removing "Dangerous" from arena mode

[ZEMOON]

Hi guys,

I suggest removing the "Dangerous" card from arena mode. (Two-player game)

- the card allows you to control your own dominance
- allows you to control your opponent's dominance
- attacking becomes exclusive to the holder of this card
- the opponent in most cases has to take two actions (deploying the ship + movement) to negate one action of the card holder (deploying the ship).

From my perspective, Dangerous is the most powerful card I can draw in 1vs1 mode and my opponent has a slim chance of winning against it simply because Dangerous brings too many advantages in one card.

On the other hand, I realize that my opinion is not too relevant because I haven't even played 10 games in the last three quarters of a year.
Either way, I believe Arena mods will be healthier without it.


All the best
ZEMOON

[SgtYork]

Strongly agree, we banned "Dangerous" in our in-person games after it broke two games in a row

[jimmyrecard]

Good idea honestly. It's fine for bigger groups but in a 1v1 it's the best card. Tyrannical right behind it.

We could offset this by having more sabotage cards thrown into the deck maybe?

Overall I would support this and give it a try

[Quasimoodo]

I’m on the fence with this. I’ve been grabbing Dangerous when I’ve had the chance recently, and it’s definitely effective.

Pair it with Stealthy or Eager and it might break the game.

Still there are always counters to it, and it’s easily the most thematic of Command cards. Blowing up your own ship to destroy your enemy is one of most venerable plot devices in science fiction.

[mlkdru]

Right, dangerous is powerfull in 1v1, I think Clever is overkill too.

But can the bias be proven with statistics ?
This will be a strong argument to change the rules.

[CraWleR]

We've had conversations about this already and I've added command card statistics into the game. While they are not ideal, they show how often certain command cards are picked by all players and how often they're picked by winners. It's separated by the number of players in the game. If we take a period of a year, we can see that:
- Arrogant is being picked by 0.01 of all players and by 0.02 winners
- Clever is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.06 winners
- Brilliant is being picked by 0.04 of all players and by 0.07 winners
- Curious is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.05 winners
- Dangerous is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.06 winners
- Flexible is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.06 winners
- Stealthy is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.06 winners
- Resourceful is being picked by 0.02 of all players and by 0.05 winners
- Eager is being picked by 0.04 of all players and by 0.06 winners
- Relentless is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.05 winners
- Righteous is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.05 winners
- Nomadic is being picked by 0.01 of all players and by 0.02 winners
- Precocious is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.05 winners
- Tactical is being picked by 0.03 of all players and by 0.05 winners

So if we're looking at Dangerous, then if you pick it the probability that you will win will let's say doubles. However, even though it's not picked as often, you could say the same about Arrogant and Nomadic. Same for Clever, Brilliant, Flexible and Stealthy. And even though Resourceful is not being picked up as much, it you could say increases your probability to win by 2.5x. Should we be banning all of them?

End of the day, there are cards that work around Dangerous. Eager is of note for example as a card that can counter Dangerous pretty well. I've played with Dangerous and lost and have played against Dangerous and won. Can Dangerous force you to adjust your strategy and potentially make some of your command cards useless? Yes, that's part of what the card does. Just adapt if it goes into play.

Overall, allowing to remove certain cards would likely not be a lot of work, but I don't think we should, especially not for Arena. It also touches some BGA permissions and rights subject and in theory we shouldn't be changing the game itself. Removing cards would, so we likely can't do it.

[vdude]

Disagree. Sometimes it’s the only card that can get you back from an oppressive card combo your opponent has. We should keep it.

[Hopkins]

Going slightly off topic, but I wonder if Dangerous would have been slightly better balanced in 1v1 if triggering Dangerous causes a loss of Dominance for the defender but no gain for the attacker. That would make the attacker’s and the defender’s decisions more interesting, especially when other cards like Warlike and Plundering are in play, or when Righteous is up for grabs.