Scaled Scoring for Goods

[kissybooboo]

Of the expansions we play with, the least satisfying have been the trade goods.

It seems like such a good idea, especially because it encouraged a player to complete someone else's city (to gain the goods).

In practice, the scoring for the trade goods is a little disappointing, because it is static: 10 points for each good that you have a majority of. In most games, where points can be 250+ this doesn't amount to enough to really be worth pursuing, and gaining the points on a casual basis ("Oh, look, I have three cloth, OK.") is anathema to gaming. In games where the number of tiles (and evenbtually points) are limited, the goods can even be overvalued.

So, here's a solution. (Sorry if it has been suggested elsewhere).

First, you score 2 points immediately for each good when you gain it. This means there is some value in pursuing goods even once the monopoly has been sealed.

Second, the bonus for having a monopoly/majority at the end of the game is not a fixed amount, but a percentage.

First, total all the values for incomplete features and for farms. This becomes the Base Total.

Then, for each good you have a monopoly in, you gain 10% (round down) of this base value.

Finally, add the score for the (already-scaled) Robber Captain, King and similar variants based on largest farm or most cloisters etc. This is then the final score.

So, if at the end of the game I have the most Barrels (6, which has netted me already 12 points), and my score after adding up all unfinished roads, cloisters and cities and for my farmers is 216, then I add 21 points for the Barrel monopoly. Finally, I had the largest city and earned points acordingly for that.

The barrels have therefore earned me 33 points. Possibly a game breaker, and certainly worth having pursued.



Variant Scoring for Trade Goods

(Incorporating comments up to January 17, 2009)

At the end of the game, complete the scoring for all unfinished features (roads, cities, cloisters) and for the farms, as normal.

Then, check to see if any player has a majority of a single trade good. If a player does, that player increases their current score by 10% for each such monopoly (round down).

Thenm for each player who did not have a monopoly in a given trade good, that player scores 2 points for each good owned.

Finally, players score for the Robber Captain, the King and similar variants.

[Novelty]

This is a nice way to scale it up.  I like it.

[Lardarse]

I'm not sure I understand how the base value is calculated. Apart from this, it sounds an interesting idea. Have you tested it with just base game + I&C +T&B? What does the base score tend to hit with just that?

[Novelty]

I think the base value is the total scores of all the players in the game, after incomplete features are included, but before the scores for the King and Rober baron is added.  A nice variant would be to make it equal to a percentage of the highest scoring player or something.  Either way, it's nice to scale up.

[mjharper]

Of the expansions we play with, the least satisfying have been the trade goods.

Agree completely. This has been one of my complaints for ages and ages and ages… and you seem to have nailed it here. The 10% bonus seems like an ideal solution 

A couple of thoughts:
- The extra 2 points on collecting the tokens seems excessive to me. The 10% score would seem to be enough, and the bonus points effectively mean that you score for the tokens twice.
- It might also be nice to add that a player should always score at least 10 points for the majority—which would mean that the scaling wouldn't interfere with the original rules. "A majority scores 10 points or 10%, whichever is higher"—that sort of thing.

I'd be extremely happy to include this in the CAR, by the way .

[koolkat]

  It's GOOD to over-value the GOODS! 

[Lakoda]

This is not something I want to do at the end of the game.  Plus, players would have no idea the value of the trade goods until the end of the game.  Yeah yeah you can guess but it'll be a pretty wild one.  Granted, this is all a mater of taste, and I do think what you have will accomplish what you want it too while remaining fair, even if it isn't for me.

I'd probably do something like count the number of tiles I have (which should be pretty easy, as I know which expansions I've got and how many tiles are in each) and divide that number by the number of different types of trade goods (is 3 unless you have homemade tiles with additional trade goods) and then divide that number by the number of players at the table.  This way you know the value before you start the game.  Also, it won't be dependent on how unrelated features are played (by unrelated I mean in game mechanics, not in the concept of trade in the world of Carcassonne).

[koolkat]

Lakoda's got a point there. Besides who likes simple rules won't like this idea. But I DO.

[Novelty]

It's a variant and it's optional, but it's a good way to get around the unappealing number of points in the official rules.  This scales it up nicely.  Nobody is forced to use these rules, but they are elegant, IMO.

matt: The 2 points is meant to give an incentive to get trade goods even if someone already has the majority - i.e. if there are only 8 ribbons and someone already has 5, a player might still want to get the remaining trade goods to get some points.  To over the problem of scoring it twice, howabout the players who didn't have a monopoly of the trade goods score 2 points (or whatever) for each trade goods in their possession at the end of the game?

[mjharper]

matt: The 2 points is meant to give an incentive to get trade goods even if someone already has the majority - i.e. if there are only 8 ribbons and someone already has 5, a player might still want to get the remaining trade goods to get some points.  To over the problem of scoring it twice, howabout the players who didn't have a monopoly of the trade goods score 2 points (or whatever) for each trade goods in their possession at the end of the game?

I understand that, but the current rules don't allow players to score anything at the end of the game either. 2 points per token for non-majority players seems more like an insult than anything else.

Also, the incentive is now that there are a lot of points to be made from trade counters. 

[Lakoda]

Right, which is why I said it was a matter of taste/opinion.   Just cause it isn't for me does not make it a bad idea.

I never thought about the extra 2 points like that, but playing devil's advocate, I don't know if it would still be worth it.  Assuming you have a city with some TGs in it but it is already apparent that you won't get the majority (which is the argument made, if I understood it correctly) those 2 points will most likely only soften the blow of finishing the city for someone who already has the most Knights in that city.  Getting the 2 points (which would prevent someone else from getting it) is a lot less then the 1 point per tile the player with the most Knights would lose if they can't complete that city (assuming an average city size of 4 or 5).  If it is early in the game and there is a high chance of the other player finishing it on his own (or worse doing so after making it bigger) then it would be more worthwhile but later in the game (which is when you usually know who will get points or majority TG) it is must less worthwhile.  So I guess I'm saying that I don't really see it as being good or bad, they are just more point in a game that is quickly becoming point heavy (if it isn't already).

[Novelty]

Also, the incentive is now that there are a lot of points to be made from trade counters. 

This is only the case when no one has a majority of the said trade goods.  When someone already has the majority of the trade goods, the remaining trade goods will be almost useless.  I think this is why there was an original proposal to get points for the trade goods - to make them more attractive even after someone has gotten a majority.

[kissybooboo]

A couple of comments on all the comments.

1. Thanks for the enthusiastic response.

2. he idea for the 2 points per token was, as has been noted, to give some value to having gained the resource, as an encouragement. One of the design purposes of the goods was to give an extra reason for wanting to finish off another player's city. If that incentive is gone (someone already has a majority) then the game has lost some of its strategy. As a change to this, only players who do not have a majority score 2 points per relevant-good at the end of the game.

3. This hasn't received a great deal of playtesting. We always play with The River, Abbey and Traders sets. (Plus the Constable  ). I have't really done the math on our games, but it has been acknowledged to ... feel right.

4. I also like the suggestion that the minimum value would be 10 points, a nice fall back for a limited scale game.

I look forward to hearing the results of other people who have played with it.

[Lakoda]

As a change to this, only players who do not have a majority score 2 points per relevant-good at the end of the game.

I like this change!