Same Maps in Arena Mode

[Darador]

Of course I also wanted to convince the developers to pretty-please implement the official reverse draft option!

Tisaac or vincentt, are you reading here by any chance?

[Wrathberry]

I would be totaly fine with the normal Variant to Deal 2 Maps and choose one.
I dont think that any Zoo is so overpowered that you cant Beat IT.

I just feel Like the Same map for both Players removes a big and fun Part of the Game for the Sake of pseudo Balance, which IT does Not even achieve, because i think that luck of the Draw becomes much bigger If both Players want the Same cards, because they have the Same map..

[Tisaac]

Of course I also wanted to convince the developers to pretty-please implement the official reverse draft option!

Tisaac or vincentt, are you reading here by any chance?

I am reading. Publisher told us to put the current setting as Arena setting before releasing the game. We will see what they think for next Season

[Darador]

I am reading. Publisher told us to put the current setting as Arena setting before releasing the game. We will see what they think for next Season

And what about programming the mentioned official reverse draft option from p. 4 of the rulebook at all (independently of whether it gets used for Arena mode)?

It's one of the two official ways to distribute the maps (and by far the one I prefer). It would be great if you added it!

[MasterMystery]

If arena is 2player than same map is by far the best in my point of view, as it makes the game much more tactical as you strive for similar cards etc. But lets let gurus decide.

As mentioned in other posts the publisher has access to the winrate of each map, which may make them find out that some are clearly better. BGA may offer the best data for that there is, based on this the classic 2 selection may not be "fair". Similarly, the method used on Arena mode is simply not possible on the printed game with only one copy.

[JDansp]

I would like to see different maps, but same end games, would create an interesting dynamic.

[Darador]

As mentioned in other posts the publisher has access to the winrate of each map, which may make them find out that some are clearly better. BGA may offer the best data for that there is, based on this the classic 2 selection may not be "fair".

If that really turns out to be the case, then I'm confident that the publisher will change the maps so that they become approximately balanced. Feuerland Spiele previously proved that they're fortunately willing to do this in Terra Mystica when some factions turned out to be overpowered as first published.
That's clearly the much better solution than only allowing competitive games on the same map in a game in which variable player powers are supposed to be a main characteristic and which doesn't come with more than one copy of the same map in the printed game.

An unavoidable small statistical imbalance between the maps shouldn't be a problem, I'd rather see it as a good way to compensate for player order advantage when using the reverse draft option.

[Wrathberry]

As mentioned in other posts the publisher has access to the winrate of each map, which may make them find out that some are clearly better. BGA may offer the best data for that there is, based on this the classic 2 selection may not be "fair".

If that really turns out to be the case, then I'm confident that the publisher will change the maps so that they become approximately balanced. Feuerland Spiele previously proved that they're fortunately willing to do this in Terra Mystica when some factions turned out to be overpowered as first published.
That's clearly the much better solution than only allowing competitive games on the same map in a game in which variable player powers are supposed to be a main characteristic and which doesn't come with more than one copy of the same map in the printed game.

An unavoidable small statistical imbalance between the maps shouldn't be a problem, I'd rather see it as a good way to compensate for player order advantage when using the reverse draft option.

i 100% agree here. i mean, im not sure if feuerland will really change the maps, because then we would have different maps online than in the paper version, which is kinda problematic too.

but i still think that its kinda annoying that both players play the same map, and that you cant choose from 2 maps like its in the rules of the paper version.
What about giving both players the choice of 2 identical maps? that would at least lead to some diversity. of course people would still often pick the same map, if one is obviously stronger than the other. i think only a madman would pick the lookout tower over silverlake for example, but there are a lot of maps which powerlevel is not thaaat far away, and im sure we would get more interesting games.

i mean it has absolutly no disadvanage to at least give both players the choice over 2 maps, if both get the same maps. if someone then chooses the "worse" map, it was by his own decicion and we will would have more diversity.

plz think about this for the next season

[Darador]

i mean, im not sure if feuerland will really change the maps, because then we would have different maps online than in the paper version, which is kinda problematic too.

They should make all changes to all versions of the game, of course, including the printed version.

Feuerland Spiele already did this in Terra Mystica after online play showed that two factions were considerably overpowered. They weakened them and declared that as the current version of these factions. New printings included the change and a fan thankfully created printable stickers to change to old faction boards. Later, Feuerland Spiele also uploaded images of the amended faction boards on their website. They also made other changes due to the stats gained in online play. Particularly, they decreased the starting victory points for stronger faction-map combinations and increased the starting VP for weaker faction-map combinations.

Feuerland Spiele also already changed the printed version of Ark Nova's game board with the +100 point change. Only newer printings will show that on the board, but older printings are supposed to use +100 points as well.

If, for instance, BGA stats showed that the Silver Lake map is too strong, they could, say, remove the reputation placement bonus on the left edge of the map. A weak map could get a new or improved placement bonus. We'd only need a sticker with an empty space respectively a new placement bonus space to change the old maps. Easier than it was in Terra Mystica.

Note that I'm not saying the current maps are too unbalanced. I'm not sure about that, I don't have the necessary information. But it seems likely that balance could at least be somewhat improved based on BGA stats, maybe after a few more months of online play.

In any case, in my opinion removing variable player powers from Ark Nova is definitely the wrong way to go. Until changes to any maps are deemed necessary, Arena games on BGA should be played according to the official map choice rules on p. 4 of the rulebook - preferably the reverse draft option IMO.

[davypi]

Wrathberry said: "do you think that giving both players the same map in Arena mode is the right choice?"

Probably Yes, but in earnest I'm going to make some points that go both directions on this. I am one of the top ranked players in Fruit Picking, another game which has a variable "map". That game has random player board setup but you can configure to either have each player board randomized or one player board randomized with the other one copied. Personally, I find that the location of the strawberry on the map is critical to gameplay as the easier it is to hit, the more seeds you can put on the board. I tend to lose more games when the strawberry is hard for me to hit (first or second spot after the house) and the other player has a strawberry easy to hit (last three or our four slots clockwise). Having a size two fruit three steps away from the house can also be critical in your ability to bank seeds and get extra turns. The bottom line being that asymetric boards in that game are not always even. In fairness, the "same layout" option can also create problems because in certain situations it favors the start player's ability to get certian market claims, so I can see an argument for both. But personally I think same layout is generally the fairer of the two. There is also the now classic Map 8 issue from Burgundy which I suspect is the undercutting argument for this rule in Nova. In that vein, there is already a thread here on BGA with some people claiming that silver lake is too OP, so it will be interesting to see how the stats on that fall out once they become available. I'm not really an expert on Nova and its too long of a game for me to want to devote the time needed to get good at it, but I've seen situations where the card row or end game goals favor one map over the other, so I think that same map helps even this out if you're going to evaluate the game from a competitive standpoint. That said, I think how your map interacts with your end game goal is important and if you're not also going to give the same two scoring cards to all players, then this undercuts the "equality" arguement. If both players have the same map but one player was dealt a pair of scorers that doesn't work well with it, you've given an advantage to the other player. With respect to the comments being made about statistics being made available to the game designers, I'm honestly wondering if they are going to take end scorers into account as well. Personally, I find that just being dealt the minimalist zoo goal can be hindering. Its a very difficult goal to make pay out in full and it almost always forces the player to focus on the other drafted goal. I'd be curious to know if the expert player agree/disagree on this point, but where I'm going with this is that I seriously wonder if too much focus is being placed on maps and not enough on if some of the end scorers are too easy/difficult to max out.

Wrathberry said: "or in terra mystica, would you give all players the same race?" - I think Terra/Gaia is a different beast in the sense that the games mechanics rely on players having different home terrain. That said, I would be all in favor if a variant of either game where each player has the same race but a different home terrain.

Darador Said: "I don't like that the same map variant decreases how well some maps work due to the increased competition for certain cards that results when all players play on that same map." - Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that its unfair though. Yes, the competition for those cards increases, but it affects both players equally. There is nothing about this argument that puts variable maps in favor of having a more equal experience in a competitive mode. In fact, you simply say that you "like" it, which puts it cleanly in the purview of opinion. Some people like competitive games to be tight and have more competition, so those people would see your arguments/examples as evidence in favor of same maps instead of against it.

Darador said: "I probably won't be among the 100 players who play the most Ark Nova on BGA anytime soon - in a game that's played as much as Ark Nova, that mechanism heavily favors people who play real-time and I only play turn-based with longer time controls" - This is sort of where I begin to wonder why you care then. The point of Arena mode is to be competitive. If I'm not going to all in and try to be the best I can be at a game, then I typically don't bother with Arena mode. And as such, I don't feel that I should have any say in how that is configured. The people who are pushing themselves to be the best at the game are going to know what settings are more fair to that environment than I do. If I'm going to just be a below 100 also-ran in the competition, then the game settings really don't matter. The International Olympic Committee doesn't go to G-league players for advice on basketball rules. If the settings matter that much to you, then start your own non-arena game or a tournament with the settings you want. The site already gives you alternatives to play the game the way you want to. (Although, based on what I've read in other forums, I would not blame you for criticizing BGA's handing of tournaments.)

Wrathberry said: "I just feel Like the Same map for both Players removes a big and fun Part of the Game for the Sake of pseudo Balance, which IT does Not even achieve, because i think that luck of the Draw becomes much bigger If both Players want the Same cards, because they have the Same map.." - I'm curious to know how you feel the luck of the Draw becomes "much bigger". I recall one game I was in where a player had a scoring engine set up based on small animals when nobody else did and then couldn't draw any. The luck of the draw exists regardless of which strategy a player is going down. Suppose player A has a strategy that has a 10% chance of drawing a needed card. Further suppose player B has a completely different strategy but coincidentally also a 10% chance of drawing a needed card. The luck factor is exactly the same for both players. How is this situation different from both players needing the same card? The other difficulty here is that which cards a player needs can also be driven by which sponsors they pull and which end game goals they have. It sounds like you are trying to make a claim that the entire game pivots on the map choice when my experience with the game is there are many many pivots. Its interesting that you invoke the competition claim with respect to map choice, but you don't seem to have a problem with the competition created by having shared conservation goals at the start of the game. Why is this a problem for you in once instance, but not the other?

Wrathberry said: "i think only a madman would pick the lookout tower over silverlake for example" - You do realize that by making this comment, you effectively refute your own thesis don't you?