Change to thew arena format.

[Gysse]

The rules aren't good. I've met several impatient players who doubles in the first turn and the rule that blocks the cube if someone has 2 points make the winner a big favourite so it really feels like you are playing a drawn out single game. You need to play for more than 3 points if you insist in having the cube, this is just a middle of the road option that makes no one happy.

[Jellby]

As with any (or most) games, the season rules are decided by the gurus. If you don't like the rules, become a guru (by playing many games, not necessarily in Arena) and vote to change them for the next season.

[orangeblood]

I love the change, thanks to the gurus for making it. I think 5-point matches would be better.

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

Ah the arrogance of youth.

What do you even mean by that in this context? The doubling cube is not a new addition to the game of backgammon....

A 1 point match is suitable, was suitable, for the arena format.

That's a claim, not an argument, let alone a response to any of mine. Rather arrogant to reply like that and just leave it at that.

Backgammon is a skill based game based on optimising one's opportunities using one's strategy.

I'm familiar with the game, yes. You apply your skill not to win, but to turn the probabilities in your favor. An effect that needs a large sample size to become significant.

If the arena needs a multi point game why not 7, 9 11?

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my comment, which you quoted just now.
That's also why any serious backgammon tournament won't be using 3 point matches either.

A 3 point Arena game can take in excess of 45 minutes. That is simply too long for an Arena match

That's another claim. Plenty of long games are actively enjoyed in bga arena format.
And that's just an issue of players being slow. 1 point matches can take ages as well. 3 points can take long. But can also be over very quickly. Thanks to the doubling cube.

If people want multi-point games they could play them at a regular table as was intended.

Intended by who? Exactly?

I want short sharp area matches not long marathons

Right, you want. You can have your opinion. And nobody is stopping you from playing all the fast 1 point matches you'd like. But I'm talking what is objectively better for competitive play. Not about my, or your, personal opinion.

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

the rule that blocks the cube if someone has 2 points make the winner a big favourite so it really feels like you are playing a drawn out single game.

It's an understandable feeling, but that rule is there for a reason. Even if non intuitive.

Without the Crawford rule, if you have a 2-1 score. Losing player always doubles immediately, so both players have equal win chance. Regardless of who has the lead.
So it's not the Crawford rule that gives them an edge, it's the fact that they have more points, that gives them the edge.
The Crawford rule is just there to maintain that.

Don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it's unfair if more points makes you more likely to win the match.

That also means on a 1-1 score. Next round losing player will never accept doubles (cause they have 50/50 win chance next round) and without a double, it makes no difference who wins that game.

So you end up playing a full point game for nothing, in the middle of your match, with no consequence to the final. outcome
Which is just a silly situation to be in.

[PrimusPalus]

the rule that blocks the cube if someone has 2 points make the winner a big favourite so it really feels like you are playing a drawn out single game.

It's an understandable feeling, but that rule is there for a reason. Even if non intuitive.

Without the Crawford rule, if you have a 2-1 score. Losing player always doubles immediately, so both players have equal win chance. Regardless of who has the lead.
So it's not the Crawford rule that gives them an edge, it's the fact that they have more points, that gives them the edge.
The Crawford rule is just there to maintain that.

Don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it's unfair if more points makes you more likely to win the match.

That also means on a 1-1 score. Next round losing player will never accept doubles (cause they have 50/50 win chance next round) and without a double, it makes no difference who wins that game.

So you end up playing a full point game for nothing, in the middle of your match, with no consequence to the final. outcome
Which is just a silly situation to be in.

Absolutely. And don’t forget the Crawford rule before taking a double at the first round!!

[JohnnyCyclops]

Bye bye Arena.

[glopat]

I don't seem to be a guru despite the number of games I played and the rankings I sometimes had...
But now it's over : can' afford to play 45 to 60 minutes for a game.
So bye bey Arena for me until we get back to shorter games.

[Paikea]

Arena is meant to be a competitive mode. That requires skill differences between players to make a noticeable difference in the outcome.

Backgammon is already very heavily luck based. So 1-point matches simply aren't suitable for the arena format.

Ideally you'd want 5-point minimum to get a good show of skill out of arena rankings. But even 3 points makes skill significantly more of a factor over single games.

I hate it. Much longer game instead of a nice fun break

If you're just looking for a fun break, why does that need to be Arena?? Get your casual games at the regular tables as intended, and let arena players play a suitable arena format.

Ah the arrogance of youth.

A 1 point match is suitable, was suitable, for the arena format.

Backgammon is a skill based game based on optimising one's opportunities using one's strategy.

If the arena needs a multi point game why not 7, 9 11?

A 3 point Arena game can take in excess of 45 minutes. That is simply too long for an Arena match

If people want multi-point games they could play them at a regular table as was intended.

I want short sharp area matches not long marathons

I totally disagree with you.
The arena mode with 1pt games only did not make much sense to me, as 1 pt games are much more luck involved than 3 pt games. Still I played it, as I love competition.
With 3 pts to be reached a lot more tactical themes come into play, and the doubling cube is a main part of playing backgammon. It requires a lot of more skills.
Also 45min for one game should not occur very often, thats dramatized.
So 3pt games are a very very good compromise and ideal for Arena mode imo. Like this it reflects a lot better who is really playing good backgammon.

By the way, a sentence like "The arrogance of youth" IS pure arrogance.

[Waikirikiri]

\

I totally disagree with you.
The arena mode with 1pt games only did not make much sense to me, as 1 pt games are much more luck involved than 3 pt games. Still I played it, as I love competition.
With 3 pts to be reached a lot more tactical themes come into play, and the doubling cube is a main part of playing backgammon. It requires a lot of more skills.
Also 45min for one game should not occur very often, thats dramatized.
So 3pt games are a very very good compromise and ideal for Arena mode imo. Like this it reflects a lot better who is really playing good backgammon.

By the way, a sentence like "The arrogance of youth" IS pure arrogance.

Every Arena Backgammon game is now - for me - over 40 minutes unless someone goes crazy with the doubling cube.

Just because something doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it isn't happening for others.