3 and 4 players can be fun to play with friends, but is also very frustrating as you mainly depend on other players not giving it away to someone else with a stupid move. Arena mode should be 1v1 exclusively imo, and in several games (3 or 5) so that "luck" doesn't play such a big role...
Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/bugs
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/bugs
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
100% agree!
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
According to the author & editor, 2x2 is the most interesting one, even if it doesn't suit very much Arena mode.
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
Totally agree, there is even a player that I suspect who deliberately loses and makes the other player win so that I don't move up to elite rank.
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
And the strange thing is if you click on the season rules, then it says 2 players, 1 round win...
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
2 players and best of three is a good choice for arena. Best of one, not bad but if you doesn't have some luck... Best of five maybe is too long. 
3 players is no sense in this kind of game, or in any other which depends so much on previous player movements
I hope that this will change in the coming arena sessions.
3 players is no sense in this kind of game, or in any other which depends so much on previous player movements
I hope that this will change in the coming arena sessions.
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
I think till now I played the most Linx games here on this forum, these are my findings:
1, 2-player: it would be logical, but (assuming at least medium level players):
- it is somewhat boring as in most of the cases the second player wins, and though the beginner has some chance too if luck is on that side, but mostly not
- it is decided at the beginning who will begin the 3rd game: there is at least 60-70% chance that player will win. (Though I met even high scored players who could not count and build tactics on it. Still you can't/shouldn't count on that.)
- I suggested that the 3rd game beginner should be decided at the beginning of the 3rd game randomly, but no reaction to that from Peleo, so I must accept the fact that he does not want to change the rules. Though it still would not correct the weekness of the beginner's disadvantage.
2, 3-player: it is very-very irritating to loose because of someone else's blindness. There should be some mechanism for such cases (ok some extra programming is needed), but it can be implemented. Don't be blind, don't ruin others' fun, because a single misstep is fatal here (not only for the one who does it, but for an other person as well): it is allowed of course to be blind, but it should be allowed to get extra punishment for that. It happened to me 80-90%, I lost maybe already 1000+ arena points and 500+ ELO because of that. Still if there are good players, 3 players can be very interesting and fun.
3, 4-player: it is somewhat boring again, as there are too many against one, though there is a tactic to follow which can bring success, assuming again at least middle level players who can concentrate and not make obvious mistakes. Here the beginner has the least chance again.
Then what should be in the arena?
I changed my opinion from months ago: it should be 3-player, but with the extra punisment for blindness.
1, 2-player: it would be logical, but (assuming at least medium level players):
- it is somewhat boring as in most of the cases the second player wins, and though the beginner has some chance too if luck is on that side, but mostly not
- it is decided at the beginning who will begin the 3rd game: there is at least 60-70% chance that player will win. (Though I met even high scored players who could not count and build tactics on it. Still you can't/shouldn't count on that.)
- I suggested that the 3rd game beginner should be decided at the beginning of the 3rd game randomly, but no reaction to that from Peleo, so I must accept the fact that he does not want to change the rules. Though it still would not correct the weekness of the beginner's disadvantage.
2, 3-player: it is very-very irritating to loose because of someone else's blindness. There should be some mechanism for such cases (ok some extra programming is needed), but it can be implemented. Don't be blind, don't ruin others' fun, because a single misstep is fatal here (not only for the one who does it, but for an other person as well): it is allowed of course to be blind, but it should be allowed to get extra punishment for that. It happened to me 80-90%, I lost maybe already 1000+ arena points and 500+ ELO because of that. Still if there are good players, 3 players can be very interesting and fun.
3, 4-player: it is somewhat boring again, as there are too many against one, though there is a tactic to follow which can bring success, assuming again at least middle level players who can concentrate and not make obvious mistakes. Here the beginner has the least chance again.
Then what should be in the arena?
I changed my opinion from months ago: it should be 3-player, but with the extra punisment for blindness.
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
are you serious when asking for extra programming to punish someone playing a bad move ??? Really ???
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
Yes, exactly. Why is it strange? Should I not try to improve a game? I see at other games, there are a lot of options to make variations. Why can't it be here as well? If you look at it: it is only a different point deduction mechanism. It can be optional.
As I detailed above this game has serious flaws, let's say by design, or you can call it "by nature". Lots of people left/abandoned the game because of that.
You can throw me stones, but at least I'm thinking about how could these be balanced or corrected. Brainstorming.
Have you seen someone else making a suggestion? I haven't really.
I also suggested Peleo for the 2-player mode to let place tiles not only next to the existing ones but anywhere else on the 4x4 board. Rejected because then it is not like tic-tac-toe. But maybe an option for it would make it more enjoyable. Not sure, but we don't know until we try it, knowing that maybe it will be worse.
Of course there can be legal obstacles, though I think those can be discussed with the publisher as well. I don't want to take credit for these ideas, just improving the game to enjoy it more, because I like(d) it.
As I detailed above this game has serious flaws, let's say by design, or you can call it "by nature". Lots of people left/abandoned the game because of that.
You can throw me stones, but at least I'm thinking about how could these be balanced or corrected. Brainstorming.
Have you seen someone else making a suggestion? I haven't really.
I also suggested Peleo for the 2-player mode to let place tiles not only next to the existing ones but anywhere else on the 4x4 board. Rejected because then it is not like tic-tac-toe. But maybe an option for it would make it more enjoyable. Not sure, but we don't know until we try it, knowing that maybe it will be worse.
Of course there can be legal obstacles, though I think those can be discussed with the publisher as well. I don't want to take credit for these ideas, just improving the game to enjoy it more, because I like(d) it.
Re: Why on Earth 3 players for Arena mode?
Sorry to say but asking for penalties to a player doing a bad move is just ruining any other ideas you may have to enhance game experience.2ya wrote: ↑27 September 2024, 15:08 Yes, exactly. Why is it strange? Should I not try to improve a game? I see at other games, there are a lot of options to make variations. Why can't it be here as well? If you look at it: it is only a different point deduction mechanism. It can be optional.
As I detailed above this game has serious flaws, let's say by design, or you can call it "by nature". Lots of people left/abandoned the game because of that.
You can throw me stones, but at least I'm thinking about how could these be balanced or corrected. Brainstorming.
Have you seen someone else making a suggestion? I haven't really.
I also suggested Peleo for the 2-player mode to let place tiles not only next to the existing ones but anywhere else on the 4x4 board. Rejected because then it is not like tic-tac-toe. But maybe an option for it would make it more enjoyable. Not sure, but we don't know until we try it, knowing that maybe it will be worse.
Of course there can be legal obstacles, though I think those can be discussed with the publisher as well. I don't want to take credit for these ideas, just improving the game to enjoy it more, because I like(d) it.
I won't add any house rules. Be 100% sure of that.
Game designer & publisher have played hundred of games and their preferred configuration is 2 vs 2.