they might be less inclined.

---

Enough dithering!

We'll go with option 1.

Can you provide me with the details of this variant?  How are VP collected?

I see that you posted in the thread "Alternative Victory Points."  You can find a detailed discussion there (although I guess that goes back to the beginning of the discussion).  Alternatively, you can click on the link in my signature to No Sudden Victory, go to the Rules page, and scroll to the bottom.

Awesome, thanks.  I look forward to hearing some more.  I share the fear that MRex may be worth too much. 

So right now Hacan (me) has gone on a fairly aggressive streak. People are questioning whether its the right thing. Lets take a look at the VP gain and see what I'm gaining with my current attack on MRex if I take the planet (with nano tech).

Gain MRex -> +3 VP
Go from 2nd highest votes to 1st highest -> +1 VP
Gain 6 inf to spend at end -> +2 VP
Go from no aggression to highest aggression -> +3 VP

So +9 VP, almost a Secret Objective.

However, there are some costs associated with this:
Spend 2 CC (1 for attack, 1 for rebuilding fleet at home): -2 VP.

Rebuild fleet with current money (6 resources) that could have been spent on objectives: -2 VP.

So a net gain of +5 VP. Solid, but I am losing a poential ally and a trade partner out of it.


However, I am also denying Jol-Nar (the current 2nd place candidate) a fair amount of VP as well.

Mrex: -3 VP
Top Votes: -1 VP
6 inf to spend: -2 VP
Go from 2nd most aggression to no aggression (if I did not attack): +2 VP.

So I have cost Jol Nar a net 4 VP as well.


Normally this we be the point in the game I would let Hacan build up, but I feel that the current system gives a lot of incentive to aggression, I think more than many realize. Ultimately we will see if this strategy pays off.

So as the game is going on, a few ideas are stirring in my head.

1) I think the VP points for tech are a good thing. Initially I thought it was too good, but as the game goes on the money you spend in Tech could go to spend objectives, so it encourages people to keep using tech.

2) One thing I like about the violence objectives is it continues to help the leader. If the leader is being attacked (for being the leader) he keeps accruing VP, perhaps even more than the people attacking him (esepcially if he is getting attacked by multiple people).

I'm a fan of anything that helps the leader, because to me being the leader in core TI3 is too difficult a position to be in, the second place guy is a much better spot.

3) One tweak I could see would be to give 1 VP for every 2 systems controlled, not 3. To me this would do 2 things:

a) It encourages greater expansion in the late game. At a certain point, the extra territory you can acquire by war is overwritten by the extra cost of war and the difficulty defending the territory. However, if more of your VP is in that territory than it keeps encouraging expansion.

b) It helps players that have crappy territories early on. If I have a few empty systems while my neighbor has planets, that's usually a bad thing. However, if empty systems give me VP help because they are easy to control, then it helps balance that out...even if only a little bit.

I continue to enjoy your well-reasoned insights.


Stalker0 wrote on 02/17/11 at 13:30:10:

) One tweak I could see would be to give 1 VP for every 2 systems controlled, not 3.

When I initially saw the 3 systems requirement, I thought it was perfectly fine.  In fact, it does work fine.  But I was thinking that it would be easier than it is to get 6 systems, and that's not really easy at all.

It turns out that there are many times that you may have the planet(s) in a system, yet not want to bother with controlling the space.  To get that 2nd VP (for a 2nd set of 6 systems), you need to put 6 capital ships in separate systems.  That is a tall order.  After all, Expansionist SO gives you 2VP (or 10VP equivalent here) for controlling 8 systems, and that's with only one person gunning for that kind of expansion.

You'd need to control 6 systems for the entire game to get that kind of VP with this system.  And so far none of the players in NSV have done it in the first 3 rounds.  And that's with one player (Winnu) seriously on the ropes.

I'd be curious what Mike has to say . . .  ::)

Just played a 6 player game with this VP set up.  3 vets, 3 noobies.  We only were able to play 5 rounds due to time.

Man was this fun!  What a great new way to play!

Observations/Unique Events:

1 - We played with my famous (at least around my table) FLAGSHIPS variant, which had a marginal impact on VP standings.

2 - We passed a law early that disallowed the invasion of Mecatol Rex.  But all the artifacts ended up adjacent to Mecatol Rex so the fighting was still fierce in the middle

3 - I liked the area control aspect, but next time I will be trying X/2 VP where you control X systems.  This will serve to further encourage expansion during all stages of the game.

Great job, Mike (and others).

Something I just noticed in the game: Saar refreshed two influence-heavy planets with Assembly secondary (all he could refresh really).  But it may be worth a couple VP at the end of the round, while spending that CC from SA would have only been worth one.

So with the game ending in a sudden victory, here are some closing thoughts for the variant:

1) Tech. Originally my thought was that tech shouldn't get so many VP. However, after my play I think it feels right.


2) Attacks vs Controlling Territory: My own failed combats will likely make me biased here, but I think right now the emphasize is on killing fleets. The problem with that is that while you are getting VP from attacking a guy...he is also gaining VP because he is likely killing a lot of yours.

I think a better option is to change the VP for controlling systems. Frankly, I might go with 1 VP for each system you control, and then remove the combat VP.

That means combat is about getting systems to get VP, and has true purpose. Its not just about killing ships for the sake of killing ships.


3) I do think MR gives too many VP, especially with the 6 influence granting another 3 VP if used well.


4) Secret Objectives: They might give too many VP here, but my biggest beef is that only one person can accomplish them.

What I have found in a normal game is that the player's who accomplish their secret have a much greater chance of winning than those that don't.

In the current version, the problem is that not only does accomplishing a secret give you a big boost of VP...it prevents any one else from doing the same. That means you have an even larger jump ahead then the others.

I personally don't see a problem with allowing secret objectives to be gained by everything. Its a one time massive boost in VP if you can swing them.


5) Spend Objectives: Someone had mentioned maybe doing 2 influence spent as 1 VP. I like the idea both to make influence better but also to make TGs more valuable (worth 1/2 a VP instead of 1/3).

I had thought about this before, but Jol Nar truly demonstrated the point. Late game, once a person is "going for it" he can gain massive VP through the spend objectives. When you don't need ships and you don't CCs to make moves...you can generate a very quick amount of VP.

Perhaps only allowing 2 uses of each spend objective or a total maximum per round might be called for. Or...maybe there's nothing wrong with that kind of push and that's just part of the game with this variant.


6) Public VP Keeping vs Secret: We had the discussion early on about whether VP should be public or not. After playing, I am 100% for keeping it PUBLIC.

We had a couple of times where peer reviews corrected mistakes in VP keeping. And I don't think knowing people's VP lowered the tension one bit. Jol Nar still managed a surprise victory even with public VP.


7) Homesystem VP: I think gaining 1 VP for controlling someone's homesystem is fine (afterall you are getting the sweet resources of that system as well). However, the homesystem penalty perhaps should be increased to ensure it remains an option to stop the leader from winning the game.

Right now, a -2 VP loss doesn't' feel like it would have stopped Jol Nar at all.

I have a few minutes to comment on a couple of things.

First, I wanted to again highlight the differences between Mike's system and the version we played with.  In Mike's original system:

- There is no -2VP penalty for losing control of your HS. Therefore it's interesting that everybody thinks it should be even more, as that was something I tacked on almost at the last minute.

- There are no Secret Objectives.  Thus, the game is played to only 50VP instead of 60.  We hashed out which way to play early on, and I am still okay with only one person claiming each one.  It heightens the power of Bureaucracy.

- There is no double-claiming of objectives with Bureaucracy.  But I think this is because Mike typically plays with his 4-player Strategy Cards, so I had to come up with something.  After seeing the play in this game, I think the double-claim is fine, MR being 3VP is fine, and the SOs are fine, but I would take away the 2AC draw from Bureaucracy.  It's already the strongest card, even without that.

Otherwise all the rest is the same.

I wanted to point out the huge effect Star by Star had on this game.  I think it's hard to overstate how much that skewed things.  I don't mean to take away from Jol Nar's victory (since Naalu had it almost as good), but having that huge section of the galaxy all to herself was quite helpful.


Stalker0 wrote on 03/15/11 at 15:35:58:

Frankly, I might go with 1 VP for each system you control, and then remove the combat VP.

That's an interesting idea.  Having only played this system FTF twice, I don't have the experience to comment on how that compares; it's certainly different.  A halfway option would be to give you 1VP per 2 systems controlled, instead of 3.  And despite the amount of confusion that was generated, I wouldn't change the need to control a system to score it.


Stalker0 wrote on 03/15/11 at 15:35:58:

I had thought about this before, but Jol Nar truly demonstrated the point. Late game, once a person is "going for it" he can gain massive VP through the spend objectives. When you don't need ships and you don't CCs to make moves...you can generate a very quick amount of VP.

This is true.  As you speculate, I think it's part of the system.  It's incumbent upon the players to see the danger and to do something about it.  (Part of the reason why the Star by Star setup didn't work so hot here.)  But nothing was done about it because nobody saw the victory coming.

Well, let me rephrase that.  None of the other players saw it coming.  I could see what she was setting herself up for.  So in that sense, it actually wasn't a "sudden" victory, even though it was still quite fast.


Stalker0 wrote on 03/15/11 at 15:35:58:

Right now, a -2 VP loss doesn't' feel like it would have stopped Jol Nar at all.

But remember, you still need to control your HS to win.  So even though the VP loss wouldn't have hurt much, the inability to win would.


Stalker0 wrote on 03/15/11 at 15:35:58:

I do think MR gives too many VP, especially with the 6 influence granting another 3 VP if used well.

I disagree with this.  Mecatol is supposed to be the center of the game.  But in many games with the original system, you can ignore it with no negative effects, as long as you don't have a Mecatol SO and none of the Mecatol POs come up.  Here, you can ignore it and still score points . . . but then somebody else is going to get in there and contest you.  So everybody is forced to pay attention to it, for the reasons you state.  And the players need to realize how important it is to make sure that the person with Mecatol doesn't take Bureaucracy.

But I'd really like to see what Mike has to say. :)

Thanks for the heads-up, GMO!  I haven't been on the forums much at all, but I'm still interested in this variant.  I'd like to share some of my thoughts.

---
There is a very specific reason that I have a "3 space dock" and tech objective.

Even in regular games with regular objectives, it is often not worth spending 6 resources on tech, when you could be spending it on ships. I have seen many people win having never acquired any tech at all the entire game, or only one or two (and those from the Tech SC primary).  With my VP system, if you are purchasing technology with the secondary ability, that tech must be worth the 3 VP's you are sacrificing to get it.  (2 VP for the 6 resources, and 1 VP for the CC)  This cost/benefit ratio becomes more punishing late in the game, when there is even less time for the tech to "earn its keep."  If there is any doubt at all, then you should spend the money and CC on points instead.

However, if a tech is worth 2 VP's intrinsically, the cost/benefit ratio isn't as steep.  Furthermore, if you have enough money, it's another way to turn lots of extra resources into points past the cap of doing the "3 resource" objective three times.  It's less efficient to buy a second tech, though, since you'll only get 1 VP out of it, but if you have a good reason to do so, then it's probably worth it.

My design decision is similar when it comes to the space dock objective.  Because of the combat vps, a space dock is a VERY tempting target because of its high price tag.  Building a dock could mean giving points away to the enemy, AND their cost of 8 resources is worth almost 3 VP's.  If I'm a race with a good starting space dock, I may prefer to play conservatively, with fewer docks, or keep any extra docks in my starting home system.  However, if I can recoup SOME of my investment in the form of points, it's more worth it to put those docks out there.

I'll respond to some of the other thoughts in a bit, when I have more time.

Thanks for hopping in here, Mike.  I enjoy reading the logic behind the decisions you've made here.

In particular, I hadn't made the connection between resource investment in tech or SD as compared to investing in VP.  Likely this is because I'm also still relatively new to the concept of this system, this PBF having only been the third time I've seen it in play.  And every time so far there has been very little done with spending objectives.

I'll be interested in what else you have to say.  :)

Here's how we've been playing, assuming most of the rest of the list of VP is congruous with what you've been playing.

3 VP rex, it's very good, but I don't think it's too good.

1 VP for every 2 systems controlled, it's a nice benefit to take that last system to make even numbers (also makes local unrest/diplomacy annexation pretty good)

No bureaucracy, and we put both Warfare's in.  More action.  We also allow the drawing of 1 PC each status phase for free (though they are NOT spendable as TG).

I intend to play next with 2 VP techs, 1 VP is okay, but very little incentive for tech this way.  Just the holder of the tech card and JolNar benefit.

I also want to add something with HS.  Live +3 VP for holding another HS.  And maybe -5 for NOT holding your own HS.  (Saar would be exempt from both sides).

Last game I had a choice on the last round.  Take a lightly defended HS or attempt Rex in an almost even battle.  I had to go for Rex because the HS offered little rewards.

How many times have you played this way, Eppic. Sounds like a lot.

I'm in agreement with needing only 2 systems per VP.

I still personally prefer having Bureaucracy in there, but your double Warfare idea is quite interesting.

Also interesting is your HS suggestion. I know Mike had specific reasons for there being NO penalty for losing your HS. I'm curious as to what you think the impact of the -5 penalty is on playstyle versus RAW, if any.

I've done 3 games now, but only one with 6 players.

I think a -5 penalty does 2 things:

1)  Makes players at least protect their HS, especially in the last round.  I think holding your HS should be one thing that any great galactic race should aspire to do.

2)  It makes the Saar a solid choice if they are exempt from the scoring swings of HS.  No one has chosen them yet in our group.  One of the reasons is they essentially lose one of their racial abilities with this scoring system.

I'm not set on the point values, but I think it's a good place to start.

3 VP makes it comparable to Rex (maybe only 2, perhaps Rex should still be a better target)

-5 VP will cause almost any race to reconsider their plans.  It can also help players stop a runaway leader in somewhat rarer circumstances.


We also DONT incorporate SO's in our game.  I'm the only one who misses them, but I certainly don't miss em all that much.

Bottom line:  Protect your HS honestly to prevent VP swings, also gives viable alternative to the centre of the galaxy.

 
Eppic wrote on 03/18/11 at 15:51:20:

We also DONT incorporate SO's in our game.  I'm the only one who misses them, but I certainly don't miss em all that much.

Yeah, the SOs are definitely less playtested.  I have some uncertainty about how to incorporate them.  Actually, I have a preferred method, but I'm not sure if it's the best method.  But I don't really see how to use Bureaucracy without them.

Just a quick note before I head to bed:

In my games I don't make losing your home system too detrimental because I like to encourage people to get out there, and discourage turtling.  I don't blame people who want it to be more the like the original game.  However, I think +3/-5 is too drastic.  That's an 8 point swing between those two players!  Even +3/-3 might be too much.  I don't know.  I do like the idea of an alternative to Mecatol for a big VP hit, though.  For me, I might just make it +3/0.  Giving somebody that many points (plus any points they might get for combat) might be enough reward.

Here's my thought about the HS points.

While yes it may be very hard to take a HS, its often pretty easy to keep it. Reason being is if you took the HS of a neighbor, you have likely crippled that neighbor, who can now only afford some resistance.

Compare to Mecatol, which everyone always has a chance to gun for.

Even with that, I've already stated that I think MR being 3 VP is a bit too much, so I certainly think a HS being 3 VP is too much.

As a note to Mike, in No Sudden Victory PBF we played with 1VP for taking an opponent's HS and -2VP for losing your own HS (Saar exempt).

Fair enough.  Perhaps a +2/-2 would be a good place to start.

It's still incentive to push outwards, some systems can easily be worth at least 2 VP.

Again, I would really like for HS to be a tempting target as well as giving the Saar back one of their abilities.

I've been following this thread.  Any further analysis on this point system?  I'm extremely interested in a new victory system for TI.

As far as I'm concerned, this system is pretty much fully cooked.  As noted in the most recent comments, there could be a couple of things tweaked here or there, but it's quite solid.

Yeah, I think the conceptual nature of the system is quite good. The key parts are:

1) What actions should be worth points.
2) How many points should they be worth?
3) Should there be a cap on how many points can be gained in a round?

 
Eppic wrote on 03/18/11 at 15:51:20:

3 VP makes it comparable to Rex (maybe only 2, perhaps Rex should still be a better target) -5 VP will cause almost any race to reconsider their plans.  It can also help players stop a runaway leader in somewhat rarer circumstances.

Generally I would rather have a bigger penalty, and keep the bonus small.

To me, taking a HS is often its own reward. They are usually some of the best planets in the game, and you are in many cases severing crippling an opponent by doing so.

Further, its not like MRex where everyone in the galaxy can try and take it from you. Commonly once you get that HS, its going to be yours for a while.

However, I do see the merit of taking a HS to stop a win, and for that a solid penalty I think is useful.

I've played this at least 4 times now with varying numbers of players.  I'll never go back to the old method (unless the expansion requires it).

As for the Homesystem Hypothesis.  Our group has not yet integrated any unique point values to controlling homesystems. 

I just want them to be viable late game alternatives to Rex.

Next game I will likely institute a +2/-2 VP swing.

Too big a penalty and players may be afraid to be aggressive.  Too small a penalty and there's not much point in taking a HS unless it's in the early-mid game.

Some of our games have been only a 1 or 2  point difference between first and second.  Though one game was a blow out.

Wondering in what ways we might tweak this system to work with Shards.  I don't think it really needs much, but there are a couple of items that come to mind.

- Preliminary Objectives
I know I'm the only one trying to use Bureaucracy with this system, but for working in the PreOs I was thinking we reveal one of each Prelim and Secret to make public each time Bureaucracy is played.  Maybe if nobody takes Bureaucracy, the Bonus token only spits out Prelims.  (On another side note, I think I want to change the VP scoring for Secrets.  First person gets 10, second gets 6, third gets 4, then 3, 2, 1.  This way there's a bigger incentive for getting the SO first, but still something for coming along later.  For Prelims I'd probably go 5, 3, 2, 1, or maybe just 5, 3, 1.)

- Flagships
There ought to be some bonus for taking out a Flagship, over and above the possible resource-cost VP.  2-3 VP per Flagship?  Would also have to do something about Nekro.

- Leaders
Should there be VP for killing or capturing a Leader?  The problem is I hate to tie it to a die roll.  But I was thinking 1VP for killing, 1VP for capturing, 1VP for releasing.  So that there's some incentive in allowing your opponent to retain his leader.

- Technology
With all the new tech specialties, there should be a little more tech in Shards games.  I don't see any need in adjusting the VP bonuses for tech, though.

We've always played with flagships, just of a different sort. (a modified dreadnaught, cost still 5 res)

In my pre-expansion plays, we just allowed 1 VP per round for having your flagship out.

Naturally, flagships are more expensive now and should net maybe 2-3 VP per round for being alive.

We used to issue a bounty on killing flagships.  This led to most players not being aggressive with their flagships, so we changed the bounty to only be collected if you defeated an enemy flagship with your own flagship in the battle.

-----------

I like your idea with leaders.  We have yet to play with them due to some relatively newer players to the game.

------------

As for prelim objectives, well, I haven't seen them so I can't speak to that.

 
Eppic wrote on 06/23/11 at 15:31:17:

Naturally, flagships are more expensive now and should net maybe 2-3 VP per round for being alive.

Now THAT is an interesting idea.

 
GMO wrote on 06/23/11 at 17:46:53:

Eppic wrote on 06/23/11 at 15:31:17: Naturally, flagships are more expensive now and should net maybe 2-3 VP per round for being alive. Now THAT is an interesting idea.

I disagree. Having a flagship already nets a major military advantage. I don't see the need to have a VP incentive, especially if it encourages people to turtle them in the backyard.

However, I'm all for a VP gained for killing a flagship.

If you add an incentive for killing a flagship, and take away an incentive for having a flagship, you've created a scenario where it's dangerous to build a flagship.

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but it's certainly a consideration.

I love to see flagships clashing, so I like to get them on the board.  However, I'd like to see more incentive for killing than for keeping them, just to make sure we chum the waters.


Just pulling numbers out of me arse, but 2 VP per round for having your flagship on the board, and maybe 5 VP for killing another flagship sounds like a decent place to start (at least for my table).

After all, it'll be tough to take out a flagship without your own flagship (or a couple of warsuns...)

One flaw with 2 per round for FG onboard is a lack of incentive to send it out, isn't it? Over a 6 round game, getting a fifth of your VP from parking your FG seems strong.

Too, 5 for taking one out feels high to me, on par with fulfilling a Prelim. Then again, some of those are even easier than taking out a FG. But it's still repeatable (theoreticallyj.

I think I'd be more inclined to give 1VP for fielding a FG and 2-3VP for destroying one.  (Though I'm still open to debate. ;))

And what about Nekro? Who gets the points when that one goes boom? The attacker, I suppose. It's just an easier target.

I'd say you should get some VP for building a flagship, but only the turn you actually build it.  That way, there's incentive to actually use it, because if it gets killed, you can get more points for rebuilding it.

As for getting points for killing a flagship, it makes sense, but I wouldn't want it to be enough that it makes people turtle.  Besides, they cost so much, if you kill one you're bound to be in the running for the "most plastic killed" points.

 
Mike_Evans wrote on 06/25/11 at 20:48:28:

I'd say you should get some VP for building a flagship, but only the turn you actually build it.  That way, there's incentive to actually use it, because if it gets killed, you can get more points for rebuilding it. As for getting points for killing a flagship, it makes sense, but I wouldn't want it to be enough that it makes people turtle.  Besides, they cost so much, if you kill one you're bound to be in the running for the "most plastic killed" points.

Care to put a number on "some VP for building" and how much you think is too much for destroying?  1 and 2, respectively?

 
Mike_Evans wrote on 06/25/11 at 20:48:28:

As for getting points for killing a flagship, it makes sense, but I wouldn't want it to be enough that it makes people turtle.  Besides, they cost so much, if you kill one you're bound to be in the running for the "most plastic killed" points.

In that case, how about just not putting VP on flagships at all?

1) If flagships are good enough that they are worth the cost to build, then no reason to give them VP for building them.

2) If we are worried about flagships being a turtle device if there are VP for killing them, lets not put VP out there for killing them.

 
Stalker0 wrote on 06/26/11 at 13:33:19:

Mike_Evans wrote on 06/25/11 at 20:48:28: As for getting points for killing a flagship, it makes sense, but I wouldn't want it to be enough that it makes people turtle.  Besides, they cost so much, if you kill one you're bound to be in the running for the "most plastic killed" points. In that case, how about just not putting VP on flagships at all? 1) If flagships are good enough that they are worth the cost to build, then no reason to give them VP for building them. 2) If we are worried about flagships being a turtle device if there are VP for killing them, lets not put VP out there for killing them.

What I like about assigning VP to the Flagships is the thematics of it.  The galaxy respects a race more (or fears them more) for having that massive mothership; conversely, the galaxy respects/fears a race more for taking one out.

Maybe a simple +1/-1 would be good enough.  I'll try that.  I have a 3-player game tomorrow (my first with Shards).
I'm also tossing in +1 for killing a Leader, +1 for capturing a Leader, and +1 for repatriating a Leader.
I'm setting the Home System VPs at +2/-2.
And I'll actually do without Prelims, I think.  The whole point is to get more VPs into the game faster ... and we already have that here.

I look forward to hearing how that plays out, GMO.  I'm hoping to get a game in this weekend.

I still think the Flagship should be worth either 1 VP each round, or a one time payout of 3 VP.  After all, 3 resources buys 1 VP, so this way you don't necessarily give up the VP to build your Flagship.

I know the FG is probably worth it by itself, but I really want to see them all on the board.



-------------


As for discouraging the turtle-your-flagship effect, that is exactly why I had a bounty on Flagship to Flagship combat.  You only get points for killing a flagship with your own flagship.

The snag is now the Nekro ship.  Points awarded to both sides?

 
Eppic wrote on 06/27/11 at 08:49:04:

or a one time payout of 3 VP.

Seems like the best compromise to me, though I would probably go with 2. Using your resources to get a flagship should be less VP than just spending them for VP.

Just a brief note now on last night's game.  Hopefully I'll have more time to post later.

We did end up using 2VP for building a Flagship.  We all did it once, so that was a net wash.

I also threw in the Prelims with the following rule: "Reveal 1 PreO at the beginning of each Strategy Phase until each player has claimed one.  Each player may only claim 1 PreO.  The first player(s) to claim a given PreO receive 5VP; in subsequent rounds, the amounts are 3, then 2, then 1."  I did not bump the goal (60, since we played with my SO version like in NSV).  I thought this was a nice little early bump to get you on the road to claiming your RST, which as I play is automatically acquired when your VP reaches (cost * 5).

We were 3 players on a 2-ring map.  To make reaching Mecatol a little more difficult, I put it off the board and used the C wormhole tokens from Cormund (the Gravity Rift planet) in the center to connect the board to it.  This made Gravity Drive a little much more important.

I also used my Technology III (simple variant) card.  The primary on that lets you get 1 tech for free then 2 more techs at 6 each; the secondary is 1 tech for 4.

The game only went 4 rounds, with a final score (after furious claiming of spend objectives) of 68 - 59 - 46.  Without that spending in the last round, it would have been 60 - 54 - 39, so the game would have still been over.

I want to comment on the shortness of the game, but that will have to wait for later.  Possible causes: cheap tech (especially for Arborec, who also ended up 5(!) green tech specialties), Nekro's warlike ways, 3 players (?), and a small map.

 
GMO wrote on 06/29/11 at 06:22:52:

Just a brief note now on last night's game.  Hopefully I'll have more time to post later.

Can you give us the full list of your objectives? I'm curious to see if you've tried any other recent changes, for example, I know we had talked about trying 1 VP per 2 systems controlled instead of 1 for 3 like the core variant.

When I get a few (read: 15-30) minutes, I'll post all of the scoring for all 3 players, round by round.  That'll either be Thursday or Friday morning.

Here are the scores from Tuesday's game:

                          Nekro       Arborec       Creuss
ROUND                  1  2  3  4    1  2  3  4   1  2  3  4

Combat
most destroyed         3  2  3  3    -  -  2  2   -  3  1  1

Control
Mecatol Rex            - 3/3 3  3    -  -  -  -   -  -  -  -
Mallice                -  -  -  -    -  -  -  -   -  -  1  1
Artifacts              1  2  -  -    1  1  2  2   -  -  1  1
2 systems              1  2  1  1    1  2  2  1   2  2  4  2
other HS               -  -  -  -    -  -  -  -   -  -  -  -
3 Space Docks          -  -  -  -    -  -  -  -   -  -  -  -

Achievements
most votes             -  -  -  -    -  1  -  -   -  2  -  -
Technology acquired    2  3  3  -    2  2 4/4 4   2  2  - 2/2

Spending
3 resources            -  -  -  1    -  1  -  -   -  -  2  2
3 influence            -  -  2  2    -  -  -  -   -  -  -  -
2 Action Cards         -  -  -  2    -  -  2  2   -  -  -  2
1 Command Counter      1  -  -  3    -  -  -  3   -  -  -  3

Miscellaneous
Preliminary Objective  -  3  -  -    5  -  -  -   -  5  -  -
Secret Objective       -  -  - 10    -  -  - 10   -  -  -  -
non-control of HS      -  -  -  -    -  -  -  -   -  -  -  -
Leader kill/capt/rel   -  -  1  1    -  -  -  -   -  1  -  -
Flagship built/dest.   -  -  2  1    -  -  2  1   -  -  2  -

round total            8 18 15 27    9  7 18 25   4 15 11 16
game total             8 26 41 68    9 16 34 59   4 19 30 46

I have some further analysis and information on this, but it will have to wait until another time.

Looks like Fighting and Rex were key for Nekro, while missing his SO was the difference for the Cruess.

Did the Necro park the flagship on Rex?

I dont like that all objectives are out same time. (or were they, list looks like it).

Why necro has 3/3 on R2 mecatol? Or tech aquired 4/4? Wasnt it 1VP per tech. I dont get how all VPs were shared. Could you show it on table what each obj is worth?

This setting really favors necro as they can capture tech(s) through combat and same time score VP on combat side. Also spend res should be more usable. And combat VP is very big compared to others.

I suggest that make rewards increasing if you complete same obj round to round like +1 VP if you did it last round too.

Like Control MR 2 + 1 if you controlled it last round too. It increases both need to control MR but also incentive for others to take it off.

Spend objs spend res 2/5/9/14 for 1/3/6/10 VPs or something. Now that would make it a choise to spend during earlier rounds too and if you spend alot you open yourself. Now spending 9res for 3VP where you get it from most combat doesnt really make it an option. (7*2 loss is 3VP, 3*5 gain 1VP for 1 res, 9+5 lose 1vp compared to 14 for 10)
Or alternatively spend 3/5/7/11 res for 1/2/4/7 vp (2nd 1res cheaper, 3rd 1vp more 4th +1 on both) but again it gives profit if you spend more once as it hurts more.

Now this doesnt hold too much strat. You want to kill most. Id rather hit more objs that you draw set to each game to make em vary and if you happen to draw control 2 red systems (SA) theyd be interesting. Or control ships in 7 systems (SA). Now that would make small clashes everywhere as people try to hold on systems. Also contrl 4(?) techspecs or 3? of same color could do

And if you can score any number of objs last round seems pretty dull? Everyone just passed and spent all res?

-D

 
Eppic wrote on 06/30/11 at 08:29:54:

Looks like Fighting and Rex were key for Nekro, while missing his SO was the difference for the Cruess.

Indeed.  In fact, Nekro gets a double boost, at least in this game: VP for the combat objectives and more VP for gaining Tech.

On the subject of lengthening the game, it was suggested simply to raise the VP total.  Going to 75 ought to definitely lengthen the game by at least 1 extra round.  It would also help compensate for all those extra ways to pick up VP with Shards.


Quote:

Did the Necro park the flagship on Rex?

Actually he parked it at home, which was quite effective.  I had MR off the board (like Mallice) and accessible through only the C wormhole in the center, which also had Cormund.  He grabbed both Cormund and MR, then played Diplomacy on Cormund in the final round, forestalling my invasion with Warfare.

@Drac: I can't quite tell from your comments whether you are fully up on this VP system; it seems not.  I would recommend reading up on it here: http://checkwolf.com/nsv/rules.

Some of those suggestions are interesting, but they perhaps needlessly complicate the simple system Mike has proposed.  Although one thing I might change is the combat objectives.  As it stands, you can take out a Destroyer in Round 1 and get 3VP, if you're the only one to fight.  I suppose the other players should help to stabilize that, but it isn't always possible.

Would it be too complex -- or cause too much turtling -- to say that combat VP are 1 in Round 1, 2-1 in round 2, 3-2-1 in round 3, 4-3-2-1 in round 4, etc.?

Also: Influence still feels too weak.  But lowering it makes MR too strong(er).  How about this:
- spend 2 influence for 1VP (instead of 3)
- controlling MR gives 2VP (instead of 3)

This way, MR is a little weaker -- which I think is good -- but still gets you 5VP if you save it for spending at the end of the round.  It also balances the other costs a bit: 1CC = 2 influence, like with Leadership.

I am wondering whether MR should be 2 points as well...  It is a big target, true, but considering all the influence it grants for potential spend objectives, and the fact that sometimes players are able to stay there much longer than expected, it might be better to reduce the point value.

Drac, if you try this VP variant a bit, I think you'd find out just how powerful the "Spend" objectives are.  Reducing them to 2 (at least for resources) makes them too good in my opinion.  I might consider lowering the influence requirements, but I worry that it will make Trade Goods too good when combined with influence for the buy objectives.

 
GMO wrote on 07/01/11 at 06:22:46:

Some of those suggestions are interesting, but they perhaps needlessly complicate the simple system Mike has proposed.  Although one thing I might change is the combat objectives.  As it stands, you can take out a Destroyer in Round 1 and get 3VP, if you're the only one to fight.  I suppose the other players should help to stabilize that, but it isn't always possible.

Right now I think combat VP could use a pruning...mainly because the spoils of war are now generating some good VP.

By gaining more systems I get more VP. I also get more resources/inf which translates to more VP.

On the other hand starting a battle is 1 CC which basically means I'm losing 1 VP so there is that to consider.

It might actually be better to hit the spend objectives. So far in the two games I've seen the system work in (this one and No sudden victory), the game ending with a mad rush of spend objectives.

Perhaps there should be a harder cap on the number of VP generating with spend objectives per round...and by that I mean ALL spend objectives together.

I'm torn on pruning the combat vp's.  I understand that it's an awful lot to give somebody 3 VP's for sniping a destroyer or carrier on turn 1 or 2, but I think it may be worth it just for the incentive it gives people to engage in early combat.

What I dislike about my system more than anything else is the last turn resource-spending rush.  I already made spending objectives harder by increasing them from 2 res/inf to 3.  Putting a per-turn cap on them might help but I don't want to make it TOO difficult to win by steadily buying points, either.  I'd say it would need playtesting.

 
Mike_Evans wrote on 07/01/11 at 09:42:56:

Putting a per-turn cap on them might help but I don't want to make it TOO difficult to win by steadily buying points, either.  I'd say it would need playtesting.

If you put a mild cap on them, I don't think you would affect anything except the last turn. If you look at that game of GMOs, the most VP spent on spend objectives (until the last round) was 2....where in the last round it was 8!

You could put a cap of 3-4 and I doubt it would change gameplay much except for that last round rush.


Thinking about it more I would prefer starting with the spend objectives instead of combat. I agree with Mike that if someone is starting an early battle to gain VP more power to them. Personally I wonder if the risk of giving your enemy those 3 VP if the dice go bad is worth it anyway.

 
Mike_Evans wrote on 07/01/11 at 09:35:49:

I am wondering whether MR should be 2 points as well...  It is a big target, true, but considering all the influence it grants for potential spend objectives, and the fact that sometimes players are able to stay there much longer than expected, it might be better to reduce the point value. Drac, if you try this VP variant a bit, I think you'd find out just how powerful the "Spend" objectives are.  Reducing them to 2 (at least for resources) makes them too good in my opinion.  I might consider lowering the influence requirements, but I worry that it will make Trade Goods too good when combined with influence for the buy objectives.

Okay x/x mean they got VP from buro and that obj was doubled for that turn I presume...

Lets first sum different categories
Combat:  20 pts
Techs: 26 (without buro as thats buro effect)
Res spend: 10
Ac spend: 8
CC spend: 10
Artifacts 11
2 (mean 3?) systems 21
Prelims 13
Secrets 20

Rex 9
Flags 8

Mallice 2
Votes: 3
Leaders: 3


This somewhat shows that Mallice is worth little. MR should be less as its possible SO very often thus thas reason to control it. 1VP per round for it. Votes=influence but this is nothing. More effect here and you can stall assembly to alter influcences. Leaders are hard to catch and were worth 3??  Tech scoring is biased it gives game end too soon compared to other objs. System control is too good and also drives game too fast on. prelims are easy right? They scored 13 VP which is on the upper part... (and made no real dif as they were 5/5/3)

Possible but with spend of 3/6/9 you need to spend 9! res or be biggest fighter around. And it doesnt make bigger spending more worthful. Its easier to spend 3 in 3 rounds (or spend 3res 3 inf than 6 res/inf). Thus spending more of same amount should be rewarded. Or with MR alone you get 3+can spend 6inf for 2VP making it 5 alone. To compensate that youd need to spend 9res and 6 inf... And as above report shows 10 points were scored by spending res out of 173! And you call ttat it makes difference?? I that you should be able to go to victory with all paths. Of course one who takes em all is stronger anyway.

Same thing with systems. If you control 6 you get 2 for 9 you get 3 but holding out 9 is ALOT harder and should be worth more. And having 2 artifacts is harder than 1... Make you want to grab one thing more and for longer time...

Besides MR is 3VP+6inf+1/3VP as system...

Possibilities:
- Last person active gets 1 VP that way stalling is at least somewhat useful (And you pay CCs to act)
- When 60pts is scored additionally score: One who has most planets gets X, one who has most sys get Y, one who has most techs, credits, inf, res, ships on board... Thus losing stuff last round makes it count in many ways. Maybe 2nd and third too if you wish...
- Technology doesnt make sense in that way to score points. Everyone mostly gets em and it makes just small change. And it doesnt force players to change their tech path as original. Also spend 6 res is about same as buying tech and if you take 2 techs you spend 8, its even worse.
  * One who has most techs in one color 1VP (fish love this but hey they suck in combat)
  * 2 VP if you bought tech you have most credits (makes you focus on your strengths in science)
  * 1 VP if you hold 3 of same color or 4? credits (you are technologist
- Any spend objectives on last round are reduced by 1 (This migth drop you below 60 but game ends still) -> last round spend objectives are less worthwhile and you must aim elsewhere.
- Most combat: Put gap that you must cause at least X res loss to qualify for 3 VP (6?) or 2 VP (3)? that way you cant just kill lone DD for VPs. If you kill 1 DD someone might go for DD too to get VP or if he kills more you still get two...
- System is bland as theres no reason to go anywhere special. Either put different control objs or leave dud artifacts to systems. Make them score VP too but make artifacts score 2 or one who has most artifacts score extra VP. Or control 2 duds for VP. That way theres more meaning on different systems,

-D

Dracandross brings up tech, and I am curious how Arborec received 4 tech VP in two different turns.

Normally you could get 2 VP for the 1st tech, and 1 VP for the second, so 3. Did arborec use AC to get more techs...or did you guys use kind of tech III card?

 
Dracandross wrote on 07/01/11 at 10:53:32:

This somewhat shows that Mallice is worth little. MR should be less as its possible SO very often thus thas reason to control it. 1VP per round for it. Votes=influence but this is nothing. More effect here and you can stall assembly to alter influcences. Leaders are hard to catch and were worth 3??  Tech scoring is biased it gives game end too soon compared to other objs. System control is too good and also drives game too fast on.

I don't think the balance on the objectives should be what percentage of the overall VP total they are....the better question is: Are the objectives driving the kind of gameplay we want to see in game?

For example, if we are seeing a lot of VP from combat and system objectives....well that sounds like a lot of combat and system pushing is going on, that's what I want to see.

When I see that a person wins the game by exhausting every planet,CC, and action card he has....well that sounds like he just turtled up and autowon the game....not a very exciting way to see the game end.

While objective tuning should be done to ensure multiple different paths are viable to winning the game...I don't think at this stage we should worry about pure VP numbers....but rather what actions the players are taking in game to win the game.

 
Dracandross wrote on 07/01/11 at 10:53:32:

System is bland as theres no reason to go anywhere special.

Spoken like somebody who hasn't played with the system.  ;)


Dracandross wrote on 07/01/11 at 10:53:32:

2 (mean 3?)

Actually, it was 1VP per 2 systems controlled.  This was a change from NSV.  (I have an idea on a graduated system, but I'll talk about that at the end.)


Dracandross wrote on 07/01/11 at 10:53:32:

MR should be less as its possible SO very often thus thas reason to control it.

Bear in mind that when Mike and Eppic are talking about this system, they're playing with no Bureaucracy, and therefore no SO, no double-claim of objectives, and only going to 50VP.

(Note that in the above game, if you take out Bureaucracy claims, Nekro still ends up with 55 and Arborec with 45, with Creuss much closer at 44.  But Nekro still wins in 4 rounds, which may be more of a problem with (tech + combat) x Nekro = powerful.)


Stalker0 wrote on 07/01/11 at 11:37:35:

Dracandross brings up tech, and I am curious how Arborec received 4 tech VP in two different turns.

As you surmised, we were using a Tech III variant.  Specifically, it was 4 resources for the secondary and primary of get 1 free, buy 2 at 6 each.  With Tech II, Arborec probably would have finished in last place, and Nekro might have missed out on another point or two.  It's certainly possible that Tech III is at the root of the problem with this set of races and conditions.  We might have gone 5 rounds without it.


Stalker0 wrote on 07/01/11 at 09:36:12:

Perhaps there should be a harder cap on the number of VP generating with spend objectives per round...and by that I mean ALL spend objectives together.

This may be a good idea.  Right now you can churn 12VP in a single round by spending.  It's not terribly likely, but it is possible.  However, as Mike originally mentioned, to be able to do this you probably have to spend the last round not building much of anything and maybe not buying any CC; or at least not as much.

12VP in this game is equivalent to 2.4VP RAW, which is enormous.  Perhaps reducing the maximum down to 5 (equivalent to 1VP RAW) would be a simple fix.

Another option would be something that Drac has intimated: graduated rates.

For example, take controlling systems.  It could go like this:
- 3 systems = 1VP
- 5 systems = 2VP
- 6 systems = 3VP
- 7 systems = 5VP
- 8 systems = 8VP
This gives bonuses for controlling more systems, which is much harder.

Or how about combat objectives?
Round 1: 1 for most
Round 2: 2 for most, 1 for 2nd
Round 3: 3 for most, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd
Round 4: 4 for most, 3 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, 1 for 4th
... and so on.  (I recognize the hesitancy to touch this system for fear of dissuading early aggression, so maybe Drac's idea that you have to destroy at least the number of resources you're scoring VP for would work.  So if you take out 1 Destroyer and that's the most, you only get 1VP instead of 3.)

For spending objectives, it could go like this:
- no cap in Round 1
- cap of 3 each (12 total) in Round 2
- cap of 2 each/8 total in Round 3
- cap of 6 total in Round 4
- cap of 4 total in Round 5
This increases the viability of early spending.  Another option:
- 3VP per spending set in Round 1
- 2VP per set in Round 2
- 1VP per set in Round 3
- 1VP per set (limit 2) -OR- ½VP per set in Round 4
... and so on.

There is a definite appeal to me in balancing the system with these graduated rates.  But it would introduce a tremendous amount of complexity to achieve that balance, which doesn't even count the amount of time spent in balancing that would need to be done.  The system is so solid as it stands right now that I think we'd be looking at diminishing returns to make this overhaul in complexity.

As I stated earlier, I think Tech III generated a substantial portion of the problem.  Pare it back to Tech II and take out the Prelims and I think you have a different story.  However, I think it's still a 5-round game, which still feels a touch short.

round total             8  18  15   27    9  7 18 25   4 15 11 16
game total             8  26  41   68    9 16 34 59   4 19 30 46
Whole game tot     21 61  105 173
Inc per round         21 41  64   68

Well to get longer game just bump total score up. Could assume that each round would bump score of +20 pts / player on this setting,.

But real question (if we leave necro power in the combined VP/combat) is that if you had played round, two or three would anything changed? Does the system allow catch up? And is Buro worth it if you score ~20 pts to give +3-4 more it should be the key to VPs but if youd taken leadership and spent 3CCs instead youd gained +3VP anyway which means in above game buro gave +0/+1/-1 VPs (to leadership)!?

-D

You're right, Drac; the simplest way to stretch the game with these conditions is to raise the point total.  And that may be what we do.  But I was also trying to suss out what was making the game be so short in the first place.  In fact, NSV also went only 4 rounds, as I recall.

In this case, the reason appears to be Technology III.

Tech III enabled Arborec to score at least 3 or 4 VP that he wouldn't have, and probably 2-4 for Creuss also.  In turn, those extra techs floating in the game allowed Nekro to pick up 3-4 that he wouldn't have otherwise, since they were available.  If the techs hadn't been available, Nekro likely wouldn't have been so quick to attack, so he may also have scored 2-4 fewer points in the combat objectives.

The Prelims were also a factor.  3-5 points for each player from those, and I didn't raise the goal to include them like I did with the Secrets.

Another wrinkle for Nekro: He took Mecatol, which meant he had loads of extra influence sitting around, since he can spend resources for CC with Technology.

On the other hand, Bureaucracy is actually very, very strong.  Especially if you let the player controlling MR pick it (like I tend to do).  The SO he claimed was Usurper, which he picked out in Round 2.  So it's less about the direct points claimed as much as it is the potential to score big points with an SO of your choosing.

Yes, another round would have made a big difference, because then we could have gotten into his HS or wrested control of MR from him.  Or both.

I think part of the problem here may just be sloppy play on our part.  Nekro realized his strength right away: attack, get tech.  In our last game he also was quick to recognize the strength of Mecatol, which was also his target here.  Meanwhile Creuss really struggled to come to grips with his abilities, made a wrong turn into a Nebula with a Carrier, and spread out too much (see the 4VP from systems in R3).  Arborec also struggled with the best way to utilize the GF/FG production he had; plus, he focused heavily on getting technology.  But his board position was by far the strongest at the end of the game.  (And before we come down too hard on Nekro for having an easy race to grasp, note that he won our last game of this playing as Xxcha.)

If you ignore the rushing buy on the last round, it seems that 15 points a turn was a rough ballpark on how many VP people were earning.

So even if you narrowed down Tech you would likely only extend the game 1 more round. A VP bump is likely necessary to get the game to a 7-8 ish round game.

If true, that's good news.  :)  We really like Tech III.

So a 75-point goal might be necessary for the game to be longer.  It's a more "round number" than 60 in my mind anyway.  But at that point it would be nice to go all the way to 100.  But that would involve a much more dramatic adjustment to the system, and I don't want to go all alone on that.

I'd be interested in knowing how many rounds Eppic and Mike are going on their games.

As for changes next time around, I think it'll just be tweaking MR and influence (and possibly the VP total).  This would be MR worth 2, 2 influence for a VP, and 75 to win.

Just played a 4 player game this weekend, no shards stuff.  Played one of the community 4 player preset maps.

Reached 61 points by round 5 in 5 hours.  Not a combat heavy game (at least until the end) due to 2 new players.

I guess there's a small skew on numbers due to 2 strat cards in a 4 player game.

Lizix: 61 (had easy access to 2 artifacts and mallice)

Yin: 59 (held Rex unopposed through most of the game, mostly using diplomacy alot)

Xxcha: 41 (backstabbed by Muaat)

Muaat: 43

Also played with non-extreme Distant Suns (No hostages, Radiation, or 4 TG tokens).  The Xxcha still got kinda hosed with 3 red.

Muaat was afraid to attack until the end due to inexperience and unwillingness to expose his flank.


Scoring Variants Included: 

Homemade flagships (1 VP per round, 1 VP for killing Flagship with Flagship)

3 VP Rex

Not included:

Homesystem VP

Any kind of Racial Tech acquisition system

----------------

Would love to play to 75 or 100.  But that would require either more time, or some other ways to acquire bonus VP (maybe with Secret or Preliminary objectives involved somehow).

Eppic: So you were only going to 50, right?  And both guys were close after 4 rounds, it appears.

To get to 75, I think it's just a matter of working in the Prelims and SO, because there's an extra 15VP right there.  And then you have an extra round to work with.

I tend to agree that 3-4 player games might be a factor in scoring more points.

I also think DS would probably slow down the points scoring.  I've found that Round 1 is low-scoring, Round 2 is almost normal, and then Round 3 and up is normal.  With DS, I'd expect Round 2 to be pretty low-scoring, too.

 
GMO wrote on 07/03/11 at 22:22:01:

I've found that Round 1 is low-scoring, Round 2 is almost normal, and then Round 3 and up is normal.

Except for the last round, which consistently seems to have point scoring of double the previous round.

Subtract Prelims and Secrets from my game last week.

Totals by round:
Round 1: 8-4-4
Round 2: 15-10-7
Round 3: 18-15-11
Round 4: 17-16-15

I think your "15 per round" average is a pretty good rule of thumb.  The "double" you mention in the last post is largely from that, I think.

Now look at spending objectives by round.
Round 1: 1-0-0
Round 2: 1-0-0
Round 3: 2-2-2
Round 4: 8-7-5

Subtract out the spending and Secret objectives from the last round:
Round 4: 10-9-8

Below average, even.  Which is quite interesting to me.

And you almost have to discount those spending objectives because we were spending literally everything we could.  (I think one of my 3CC spent actually came out of Fleet.)  We discarded every AC, TG, CC we could and I think Nekro saved up a little for that end push.  If this had gone another round, we would have all been in a vastly-weakened state, and I don't think that's a strength of the system.  I don't care for that last round spending frenzy.

Earlier it was mentioned that we put a cap on the total number of VP gained from spending objectives.  5 was tossed out there, but I think that this demonstrates that even 5 is too high.  I propose a limit of 3VP scored by spending objectives (rather than the current 12), which fits in pretty well with other aspects of the structure of the game (3 is the max on combat and tech with Tech II, also), and only really affects the last round anyway.

While I'm here, what would be wrong with bumping up the voting VP to be 3-2-1 just like the combat VP?

It did just occur to me that perhaps it's NOT so bad to have a spending glut at the end of the game, because it gives an advantage to the player with the best territory/infrastructure, (or the best position so they can shunt all of their resources to buying points and not use it for defense in the last round).  Whoever has the most "stuff" that they can spare will get more points than the others on the last round, and they deserve some extra points for that status.

That being said, I could definitely be up for a 3vp cap on ALL spend objectives TOTAL rather than 3vp per resource type.  I may try that in my next game.  I am also intrigued by the idea of having the voting points be 3-2-1.  I have found that a lot of the points for this just come from a combination of your starting race and your surrounding planets.  Sure, there are some shenanigans you can do to try to be the one with the most votes when the council does its thing, but it is very heavily influenced (har har) by the votes you have in your backyard.  Of course, since we bid for starting location, maybe that should just be something we factor in when bidding.

 
Mike_Evans wrote on 07/04/11 at 10:06:26:

It did just occur to me that perhaps it's NOT so bad to have a spending glut at the end of the game, because it gives an advantage to the player with the best territory/infrastructure, (or the best position so they can shunt all of their resources to buying points and not use it for defense in the last round).  Whoever has the most "stuff" that they can spare will get more points than the others on the last round, and they deserve some extra points for that status.

I seem to remember some reasoning like this when you originally proposed the idea.  Particularly  the notion that if you're counting on spending to win, you're sacrificing defense.  The logic is quite sound; the reality is a little disappointing, as we've been saying.


Quote:

I am also intrigued by the idea of having the voting points be 3-2-1.  I have found that a lot of the points for this just come from a combination of your starting race and your surrounding planets.

Particularly if Jol Nar or Yssaril are in the game. Winnu, too, I guess.

I thought it might be a good time to consolidate suggestions and emendations.

---

Mike's original system:

VP goal: 50

Combat objective: 3-2-1
Control objectives:
Mecatol Rex: 3
Mallice: 1
3SD: 1
Artifact: 1
3 systems: 1
other HS: 1
Achievement objectives:
Votes cast: 2-1
Tech gained: 2-1-1-...
Spend objectives (each max 3):
3 resources: 1
3 influence: 1
2 AC: 1
1 CC: 1

---

Proposed alterations and additions:

VP goal (esp. with SO): 60-75

Don't need to control HS to claim objectives
Do need to control HS to win the game

Combat objectives:
Leader killed/captured/returned: 1 (each)
Flagship destroyed: 1
Control objectives:
Mecatol Rex: 2
2 systems: 1
other HS: 2
lost own HS: -2
Achievement objectives:
Votes cast: 3-2-1
Preliminary Objective: 5-3-2
Secret Objective: 10-6-4-3-2-1
Spend objectives (total max 3):
2 influence: 1
Miscellaneous objectives:
Flagship built: 2

Rules for Prelims:
- Each player may only claim 1 Prelim.  Deal 1 Prelim each round until each player has done so.
- The first player(s) to claim a particular Prelim receive(s) 5VP.  Players who claim the Prelim later receive fewer: 3VP for the 2nd player to claim it; 2VP for the 3rd player to claim it.  (Note: If 2 players gain 5VP in the same round for the same Prelim, the next player to claim will only gain 2, since that player will be the 3rd player to do so.)

Rules for Bureaucracy and SO:
- Bureaucracy allows the player to draw the top 2 cards from the Secret Objective Deck.  Reveal 1 and place the other on the top or bottom of the deck.
- Claim one (non-Secret) objective for which you qualify; this objective may be claimed again in the Status Phase.
- The first player(s) to claim a particular SO receive(s) 10VP.  Players who claim tho SO later receive fewer: 6VP for the 2nd player to claim it; 4VP for the 3rd player; 3VP for the 4th; 2VP for the 5th; 1VP for the 6th.  (Note: Ties are applicable, so if the 2nd and 3rd player claim a particular SO in the same Status Phase, the next player to do so would be 4th and so would gain only 3VP.)

So if I understand it right.

1) A prelim objective gets put out every turn (1 per turn). A player can only score 1 prelim objective in the game, however, it can be from any of the prelim objectives on the board (even one that has been claimed by another person).

2) Secret Objectives get put out 1 per turn by the Beauracracy card. In other ways they work like Prelim Objectives (can only score 1, but can score from any SO on the board).

Overall I like it, it provides a broad range of objectives, so no one is screwed by a bad one. However, it still provides incentive to get your objective, and to get it quickly.

It also preserves the power of getting it first -- which I like -- while still giving some benefit if somebody manages to score it later.  Coupled with the auto-unlocking of RST at VP level, there is possibly even incentive to take the 6VP for getting it second.

I waver on whether a player can claim 2+ SO; it's probably too strong, though.

 
GMO wrote on 07/04/11 at 18:28:45:

I waver on whether a player can claim 2+ SO; it's probably too strong, though.

Especially with mecatol objective I think it would be. A person could fortify mecatol and start pounding out different objectives.