Awful new Catan balance for new season

[Stroom]

The arena is supposed to be "tough". It's less about luck, you need more skill to select good placements that won't end up with you being in an unwinnable situation. More tradeoffs and planning involved. 3p is just... easy and more luck based as someone can get ahead early and is unstoppable if other players don't roll as many 7s to block him.

I didn't say 4p is "tough" because it's challenging. I said it's tough because it's less challenging and more luck-based. With 3 players and a fair number arrangement, everyone has a shot at some good placements. With four players, the good spots are already taken by the time the last person picks, and whoever went first is gonna get totally screwed when it comes time for their second placement.

3p with a balanced number arrangement is the closest I've seen to a fair game. There's occasionally an unbalanced map because of resource arrangement, but not nearly as bad as 4p or the current godawful "random numbers" rule.

Ultimately this is good for me because I've been spending way less time on this site since the rule change.

[eaty88]

Is it still with the random numbers? I won't play unless it goes back to official Catan rules with the numbers spiraled. I think they shouldn't alter official rules

[axuLe]

I agree that maps are worse now, but still fine, can find a way to win.

[SadPuffin]

Can anyone verify if the numbers are still random? I don't want to start a game just to quit as soon as I realize that unfair rule hasn't been fixed.

I've actually been really productive the last three months with no playable version of Catan on this site. Spending a lot more time in the real world lol. So I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I do miss playing on this site.

[Mathew5000]

Can anyone verify if the numbers are still random? I don't want to start a game just to quit as soon as I realize that unfair rule hasn't been fixed

Yes, you can check for yourself from https://boardgamearena.com/lobby : select Arena from the drop-down menu then click the cogwheel beside Catan, scroll down and it shows under "Terrain tile layout", Variable setup with random numbers. There's a "change" button but it gives an error message when you click it.

Agreed, makes it so imbalanced. I just played a game and I had first pick - got 5 wheat, 5 ore and 8 sheep - game over!!

Do you realize that under the default setup you could get a 6-9-5 intersection which has the same number of dots as 8-5-5. If you are playing Catan with default layout, and you placed your first settlement on 6 sheep, 9 wheat, 5 ore, would you consider it "game over" even before you put down your second settlement?

To SadPuffin, SherlockC and others complaining in this thread about the "variable setup with random numbers" option, are you saying that it always tends to advantage the player who picks first, as compared to the default setup? If so, I am not persuaded by that argument but have an open mind, please do elaborate. If that's not exactly what your argument is, then please explain specifically how the variable setup with random numbers is more "imbalanced" than the default setup.

[Fromper]

Can anyone verify if the numbers are still random? I don't want to start a game just to quit as soon as I realize that unfair rule hasn't been fixed

Yes, you can check for yourself from https://boardgamearena.com/lobby : select Arena from the drop-down menu then click the cogwheel beside Catan, scroll down and it shows under "Terrain tile layout", Variable setup with random numbers. There's a "change" button but it gives an error message when you click it.

Agreed, makes it so imbalanced. I just played a game and I had first pick - got 5 wheat, 5 ore and 8 sheep - game over!!

Do you realize that under the default setup you could get a 6-9-5 intersection which has the same number of dots as 8-5-5. If you are playing Catan with default layout, and you placed your first settlement on 6 sheep, 9 wheat, 5 ore, would you consider it "game over" even before you put down your second settlement?

To SadPuffin, SherlockC and others complaining in this thread about the "variable setup with random numbers" option, are you saying that it always tends to advantage the player who picks first, as compared to the default setup? If so, I am not persuaded by that argument but have an open mind, please do elaborate. If that's not exactly what your argument is, then please explain specifically how the variable setup with random numbers is more "imbalanced" than the default setup.

Agreed. In the 8-5-5 scenario described, you still don't know if the 5 will roll above or below average for the game. If it rolls well, then yes, that player gets a good game. But I had a game yesterday where I had ore and wheat both on 9 (not next to each other - different starting settlements), and it only rolled twice all game! And that game was much longer than usual, just because the 9 wheat was the only "good" wheat number on the board (the other wheat numbers were 2, 11, and 12, and nobody built on the 11). The dice are just as random as the number placements.

That said, I still prefer the official setup over this random placement, because I hate it when the same number is next to itself. Or the 2 and 12 are next to each other. Numeric diversity is one of the strategic keys to the game. I'd rather not take an 8-5-5 spot, because of the luck factor of having to rely on the 5. I'd rather have a 5 and a 9 than two of the 5, because the odds of my numbers rolling are doubled that way.

I'd prefer to see them go back to non-random number placement for arena games. But as an alternative, if they'd change their random numbers to just not allow any number to be next to itself, and disallow 2 and 12 from being next to each to prevent "dead spots" on the board where nobody wants to build, then the random numbers would at least be improved.

[SadPuffin]

The standard number arrangement is designed to distribute the odds as evenly as possible. By nature, random number placement is concentrating better odds in certain spaces of the board. Whoever has first dibs at those spots then has an advantage. Of course that doesn't mean the first player always wins, but it does mean they're starting with a bigger leg up than necessary. And as Fromper mentioned, allowing the same number on adjacent hexes leaves you far too much at the mercy of the dice, and boards with adjacent numbers greatly increase the chance of the game ending in a blowout.

I can tell you from experience almost every game I've played with these rules, one player ends the game with 3 or 4 points. I've been that unfortunate player, and it is excruciating. Especially since people play so slowly in Catan and the game can take an hour. (That's another gripe I have - for god's sake there needs to be a true turbo game option.)

[SadPuffin]

if they'd change their random numbers to just not allow any number to be next to itself, and disallow 2 and 12 from being next to each to prevent "dead spots" on the board where nobody wants to build, then the random numbers would at least be improved.

If only there were a variation that disallowed duplicate numbers on adjacent hexes, and 2/12 "dead spots" on the board, and every other dead spot. If only there were a number arrangement that took these things into consideration...

[davebw101]

Definitely want to post my vote for no random numbers next season pleaaase.

[bananasplay]

Is it still with the random numbers? I won't play unless it goes back to official Catan rules with the numbers spiraled. I think they shouldn't alter official rules

You mean these official rules?

Important: Alternatively, you can use a fully random set-up. Place 1 token on each land hex. Start at one corner of the island, and place the number tokens in random order. In such case, the tokens with the red numbers must not be next to each other. You may have to swap tokens to ensure that no red numbers are on adjacent hexes. (Source: Catan Almanac, section "Set-up, Variable")